Muslim women sue Muslim shop owner for discriminating against Muslims?

The preamble of our Declaration of Independence has been flipped on its head.  The self-evident truth that all men are created equal in terms of inalienable rights of life, liberty and property has been replaced with the pagan lie that special classes are to be protected and have the right to violate other people’s property rights.  When Christians are business owners, they are forced to serve individuals that engage in behavior contrary to their religious beliefs because homosexuals have become a protected class.  Likewise, when patrons of a business are Muslims, they have the right to violate the rules and force the business owner to accommodate them.

Latest case in point?  The Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach California.  Seven Muslim women are suing the restaurant’s owner for allegedly kicking them out of the restaurant before they were finished eating simply because they were “visibly Muslim.”  Who is helping organize this frivolous lawsuit?  You guessed it…The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was found by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to be the financing arm of Hamas in North America.

While the media will never report the details of this case, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which is representing the defendants and is countersuing the plaintiffs, shed some light on what happened the evening of April 22:

The claim that these women were asked to leave the caffé because they were wearing hijabs is laughable.  That night, as every Friday night, a large number of young people, including a majority of whom are Muslim and of Arab descent, make up the base of Urth Caffe’s customers.  Not surprisingly, many of these customers are women wearing hijabs.  None of these other Muslim women were asked to leave.  The women who now claim victim status were not asked to leave, but only to abide by the caffé’s policy to give up their high-demand outside patio table after 45 minutes to allow other customers, including those wearing hijabs, to enjoy the experience.”

As the AFLC notes, the person who originally called the police on the rowdy and abusive crowd was a Muslim co-owner of the restaurant.  Moreover, just to get a sense as to where this is coming from, one of the plaintiffs is a known Palestinian agitator.

Even if the Caffé wins this case, it reflects the challenges of business owners in this society where all men are indeed not treated equally.  As the legal profession continues to travel down this slippery slope with anti-discrimination laws, they empower street agitators who happen to be of a specific identity to use their protected status to violate the property rights and rules of private businesses.  Sometimes the businesses win after paying hefty legal fees; other times they are forced to settle.  Restaurants in particular are hit hard because they have a narrow margin of profit.

The notion that CAIR, an unindicted coconspirator in funding Hamas, could have standing to sue a private business for discrimination in itself demonstrates the breakdown of our legal system and the need to fix the anti-discrimination statutes.

Now, let’s juxtapose this to the story from last week when the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Christian business owners who were forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Here are the details from the Daily Signal:

Because of his Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, [Jack] Phillips in 2012 declined to bake a cake celebrating the same-sex wedding of Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

“There’s just certain events, certain cakes I don’t make,” Phillips told The Daily Signal in an extensive phone interview from his shop last August. “That was one of them.”

After the two men filed a discrimination complaint against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination policy.

In August, the Colorado Court of Appeals ordered that Phillips and his staff must bake cakes for gay marriages. The state Supreme Court on Monday declined to review that order.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union praised the high court’s decision.

Let’s be clear: an American has an inalienable right to work his property and business in accordance with his beliefs.  This is not only rooted in conventional property rights, but in conscience, which Madison referred to as the “most sacred of property rights.”  On the other hand, an American does not have a fundamental right to someone else’s involuntary servitude nor does he have the right to disrupt the rules and decorum of someone’s restaurant.  That individual may dislike those business owners and has the right to organize a boycott, but one’s identity does not grant them an extra layer of entitlement.

We’ve spent months focusing on the pettiness of this media-driven election, but these are the issues that have been ignored.  Yet these are the issues that are undermining the very foundation and impetus of our Founding.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px}
/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */