Posted on 12/02/2016 9:24:55 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Mall stabbing VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-spzjieWKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7e2kqH63A
self-protection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puY-hPGta8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfB-tWIlEo
Retired Navy Officer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKJ9anv2oPM
The owner should be prepared for a lawsuit.
Outstanding! More businesses should do this. Make the muslims uncomfortable enough and maybe they’ll leave this country voluntarily.
I just knew this story would have a happy ending, LOL.
How dare he insult the enemy.
In the past...Back in “free” America, private businesses had the RIGHT to refuse service...
“The owner should be prepared for a lawsuit.”
Only if he discriminates by not giving equal service.
They won’t leave...they are an invading force.
The owner should be prepared for a lawsuit.—— IT was tried here in Florida with a Gun shop no Muslims allowed Cair took the case to court with the help of Morgan and Morgan and they Lost. His shop is a Muslim free zone.
The sign doesn’t say where to “get out” of...
Get out of Syria, get out da bushes, get outta dodge, get out of my restaurant?
But yeah, pretty soon they’ll protest/sue and harass...
Why was this story posted today?
It’s very old news. The restaurant did that sign months ago, and now, that restaurant is closed for the winter, as usual.
“...they are an invading force.”
___
You are absolutely right. Just wishful thinking on my part that they would leave on their own. I know they won’t.
Thanks for posting this. I now know where to go to for dinner.
Everyone Welcome
All food cooked with bacon grease
The owner should be prepared for a lawsuit.
________________________________________________________
If so, the lawsuit will go NOWHERE.
He's not refusing to serve Muslims, though that may be implied in the sign, so I don't see what there is to sue him over.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 needs to be revisited, because it grossly overstepped the boundaries of government power by prohibiting individual action.
Laws against racism and discrimination should be exclusively about limiting government power to discriminate and/and or force segregation with regard to the government policies, law enforcement, government institutions and facilities. The injustices of the Jim Crow era were legally enforced by the government, and the Jim
Crow era laws needed to be eliminated.
But free individuals have a right to choose with whom they will or will not associate. If society wants to impose sanctions on racist a-holes, that's fine, as long as it's done socially (i.e. boycotts and shunning) and not legally.
Much of the government over reach we have seen in the past 50 years is due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being commandeered by the left to limit the rights of the people relating to pretty much all private activity, instead of being limited to curtailing the powers of the government.
If black people want to live exclusively with black people at private colleges, that is their right if the college chooses to adopt that policy. But that same right also must be recognized for all other races and ethnic groups as well.
The owner should be prepared to expand his business.
Is this a new one or the same story from back in September?
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.