Virginia Restaurant refuses to serve conservative group

Post Reply New Topic

You mean they can walk into any restaurant wearing Nazi uniforms? or do they have to identify themselves...."Hi, We are the Aryan Nations", "We booked a table for 25 tonight under the name Adolph". "Oh! I notice there's a couple of interracial couples here tonight" "Do you mind if we take them out to the carpark and pour kerosene and light them on fire?"....of course we'll make sure the race traitors pay their bill first",

No. I am not talking about your preposterous irrelevant fantasy.

I am talking about the actual subject of the thread. The group books the venue weeks in advance, hangs banners around the reserved tables, and proceeds to do their bingo fundraiser, or whatever it is. They wouldnt beat up interracial couples, and if they did then that would go beyond free speech into the actual crime of battery.

I imagine them doing it something like this.


https://youtu.be/1zY1orxW8Aw

Stupidity and bad taste are not illegal!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 12 Dec 2022, 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well that answers my second question

It is a group who specifically wants to restrict rights of homosexuals, women and anyone else who can get pregnant. Why should anyone in any of those groups have to serve those customers? It wasn't just because they are conservative, it was due to their specific agenda.

Unless you're suggesting that all conservatives oppose gay rights and abortion access, but not sure that is the case.

I just feel that this would set a bad precedent. And polarize our country. That's what I feel.

It would bring back the days when lunch counters refused to serve blacks. Why do you think we had the sit-ins? We could potentially go back to the days of Jim Crow and segregation. If "not serving conservatives" start becoming common, "not serving blacks" will become common, too.

I have friends who are pro-choice. I am pro-choice. I also have friends who don't believe in abortion. I don't agree with them. But I would serve them though (unless, of course, they are full-blown Nazis; then, I would just ask the manager to have somebody else serve them.

Wanting to restrict rights of homosexuals and women is not a racial identity like being black it is. So I don't think it's at all like someone refusing to serve black people or would bring that back.

And still it wasn't just because they're conservative, it's because they're part of an organization that is specifically fighting to restrict rights of people they don't agree with as well as wanting to instate biblical law(if you look at their website). That is a bit different, also the restaurant could get bad publicity if people find they're allowing Christo-fascist organizations to dine there.

Maybe next time they can get themselves a nice chick fil a dinner...

Yeah....maybe.

If a conservative restaurant didn't serve me because I was, obviously, advocating equal rights for trans people, then I'd just take my business elsewhere. The restaurant wouldn't deserve my bucks, anyway.

I'm not a real fan of many conservative ideas, by the way.

So it's bigoted not to let bigots eat in your restaurant?

The "United" States sure is one weird country.

It's not "bigoted."

It would just set a bad precedent.

If this continues, there might come a day when I will be refused service at a gay Ethiopian restaurant because I'm white and obviously a heterosexual.

I would be there to taste the food, not have a political discussion.

common decency [rare as hen's teeth nowadays] says it is just plain offensive to make an LGBTQ person service an anti-LGBTQ person. this goes way beyond politics. it is the very same principle as [for example] making a jewish person service a nazi.

I don't actually feel decency is as rare as "hen's teeth." I've met many decent people. And many not-so-decent ones.

I'm a Jew....and I wouldn't serve a Nazi.

This situation is not as extreme as that.

Like I said, If I was refused service at a restaurant because of my political beliefs, I would just go elsewhere with no regrets.

i've been refused service on a number of occasions based on the owner's dislike of my appearance or social station. the bible belt is the worst place in this regard.

^That was stupid----idiotic!

Sorry that happened to you!

Being refused service sucks, but would you want to be served by a person who doesn't want to serve you but has been forced to?

I've been reluctant to post in the thread but now have formed how I would express my thoughts on the matter. In the interest of broad appeal and profit businesses should stay out of politics or polarizing issues, but otherwise should be free to refuse service without needing to state a reason, as stating a reason is a potential escalation.

Certain kinds of businesses, known as "public accommodations" (mostly essential things like food stores) are strictly limited as to the reasons they are allowed to refuse service -- and for good reason. You shouldn't have to fear that you might starve because the owner of the only supermarket in town doesn't like you for whatever reason.

In particular, public accommodations are not allowed to refuse service on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. Such laws were necessary in order to get rid of the kind of segregation that existed in the South before the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's. They are still necessary in order to prevent discrimination, in essential goods and services, against categories of people that are unpopular for whatever reason.

I would also say that there's a difference between discriminating against a particular category of people and discriminating against a particular kind of event.

If all the supermarkets in your vicinity were allowed to discriminate against you because the owners all didn't like your hair color, that would be an unacceptable danger to your life and well-being. On the other hand, not being allowed to hold a political event at some local private venue would not directly endanger your life (especially these days, when political meetings can easily be held online).

Note that the restaurant refused to host a particular type of event. There is no indication that the restaurant was refusing to serve individual members of the group, as individuals, apart from the proposed group event.