I think that franchise owner is going to be liable in some way, they say he had been warned
I’d been looking for another thread on the biker shoot-out to ask a very basic question. Maybe someone will know.
What sort of rivalries, or differences, do these biker gangs have that would lead to a shootout? Do they fight over territory, or some philosophical difference, or is the membership by ethnicity, or what?
Do they have a procedure in their franchise manual to "keep biker gangs away from the restaurant?"
How, exactly, does a business owner do that?
The company pushes franchisees under the bus. I'd never do business with them.
For anyone interested in the other side of the story:
http://www.agingrebel.com/12873
I’m not saying it’s the true story, but it is a story...plus the forums are very interesting.
It’s a clean site...no porn, malware, etc.
And no, humblegunner, I ain’t promoting a blog...mine or anybody else’s.
Interesting. I wonder what The Twin Peaks Co. means exactly by "high security" standards?
If course the management of the franchise new nothing, absolute nothing of the practices of, apparently numerous franchises. “Why oh why were they so successful? We had no idea”.
Buncha middle aged morons on bikes-—
.
You know what? That's wrong.
More and more and more, private property in fact is not really private.
Many times these days if you refuse service to someone very hostile to civil society, you can LOSE YOUR BUSINESS.
Yesterday it was fags pretending they wanted cakes, and now?
Well, it could go ANYWHERE.
Maybe they just needed larger peeks?
My first thought...
This particular restaurant may have been operated for the sole purpose of laundering Biker cash.
So if a group of homosexual activists show up and brawl, could the restaurant refuse them service?
Refuse service to biker thugs? What could possibly go wrong?