Thread on this cafe from a month ago:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3963516/posts
It is Aliiive!!
Posted on 06/30/2021 5:02:01 PM PDT by Stravinsky
A Mendocino cafe that has repeatedly pushed back against public health mandates during the pandemic, including charging customers who wear face coverings a $5 fee, will close this weekend, owner Chris Castleman confirmed. He did not agree to Fiddleheads Cafe’s new lease offer, which requested that he comply with government mandates and no longer post “controversial signage or writings.” Castleman said he is being unfairly targeted due to his political beliefs.
But the landlord said it wasn’t driven by ideological differences — since the cafe went viral nationally for Castleman’s tactics, the landlord said they have faced harassment from his supporters. They also heard “negative feedback” from community members and worried his “polarizing” signs and messaging would turn off potential buyers. They asked not to be named in this article out of concern for their privacy.
“This is a business and since we will be losing money in the short term with the decision to end his lease, it’s just indicative of the magnitude to which Mr. Castleman’s beliefs have interfered and added risk to the overall business,” they wrote in an email to The Chronicle.
…
Castleman said he offered to pay two years worth of increased rent in advance and made other concessions but refused to agree to the conditions related to government mandates and publicity. He plans to serve his last lunch at Fiddleheads Cafe on Sunday and then has to move out.
“In my opinion it wasn’t a good faith negotiation,” said Castleman, who believes he was treated unfairly for his political views.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
She had that
Camarillo brillo
Flamin’ out along her head,
I mean her Mendocino bean-o
By where some bugs had made it red
Thread on this cafe from a month ago:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3963516/posts
It is Aliiive!!
Uh huh...
“harassed” by free minded people but “negative feedback” about his “polarizing statements” from those who believe in fascism.
This is also telling:
“In early June, the landlord — new owners who took over the Lansing Street building in the spring — proposed a rent increase and a series of stipulations in a contract extension, which was provided to The Chronicle. They asked that Castleman remove “all controversial signage or writings” and that there be “no further publicity related to the business, of any kind, regarding mask wearing or vaccinations, and business will comply with any orders, laws, or mandates off government.”
Blackrock?
The new landlords are outright slime -
“Castleman declined the extension, and prioritized his business below his ideology,” they wrote.”
Yeah - You made him choose his liberty over his business survival and he chose liberty you schmucks.
“ “Castleman declined the extension, and prioritized his business below his ideology,” ”
Or to put it another way, he put his beliefs and principles ahead of money. Not so long ago that was considered a true virtue.
It still is.
God’s truth doesn’t change.
I can see both sides.
The cafe owner is brave and righteous to push back at over-regulation creep in a direct and aggressive way.
The property owner just doesn’t want the building burned down because somebody drove by and got upset with a posted opinion sign.
You have no right to speak on someone else’s property without their consent. Very simple.
I missed that part of the Constitution.
Can you post a link? Thanks in advance, American.
"...which requested that he comply with government mandates and no longer post “controversial signage or writings.”
Sounds ideological to me. Comply with government mandates. Don't say anything controversial.
What if the government decides that meat is bad for the environment, and his serving of meat is considered ideologically impure and in need of "attention"?
Not so improbable these days, but unthinkable not so long ago.
Category error - the Constitution is not a grant of rights to the people.
Brain pan error -
I remember learning about a little thing called 'The Bill of Rights' in school. But I was always a poor student, so maybe you're right.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Mo
Did you study under Eric Holder?
Which part of “Congress shall make no law” did you not understand?
Talking of Eric Holder: is it your position that he has the right to speak in your living room without your consent?
Sure. He also has the right to get an ass whoopin' if he finds himself in my living room.
(abridging the RIGHTS enumerated in the Constitution. Not GRANTED by the Constitution).
You need to bone up, bro.
#InalienableAndWhatnot
#YoureConfused
p.s. Show me in the Constitution that you have freedom of speech unless somebody threatens to burn down your restaurant.
I'll wait.
#SeesBothSidesMealymouth
“abridging the RIGHTS enumerated in the Constitution. Not GRANTED by the Constitution”
Gibberish.
“Sure. He also has the right to get an ass whoopin’ if he finds himself in my living room.”
And coffee guy has the right to have his lease not renewed if he uses the property in a way not consented to by the owners - so there you go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.