Posted on 09/20/2021 5:33:02 PM PDT by lightman
A Texas couple, parents of an infant boy, were enjoying a rare night out with friends at the Hang Time bar and restaurant when they were asked to leave for violating the restaurant’s “no mask” policy.
According to a report by CBSN Dallas, Natalie Wester and her husband had good reason to wear masks — the fully-vaccinated couple wants to protect their immunocompromised four-month-old son. The infant has cystic fibrosis, KTVT reported.
Reportedly, Tom, the owner of Hang Time Bar & Grill, on the other hand, considers not wearing a mask “part of the dress code,” and explains that as a private business, “he has every right to refuse service to those who want to wear their mask.”
The restaurant owner confirmed that when the couple visited his establishment on Sept. 10, they were asked to leave because they didn’t check their face coverings at the door, said a report by the New York Post. He said he didn’t know about their immunocompromised son, but told KTVT that the rules apply to all customers.
Maskerbators want to make their way everyone's way.
yEah. Flunks the smell test.
The mask is a virtue signal, nothing more. I can sympathize with the parents of a cf baby. This is a terrible, heart rending disease for which there is no cure. They surely would have been better served dining at a more genteel, mask supportive restaurant.
“ I sense a false flag.”
**************************
You may well be right… either to hit the lawsuit lottery or to advance mandatory masking.
That being said, mandatory “no masking” is as stupid as “mandatory masking”, IMHO. WTF happened to freedom of personal choice!
Why are the parents of a high risk/special needs infant out partying?
Curious about the melanin content after the NYC brawl.
I’m sorry, did I missunderstand? This couple owned the restaurant and someone who didn’t stopped them from dining?
Because if they don’t understand the basic principle of ownership and utility of usage, they’re not a dependable source.
Here’s the original story.
They interview the owner and he’s says he doesn’t want masks.
Unless they had on N-95 masks, it was a bunch of bull sh!t. Even then, they should not have been there in the first place.
The owner doesn’t like masks.
That’s his right under Texas law.
Nobody is lying.
Almost certainly. This does not smell right at all.
Seems a few of these defiant businesses have tried to make themselves such.
No one should be tossed just because of wearing *too much* clothing - in this case a mask.
Cystic Fibrosis is deadly serious - alot more serious than COVID itself. My first horrible story about COVID came from my husband, whose employee had CF and ended up with COVID, and just up and quit afterward - he needed a transplant (long story even before this). Worst was he never came to take advantage of benefits. We don’t know his status. But sadly we knew likely he is dead.
But, bottom line, no on should be forced to take off a mask. Especially in a medical issue like this.
I don’t know why they were out at all leaving their young infant with health problems at home.
Yes if you have a child you should never leave the house, right?
Why in the Hell would you want to take a compromised 4-month old out for dinner at a bar in the first place?
Watch as the maskholes descend on the business. There'll be calls for boycotts, agitators from the usual left-wing orgs, etc. This entire "pandemic" was created and run by Globalist thugs.
True, that IS the big issue - if they are scared for their baby (did they bring it?), why would they go somewhere where no one is wearing masks?
the child was at home, read the original story
No shoes, no shirt, wear a mask, no service.
Not hard to understand.
I agree, but if “No Masks” was posted then too bad for them. There are plenty of other restaurants that require masks so go to one of them.
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.