This isn’t about indoor dining
I haven’t managed to get anything together out of the Café Rosetta documents yet, but when I was browsing them, I did find this passage that I really wanted to share immediately.
You can inspect the court documents for yourself on my Patreon page. The post is now public. This passage is quoted in the motion from January 6, 2021.
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that
"persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."
Railroad Co. v. Husen,95 U. S. 465, 95 U. S. 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber,169 U. S. 613, 169 U. S. 628, 169 U. S. 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen,137 U. S. 86, 137 U. S. 89, we said:
"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law."
-U.S. Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts,197 U.S. 11(1905)
This case was over a mandatory vaccination program. The court’s decision, in favor of Massachusetts, spawned a nationwide anti-vaccination movement. It didn’t change much.
Café Rosetta is going to lose in court because, simply put, they have no case, and they know it. This is why they have instead used their legal fund money for a PR campaign of intimidation against the locals who would enforce due process on them.
I hesitated to share this because of the content, but it has been quite broadly shared online already, and is reportedly posted in Café Rosetta’s window. It doesn’t mention anything about indoor dining anywhere.
Tanya Rule no longer has a social media presence because she fears attacks exactly like this. She has been terrorized into silence, and no longer has a voice to defend herself.
Sheriff Brian McLean was faced with hundreds of people, many of them armed and clearly willing to flout the law, who “thanked him” for not causing trouble for them. How is this not intimidation of law enforcement?
Café Rosetta’s “peaceful protest” has become decidedly uncivil. We are in the grip of extremism, and it’s time to demand the protection of the law we have been promised.