Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Freedom

1 Week After Putting Up Sign That Enraged Every Liberal In Town, Look What’s Happening At DQ

Published

on

Not really sure why this is even an issue, but apparently a sign was hung by the owner of a Wisconsin area Dairy Queen warning incoming customers that the restaurant is “politically incorrect.”

The offending sign cleverly reads: “This restaurant is politically incorrect. We have been known to say ‘Merry Christmas,’ ‘Happy Easter,’ ‘God Bless America,’ ‘We salute and honor the flag,’ Give thanks to our troops, police officers and firefighters,’ ‘Give thanks for the USA’ and ‘Give free sundaes to Veterans on Veterans Day.'” It’s genius if you ask me! 

The sign was originally posted on the storefront after a customer was triggered when he heard Christian music playing inside the restaurant, and when, in a separate incident, a different customer was upset at the offer of free ice cream for our veterans.

The owner, Kevin Scheunemann, has said he understands the sign might offend some people but that he is open to talking with anyone who may have concerns in order to make accommodations and arrange a designated “snowflake safe space,” if requested a minimum of 24 hours in advance, of course.

American Dairy Queen Corporation stated that it does not encourage their independently-owned and operated franchisees to post non-business related messages in their locations. And went on to make very clear that these views represented this independent owner only and do not speak for corporate or any of their other independent franchise owners. The followed this statement by adding that they expect their franchisees and employees to treat each person who walks through their doors with the utmost dignity and respect.

Inside Tusan Business Reports:

When is refusing service legal and when is it discrimination?

Many retail businesses in Arizona have a small paper sign hanging on the wall, usually near the cash register that says something like “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

The trouble is, that’s not necessarily true.

During the fury over SB 1062 two weeks ago, news accounts, press releases and especially social media were full of assertions that in America, a business owner doesn’t have to do business with anyone he or she doesn’t want to.

Defenders of SB 1062, most notably the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal defense organization, described hypothetical scenarios in which two groups historically at odds or in conflict might be forced to do business with each other if SB 1062 wasn’t passed.

For example, in an editorial sent to state media outlets, the alliance wrote, “Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas?”

The alliance asserts that without SB 1062, the photographer would be required to shoot the celebration.

Perhaps not. Depending on the state the photographer was in and the reasons the photographer refused to photograph it, the denial of service may be perfectly legal and not a violation of members of Westboro Church’s rights.

At issue in SB 1062 and in other states considering similar laws are the little understood laws governing public accommodation, which allow for people who believe a denial of service was discriminatory to sue the business for violating their civil rights.

The fact is, according to civil rights and business law experts, when business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.

State and federal civil rights laws prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in places of public accommodation for reasons of race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental).

Some of the outrage over SB 1062 was that it allowed for protection from government enforcement of civil rights laws if the violation of the law was found to have been based on a “sincerely held religious belief.” SB 1062 opponents argued that would have given religious business owners the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and possibly others.

But Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU’s national office in Washington D.C., says business owners already can refuse to do business with gays and lesbians in Arizona, except in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff, which are charter cities that have enacted city ordinances adding gays and lesbians to the protected class.

But, she said, when it comes to signs asserting the right to refuse service, those signs are meaningless.

“I want to make it clear that those kinds of signs are a bit of a fiction. You do not have the right to refuse service to anybody…there are protected classes. There are state laws, federal laws and in Arizona’s case, local laws that provide protection against discrimination. So that business owner does not have an overriding right to trump those laws,” Rho said.

Cassandra Meynard, a Tucson litigation attorney with Mesch Clark and Rothschild, said business owners can refuse to serve customers, but must be careful that the denial of service is based on customer behavior, decorum or the health and safety of patrons and employees.

“Normally, (refusal of service) would only be warranted where the customer’s presence would somehow be distracting to the wellbeing, to the safety, to the welfare of the other people in the business and the business itself. They can’t arbitrarily refuse service to some because they don’t like the way that they look,” Meynard said.

