No it was not at all mean-spirited. The owner let the servers vote on it - Sarah lost. As the owner told Sarah, it was a matter of principle. That is not being mean.
By god decent people should not accept Nazis in their midst.
You mean like a restaurant that says: No shirt No Shoes No Service? Everybody picks and chooses their customers.
…is an American hero.
No Sarah, they kicked you out because you work for Trump.
I guess now she feels how those two gay dudes felt when that homophobe wouldn’t back a kake for their wedding
I addressed this in two ways.
First, I quoted the code which says that immigration agents may interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien…” A citizen is not an alien, and without probable cause, is not a “person believed to be an alien.”
Second, I noted that the legal code exempts immigration officials from certain specific restrictions that apply to other law-enforcement agents. but that those exemptions do not include the 5th amendment. I provided a link to the code. The 5th amendment provides us the right to refuse to answer the questions at a checkpoint.
I’ve reached the limits of what I can contribute to the discussion. It is not an area where I claim expertise, and it is not necessary for us to reach full agreement. I appreciate your civility and sincerity, and will close my end of this with a couple links to ACLU materials on the subject. As they note, agents and agencies often assume greater powers than the law seems to provide, and it sometimes takes court cases to establish the limits.
Show me your papers.
It’s legal to stop all drivers to check for intoxication, sort of a “reasonable suspicion”. But how is this kind of universal stop and search in any way legal? Just driving down the interstate is not grounds for suspicion about your citizenship status. And there is no requirement to carry proof of who you are other than DL for the driver, I suppose, and that doesn’t show citizenship, does it?
This seems precisely to be the kind of thing the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from.
Update: This twit of Huckleberry’s has been ruled unethical by the person in charge of Congressional ethics because it violated the injunction against using your political position to either aid or scourge someone else economically.
I don’t know much about the Red Hen restaurant, it appears to be pretty good and in the unlikely event I need to grab some lunch in that part of Virginia, I’ll certainly patronize them. It is certainly better than Chick-Fil-A.
I suspect the restaurant is in the clear: SHS and company are likely to stiff them for the bill and likely to disrupt the business.
They didn’t have to pay (they offered) their tab, because the owner frankly wanted them out of there.
I think there are laws or regulations in place which permit this based on how many miles from the border you are. The closer you are, to Canada in this instance, it sounds like it’s permissible. But I’m not lawyer.
Yeah, we settled that “just following orders” isn’t cover for perpetrating or enabling crimes against humanity 70 years ago, so the whole “just doing a job” excuse for presenting lies and apologia for this administrations crimes doesn’t really cut it.
The vast majority of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border (including seacoasts).
There is a lesson to be learned here.
Because Obama was not particularly confrontational, even with his enemies, he never reeled these people in. So now you have a huge discipline problem. You deal with it by forcefully punishing the whole force, and make it clear that this is what happens if you persist in maintaining a blue wall (combat khaki wall? orange wall?) of silence.
I assume this all shows up now on Waze? If not, start reporting their location there and anywhere else. When these things happen, someone needs to get up in the foliage by the road with a videocamera (not a phone, something with good range) and a shotgun mike. With, of course, a good escape path in case the critters turn violent.
According to the ACLU, people who work in the can’t be refused service based on political affiliation or ideology. The Law is the DC Human Rights Act. That applies to the Red Hen in DC (Edit: this Red Hen is in VA so it does not apply there), and there are similar laws in Seattle and the Virgin Islands. And they make perfect sense. No discrimination should be allowed. If you have the only gas station in town, you should not be able to refuse gas to someone based on politics. That’s absurd. You have been allowed to have a service station in town, you serve the public.
More importantly, I think stupid shit like this helps Trump. Sanders was not creating a scene. Plus they had already bought food and drinks to the table. Sanders actually offered to pay for them, but the owner said it was all on the house.
This childish BS plays right into Trump’s hand. Just like disrupting his rallies, etc., in 2016. That stuff HELPS him, he gets to cry “victim”. This is basic common sense. Let them finish their meals, and on their way out politely lecture them that the restaurant employs LBGT people, and that they feel they deserve equal treatment under the law and that they are not pleased with current policies. In that situation the liberals look good, the Trumpers look bad. Instead, these morons helped Trump.
The restaurant in question isn’t in DC.
Correction - The D.C. Human Rights Act “makes discrimination illegal based on 20 protected traits for people that live, visit or work in the District of Columbia,” including political affiliation. And yes, the ACLU article was not written well, they were referring to the Red Hen in DC. This one is in VA. My mistake.
Which is still irrelevant as the restaurant still isn’t in DC.
Love the moniker littlegirlblue but still respectfully disagree. I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting your comment but changing the characters in it. Is this restaurant-er justified in her actions? Again - I’m no fan fan of Sarah.
“The owner of the restaurant Jane Doe took a very brave stand in
asking Pelosi, quietly and away from anyone who could hear the
conversation, to leave based on political principles. There are many
incel staff members in the restaurant, Doe herself was and remains
offended by Pelosi’s policies, and bravest of all IMO is that the restaurant
is located in a county Pelosi won. However, as Pelosi and party including
her feminist father exited to leave, other diners broke out in applause
and cheering. A restauranter doesn’t want Trumpista customers, restaurant owner
doesn’t want customers who enable pro-women policies.”
I’m very curious about this issue. I realize that you don’t want to argue about it, and that’s not my intention. Life has dealt me a hand that includes having to deal with these sorts of issues directly, so I took the opportunity to ask a lawyer who prosecutes immigration cases to point me to the section of the US code that deals with the obligations of citizens to answer questions at border checkpoints. He said that it isn’t in the code, that it is governed by precedent. Bottom line, if one doesn’t answer questions about one’s citizenship at a border checkpoint, which can actually be up to 100 miles away from the border, one can be detained until they get their answer.
Since you have spent some time thinking about this issue, I thought you might be interested in this.
I’m impressed that your research wasn’t limited to the internet. We seem to be in agreement that we don’t have to argue, or even debate, about this. We are both trying to enlighten ourselves and anyone who chooses to read our comments.
Indeed. The code explicitly authorizes some limited intrusions into 4th amendment protections. There is nothing in the code that authorizes infringement of 5th amendment rights.
A true obligation comes with an “or else,” some penalty the government can impose on you if you don’t meet your obligation: a fine; potential prosecution and criminal penalties; loss of a license or loss of the right to obtain one; garnishment of wages; and so on. But the government can’t “or else” you if they can’t identify the obligation you failed to meet. The code does obligate you to stop. Failure to stop is a crime. So is fleeing the checkpoint. I wouldn’t be surprised if the immigration prosecutor your spoke to knows first hand of cases where people were prosecuted for those two crimes. Ask him if he has ever heard of anyone prosecuted for failure to answer questions at a checkpoint. The answer will be no.
And here’s where we find that what appears to be a wide gulf between my position and that of the immigration prosecutor is barely a crack.
The “or else” if you don’t answer questions during your contact at the checkpoint is that you might be sent to “secondary inspection.” But, they can send you there even if you do answer the questions. Apparently, they can even send you there just because you look like a foreigner. The courts allow agents a lot of leeway here, because they don’t consider the step to be more than a minor inconvenience. It is meant to allow the agency a modest amount of additional time to determine if you are in the country legally.
Once you are at the secondary inspection, you can still refuse to answer questions, however. The agency has a limited amount of time (roughly 20-30 minutes is the guideline I’ve read) to glean what information they can from observation, checking whatever databases they have (hard to imagine they aren’t at least checking the vehicle registration address), and so on. At that point, they have to let you continue on your way, even if they haven’t determined your status, unless they meet a standard of cause (I’m fuzzy here, because I’m not sure of the exact term used) for continuing to detain you.
Your AUSA and I are in agreement about what treatment you might get at a border checkpoint if you don’t answer questions. In his view, this treatment shows that you are “obligated” to answer the questions. I maintain that it demonstrates that your 5th-amendment rights remain intact.
As a practical matter, your life will be easier if you simply answer the questions and move on. There have been cases where agents have greatly abused their power. You are unlikely to encounter that if you are pleasant, cooperative, and lily white. Any deviation from that description increases your chances of longer delays and abusive treatment. You definitely don’t want to go to secondary inspection if you are in a pot-legal state and you have or have had any inside your car.