A few Tucson business owners contacted about how they handle refusing service to customers said the parade of horribles brought up by both SB 1062 opponents and proponents rarely, if ever happen.

Ali Bagheri, owner of World Wide Wrappers, a wraps and juice bar on Fourth Avenue, said in 15 years of business, said he’s rarely had to ask someone to leave and it was usually because they were “really drunk or unhygienic or had an attitude.”

Tom Alfonso, owner of Alfonso Gourmet Olive Oil & Balsamics, in the Foothills and Oro Valley, said conflicts sometimes occur for personality reasons between customers and employees, but in those instances, he has another employee serve the customer.

He said he’s never had an instance where he had to refuse service, though he has had customers walk out for unknown reasons, including one customer who walked out because he was serving a customer who was transgender.

“So it works both ways, customers can refuse” to do business with him, too, he said.

Complaints about discrimination can be complicated. Depending on the allegation, they can be filed with the city, the state or the any of several dozen federal agencies, and each level of government has different rules about when and how to file.

Tucson Attorney Mike Rankin said Tucson added sexual orientation as a class to its antidiscrimination law in 2007. He said violations of the law are a civil offense and carry a $300 fine. However, he said no one has ever filed a complaint since the law was enacted.

Training for businesses about rules of public accommodation and when refusal of service is or isn’t appropriate is sparse. No information about public accommodation training could be found on any of the Tucson area chamber’s websites, SCORE, statewide tourist and lodging associations or hospitality industry associations.

Neither Rho nor Meynard said they were aware of any such training.

Jerry Bustamante, Arizona Small Business Association vice president for public policy and Southern Arizona, said training on public accommodation rules was a good idea and he would suggest it to his organization’s board.

Bustamante said ASBA opposed SB 1062 for many of the same reasons all the other state and local business organizations did, but also because of the law of unintended consequences.

“ASBA concluded that 1062 would have unintentionally exposed private sector businesses and its owners to liability by allowing an employee to exercise their own religious beliefs at the expense of the business. SB 1062 would have shifted the balance of control from the business owner to employees, who could decide to refuse someone’s business based on their own personal religious beliefs and not that of a business owner. As a result, the business and its owner(s) would be held liable for an employee’s actions while exercising their religious convictions,” Bustamante said.

Rho and Meynard agreed that was a likely consequence of the bill if it had been signed.

“The way this law was written would have allowed employees to defy their employers. Even if you had a restaurant in (Tucson) you may want to not discriminate against your customers but your employee could now have a right to do so,” Rho said.

Even so, Meynard said despite the bill being vetoed, business owners still have to be careful when it comes to the religious beliefs of their employees. Just as business owners can’t discriminate against patrons for reasons of religion, they can’t discriminate against employees for religious reasons either.

But that doesn’t mean an employee gets to dictate the terms of employment, Meynard said. While business owners have to make a reasonable accommodation when an employee asserts a religious belief that conflicts with a duty of employment, employers can’t be compelled to unreasonably alter their business.

Why is this even an issue? Anyone who owns a business should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own property just as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. If you don’t like the music they play, it’s simple, don’t go there. If you don’t like the sign they put up, it’s simple, don’t go there. If you don’t like the fact that they are pro-veteran, don’t go there. It’s called freedom of choice. And it works!

Please share if you agree businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want to serve and play whatever music they want to play…..

Al ran for the California State Assembly in his home district in 2010 and garnered more votes than any other Republican since 1984. He's worked on multiple political campaigns and was communications director for the Ron Nehring for California Lt. Governor campaign during the primaries in 2014. He has also held multiple positions within his local Republican Central Committee including Secretary, and Vice President of his local California Republican Assembly chapter. While also being an ongoing delegate to the California Republican Party for almost a decade.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Freedom

NFL Players Upset Their Anthem Protest Isn’t Working Anymore, Just Teamed Up With Obama To SCREW America In New Way

Published

on

It wasn’t enough for spoiled “oppressed” millionaire athletes to complete destroy our favorite pass time with their anti-American antics. Now Kaepernick and pals are making things extremely personal, going straight after patriotic Americans and outrageously labeling those who disagree with their protests as “racists” who don’t care about black people being killed by cops. After a successful onslaught on America’s patriotism, these idiots are now going straight after the Second Amendment and pushing an Obama-initiated gun grab, as their bold move to erase everything that our country stands for reaches astonishing new levels.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from these ongoing protests, it’s that these ungrateful athletes have no concept of what being an American truly means, otherwise these players wouldn’t choose to disrespect our soldiers who fought for their freedoms every time they take a knee. These protests are nothing but a political ploy to demonize “white America,” as we continue to see these athletes throwing up black power salutes when they tackle white players as a way for these racist athletes to proclaim their “supremacy” over the white race.

So it should come as no surprise that these communist-loving racists would go straight after the one thing that sets America apart from any other country in the world, our Second Amendment rights. Sean Hannity reported:

The same NFL players who choose to “take a knee” in protest of racial injustice in America are now turning their sights on the US constitution; targeting the Second Amendment in a new push to tighten gun control regulations across the country.

ESPN is reporting that the San Francisco 49ers -the team that started the divisive practice of kneeling during the national anthem- is now targeting the Second Amendment; donating $500,000 to promote strict gun laws in the US.

“The Niners have pledged $500,000 toward the campaign, which will advocate for legislation banning ‘bump stocks’ and other mechanisms that allow semi-automatic weapons to become automatic weapons, as well as silencers and armor piercing bullets,” writes ESPN.

“The parties are also pledging to join with others to forge a public awareness campaign centered on improving police and community relations,” the author adds.

They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake and expecting different results. After weeks of alienating their fans with NFL ratings now plummeting to startling and historic double-digit lows, this move is sure to raise even more eyebrows among furious fans who are already livid over these millionaire athletes trying to inject their ridiculous political viewpoints on Americans. “To date, TV ratings are down roughly 20% from this time in 2015, as angry fans change the channel after weeks of player protests,” Sean Hannity went on.

This is nothing more than Obama’s foot soldiers continuing to push his anti-American legacy now that their black messiah is out of office. What Kaeprnick and the 49ers are attempting to do is a continuation of Obama’s gun grabbing attempts, and just like all liberals do, these atheltes are using the latest gun-related incident of Las Vegas to push their gun grabbing agenda. Breitbart reported:

It appears the 49ers are ready to pick up where Obama left off, and they are joined by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, an LAPD union, in so doing. On October 26 Breitbart News reported that the Los Angeles Police Protective League is pushing for a ban on suppressors, armor-piercing ammunition, and bump stocks.

On February 15, 2015, Breitbart News reported that the Obama-era push was directed toward M855 rounds for the AR-15. The rounds are fully legal under the auspices of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which bans handgun ammunition categorized as armor piercing. The Obama ATF attempted to apply the ban on handgun ammo to rifle ammo as well, even though the M855 round was one of the most popular AR-15 rounds for sporting purposes at the time. And it was precisely because of the round’s popularity that the NRA-ILA described the attempted ban as “a move clearly intended by the Obama administration to repress the acquisition, ownership, and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles.”

These millionaires have one freaking job to do and it’s to play football. But for reasons that defy all logic, these athletes think that Americans should care about their political viewpoints. With many Americans already irate over these protests, you can be sure that these ball players’ decision to go after our Second Amendment rights will be complete suicide for the league, as I don’t see any red blooded patriots about to stand idly by while these morons disrespect not only the soldiers who gave them our freedoms, but the Second Amendment rights that continues to ensure our nation stays free from tyrants.

 

Continue Reading

Culture

HUGE U.S. Biz Just Became First To Require Microchip Implants In EVERY Employee – Do You Support It?

Wow! This is scary!

Published

on

If you’re someone who is concerned with your safety, privacy or even just generally believe the bible, you’re going to want to pay attention to this. The much-anticipated chipping of Americans has begun, and it’s as bad as you thought it’d be. It’s being offered (or rather pushed) by one company who thinks that they’re ushering in the future. We’re not sure what kind of future they’re hoping to usher in, but they’re taking leaps and bounds.

This Wisconsin company has plans to expand and get the technology out to other companies for “convenient” implants to be used in companies, especially those with high-security levels where fraud is likely. These implants go in the hand and make it easier to get through doors and other security check points that would typically require some sort of ID or card.

The fun part comes in where they promise that these chips aren’t in any way GPS enabled and can’t be used to read information, only hold information that you might need to use, like using multiple magnetic strips with the swipe of a hand. And they will no doubt notify us right away when they decide to GPS enable these chips because big brother never does anything underhanded and keeps it a secret.

The LA Times is excitedly reporting on the much-dreaded phenomenon.

The syringe slides in between the thumb and index finger. Then, with a click, a microchip is injected in the employee’s hand. Another ‘cyborg’ is created.

What could pass for a dystopian vision of the workplace is almost routine at the Swedish start-up hub Epicenter. The company offers to implant its workers and start-up members with microchips the size of grains of rice that function as swipe cards: to open doors, operate printers or buy smoothies with a wave of the hand.

‘The biggest benefit, I think, is convenience,’ said Patrick Mesterton, co-founder and chief executive of Epicenter. As a demonstration, he unlocks a door merely by waving near it. ‘It basically replaces a lot of things you have, other communication devices, whether it be credit cards or keys.’

And as with most new technologies, it raises security and privacy issues. Although the chips are biologically safe, the data they generate can show how often employees come to work or what they buy. Unlike company swipe cards or smartphones, which can generate the same data, people cannot easily separate themselves from the chips.

‘Of course, putting things into your body is quite a big step to do, and it was even for me at first,’ said Mesterton, saying he initially had his doubts.

‘On the other hand, I mean, people have been implanting things into their body, like pacemakers and stuff to control your heart,’ he said. ‘That’s a way, way more serious thing than having a small chip that can actually communicate with devices.’

Epicenter, which is home to more than 100 companies and roughly 2,000 workers, began implanting workers in January 2015. Now, about 150 workers have the chips. A company based in Belgium also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world in which tech enthusiasts have tried them out in recent years.

Ben Libberton, a microbiologist at Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute, says hackers could conceivably gain huge swaths of information from embedded microchips. The ethical dilemmas will become bigger the more sophisticated the microchips become.

‘The data that you could possibly get from a chip that is embedded in your body is a lot different from the data that you can get from a smartphone,’ he says. ‘Conceptually, you could get data about your health, you could get data about your whereabouts, how often you’re working, how long you’re working, if you’re taking toilet breaks and things like that.’

Libberton said that if such information is collected, the big question remains of what happens to it, who uses it and for what purpose.

So far, Epicenter’s group of cyborgs doesn’t seem too concerned.

‘People ask me, ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say, ‘Yes, why not?’’ said Fredric Kaijser, the 47-year-old chief experience officer at Epicenter. ‘And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.’

Epicenter workers stage monthly events where attendees can receive the implant.

That means visits from self-described ‘body hacker’ Jowan Osterlund from Biohax Sweden who performs the ‘operation.’

Sandra Haglof, 25, who works for Eventomatic, an events company that works with Epicenter, has had three piercings before, and her left hand barely shakes as Osterlund injects the chip.

‘I want to be part of the future,’ she laughs.”

I wish we could tell you that this is an isolated incident and not the wave of the future, but think about the implications if not just the government, but any business with the money to hire a great hacker to find your location and all important information about you on your person. This is the kind of thing that’s been a long time in the making and should be very scary to all of us.

At this point, it was still at least a possibility to go “off-grid” and at least make it difficult to find or track you. If these kinds of implants become commonplace and eventually required, it’s not going to go well for us. You might think that it’s just not possible that they require things like this of us, but if you’ll recall things like drivers licenses and social security numbers weren’t required at one time, but it’s basically impossible to function without them now. Maybe they won’t be able to pass a law that straps your hand down and implants you, but if big brother wants to track you with an implant, trust me, they’ll make it to where you are completely incapacitated without one.

It’s creepy big brother on steroids, and it doesn’t bode well for those of us that don’t believe in all this government involvement in our daily lives. It’s like nobody developing these types of things has ever watched a SyFy movie, or better yet, read the Bible. There’s no scenario where this ends well.

(Source: LA Times)

Share if you’re against Americans being chipped like animals!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Culture

Entitled Brat Sits For Anthem In WRONG Classroom – Classmate Makes Sure He Never Sits Again!

This is awesome & it will make you cheer!

Published

on

Someone, please give this kid a medal!

A video went viral on YouTube Tuesday showing a Maryland student kicking a chair out from under his communist classmate who refused to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the video, the student responsible for kicking the unpatriotic punk’s chair is clearly seen wearing a shirt with an American flag on it, cowboy boots, and jean shorts.

The student who is seated and falls to the ground looks ridiculous with his dyed green hair, skinny jeans, and a hoodie.

It’s always the wimps with the skinny jeans who seem to be the unpatriotic ones. Then again, what real man who possesses any “manhood” can fit in skinny jeans?

ThoughtCo. Reports:

The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was written in 1892 by then 37-year-old minister Francis Bellamy. The original version of Bellamy’s pledge read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic, for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.” By not specifying to which flag or which republic allegiance was being pledged, Bellamy suggested that his pledge could be used by any country, as well as the United States.

Bellamy wrote his pledge for inclusion in the Boston-published Youth’s Companion magazine – “The Best of American Life in Fiction Fact and Comment.” The pledge was also printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States at the time. The first recorded organized recital of the original Pledge of Allegiance took place on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus.

Despite its widespread public acceptance at the time, important changes to the Pledge of Allegiance as written by Bellamy were on the way.

CHANGE IN CONSIDERATION OF IMMIGRANTS
By the early 1920s, the first National Flag Conference (source of the U.S. Flag Code), the American Legion, and the Daughters of the American Revolution all recommended changes to the Pledge of Allegiance intended to clarify its meaning when recited by immigrants.

These changes addressed concerns that since the pledge as then written failed to mention the flag of any specific country, immigrants to the United States might feel that they were pledging allegiance to their native country, rather than the U.S., when reciting the Pledge.

So in 1923, the pronoun “my” was dropped from the pledge and the phrase “the Flag” was added, resulting in, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and Republic, for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.”

A year later, the National Flag Conference, in order to completely clarify issue, added the words “of America,” resulting in, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.”

CHANGE IN CONSIDERATION OF GOD
In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance underwent its most controversial change to date. With the threat of Communism looming, President Dwight Eisenhower pressed Congress to add the words “under God” to the pledge.

In advocating for the change, Eisenhower declared it would “reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future” and “strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”

On June 14, 1954, in a Joint Resolution amending a section of the Flag Code, Congress created the Pledge of Allegiance recited by most Americans today:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

WHAT ABOUT CHURCH AND STATE?
Over the decades since 1954, there have been legal challenges to the constitutionality of the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge.

Most notably, in 2004, when an avowed atheist sued the Elk Grove (California) Unified School District claiming that its pledge recital requirement violated his daughter’s rights under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

In deciding the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to rule on the question of the words “under God” violating the First Amendment. Instead, the Court ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. Newdow, did not have legal standing to file the suit because he lacked sufficient custody of his daughter.

However, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote separate opinions on the case, stating that requiring teachers to lead the Pledge was constitutional.

In 2010, two federal appeals courts ruled in a similar challenge that “the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism” and “both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary.”

Sadly this was bound to happen. When kids start seeing their heroes in the sports world disrespecting our nation they learn that it’s ok to do so also. This is one of the top reasons why the NFL needs to end.

Our children need to understand that not everything that is allowed is a good thing to do. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. But when they see spoiled ball tossers disrespecting our flag without any consequence whatsoever, it’s just a matter of time till little-spoiled brats who were raised under the belief that discipline wasn’t necessary would end up emulating them.

Please share if you agree everyone should stand for our flag….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending