Richmond’s Metzger Bar and Butchery Denies Service to Christian Non-Profit

by The Republican Standard Staff

On Wednesday evening, an hour and a half before a reserved Family Foundation gathering in a private room, Metzger Bar and Butchery denied entry and service to the pro-family group, solely based on their political opinions and religious beliefs.

“It is alarming and disgraceful that this restaurant has a political litmus test to get in the front door,” said Victoria Cobb, President of the Family Foundation. “All Virginians should be concerned about this extreme bigotry and intolerance of people of faith, irrespective of their own political or religious beliefs. Everyone should be concerned that Virginians are being denied access in the marketplace, solely based on their beliefs.”

Cobb continued, “We live in a free market and people have many choices of where to dine, so we took our business elsewhere. Metzger’s has now isolated a wide base of customers who would rather go elsewhere than patron a bigoted restaurant. Most Virginians are charitable and would not only serve people with differing political or religious viewpoints but would share a meal with them and enjoy the exchange of different viewpoints.”

Metzger Bar and Butchery isn’t precisely backing down, either for their rationale or their reasoning as to why they disinvited the socially conservative think tank from their doors:

Metzger Bar and Butchery, in Richmond’s Union Hill neighborhood, posted a statement Thursday night on Instagram about the decision to cancel the Family Foundation’s reservation Wednesday. “Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in,” the restaurant said in the statement. “In eight years of service, we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us. Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.”

Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb wrote in a blog post Thursday that the foundation’s vice president of operations got a call from Metzger about an hour and a half before the 7 p.m. Wednesday reservation notifying her of the cancellation.

Comparisons to the lunch counter protests of the 1960s were instantly raised by many on social media, which Metzger’s seemed to have shrugged off.

Yet Kate Andrews with Virginia Business Magazine pressed the question further by asking one of the heroes who were members of the “Richmond 32” who took on the Thalheimer’s lunch counter policy of refusing service to African-Americans:

Elizabeth Johnson Rice, now an 82-year-old retired teacher living in Chesterfield County, was a member of the Richmond 34. She said the situation surrounding the Family Foundation and Metzger is somewhat different than the sit-in, one of numerous nonviolent protests conducted in the 1950s and ’60s to oppose racial discrimination against Black people. Those protests often led to arrests, violence against protesters and sometimes deaths.

On Feb. 22, 1960, Rice and her fellow protesters were arrested and charged with trespassing, taken to jail and then released on bail. In March 1960, they were all convicted of trespassing and fined $20 each, but the students all appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the store owners’ right to forgo service. Ultimately, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a repeal of the 34 students’ convictions in a victory for the civil rights movement.

“We were going for equal justice for all,” Rice said Friday. “We were trespassing because we didn’t get service. [As Black people], if we wanted to eat anything [from Thalhimers’ lunch counter], we had to go into the alley and knock on the little door. That was really Jim Crow.”

Rice said that she still believes in equal rights for everyone today, including the right to marry someone of the same sex, but at the same time, she feels the Family Foundation party was “not being treated fairly” by Metzger Bar and Butchery. “Their reservation should be honored in 2022.”

In Charlottesville in the wake of the “Unite the Right” alt-right Citronella Nazi parade of 2017, many businesses advertised rather freely that conservatives — not just alt-right sympathizers — would not be welcome in many of the businesses along the downtown mall.

In 2018, Lexington-based Red Hen Restaurant refused service to then-Trump press secretary and now Arkansas Governor-elect Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. More recently, this November 2022 the outspoken and conservative small business Gourmeltz was raided by the Virginia ABC in a tit-for-tat for selling alcohol without a license during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the current controversy over forcing a business to “bake a cake” or serve a meal continues, the most recent flare-up in Richmond doesn’t point towards a more kind or less coarse culture.

This essay first appeared in The Republican Standard. It is republished here with permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

78 responses to “Richmond’s Metzger Bar and Butchery Denies Service to Christian Non-Profit”

  1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    A good argument can be made that this situation, a special reservation, would be covered by the Smith case being decided by SCOTUS. In my mind, this is different from a number of people just coming into for a meal.

    1. Teddy007 Avatar

      Does this fit in the hypothetical of a black owned business refusing to serve neo-nazis or white militia members?

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        In my mind, there is a difference between a situation where 10 people come to a restaurant and request a table and where a 10-person table or private room is requested in the name of an organization. Likewise, a gay web designer should be able to turn down a request to create a website for a group that advocates for criminal laws punishing homosexual behavior.

        1. NotOnTwitter Avatar
          NotOnTwitter

          I agree that a gay web designer should be able to turn down a request to create such a website. The problem there is one of compelled speech. But it’s different where the customer requests a non-speech related service. Neither gays, blacks, whites nor Christians or Jews should be turned away from a lunch counter. (this list is nonexclusive — the same goes for Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.)

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Individuals hostile to many LGBTQ issues are not being turned away. However, the argument could be made that allowing the group to have a private function in the restaurant would be tantamount to endorsing their positions, which the restaurant owner does not. Therefore, to require him to endorse positions he opposes would be a violation of his Free Speech, assuming the Supreme Court holds that way in the Smith case.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The owner likely has govt licensing for food and beverage service. There’s no endorsement of diners or organizations that meet in the restaurant for dining. Serve all or serve none.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            And if the group asking to rent the space for a private function was the KKK?

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I agree but I am also becoming convinced that the proverbial cake maker’s position is therefore equally valid. The slippery slope argument may also be valid though. What is to stop this from moving into the land of “We don’t serve your kind here, boy”?

          5. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            It would make it easy then to deny service to all democrats.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            There is no compelled speech simply because an owner disagrees with the message. If you’re in business, serve all or none. That’s doing business. The talents and skills of the web designer are engaged for service and technical reasons not for message content.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yes. As a business providing services for a fee, you’re providing a service to put THEIR speech on THEIR items that they are paying to have produced.

            This is like going to a sign company business and that business refusing to produce a sign because they disagree with the words on the sign and they’re citing their “free speech” as the reason why.

            Totally bizarre.

          8. At any level people with disabilities get pushed the further down to the ground then the rest
            He ain’t equal in any form or manner no matter what the label is…

      2. Yes, correct, just as the wheelchair customers cannot always use the commode because it is too small or another abled one using it, whatever…let’s go down to the real gritty part
        HEY…any of your employees use ASL to be fair with the Spanish speaking in waiting upon the customers ??
        Guess not
        If they think on the same platform of this..they missed the REAL boat in true accessibility at any level!
        Talking about FULL EQUALITY!
        Really….

  2. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    Many would try and correlate this to the wedding cake makers refusal to make a same sex wedding cake. This is very different. Jack Philips, the baker, said he would serve anyone and everyone, he just did not want to make a special message cake if it violated his personal religious views. Here is a link to an article, but I vividly remember him saying that over and over again.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/baker-who-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-i-don-t-n880061

    Did the Family Foundation request special favors or public messages, other than just getting a meal reservation?

    Assuming no, this is then just another blatant example of the double standard many on the Left have. Try and force someone to bend to their every demand, but then simply not serve someone they don’t like.

    1. I make it a policy to never try force someone who does not want to prepare food for me to prepare food for me. There are plenty of restaurants and bakeries out there.

    2. I make it a policy to never try force someone who does not want to prepare food for me to prepare food for me. There are plenty of restaurants and bakeries out there.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      It was not the cake maker’s message only his fondant. Serve all or serve none in the market.

      1. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        I don’t get your point. He said in this article, along with an interview I saw of him, anyone coming into his store to buy general products will be happily served. Anyone. His line was creative messaging on special orders, and he won on that point, which I am guessing you disagree with.

        Ok, fine either way, but it sounds like you are saying “serve all or none”. If that is the case, then are you saying Metzger should shut down?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Not necessary to shut down nor was it suggested. Yes, serve all or none, except disruptive diners.

    4. I make it a policy to never try to force someone who does not want to prepare food for me to prepare food for me. There are plenty of restaurants and bakeries out there.

      1. Yup. I agree.

        I foolishly got into a somewhat controversial discussion with the guy cutting my hair many years ago. I don’t think he liked my opinion, and it showed. That was back when I was in college. I had to have someone in my dorm even it up with scissors.

    5. Teddy007 Avatar

      Colorado has allowed homosexual operators of bakeries to refuse to put anti-LGBT messages on cakes. It is one the reasons that Masterpiece Cake won its case.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Fair point but serving people in a restaurant does not require any creative message making.

        1. Teddy007 Avatar

          But a group of people meeting in a private school and possibly using a projector is a very different deal that a family sitting in a booth.

  3. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    60 years ago, public accommodations laws made good sense. Not so sure today when most businesses are open to and welcome everyone. Individuals and small businesses ought to be able to serve or do business how and with whom they please in a manner consistent with their own morals, conscience, religious or political beliefs. The response should be public notice or criticism in an ad, newspaper or social media post so that customers can go elsewhere if they choose. I would not extend this “right” to large corporations or franchises that operate big chains of stores, hotels and restaurants or to big commercial landlords. Hard to support the website lady and condemn this.

    1. NotOnTwitter Avatar
      NotOnTwitter

      Maybe a big sign reading “Christians Not Welcome Here”? Christians overcame the persecutions of Nero and Diocletian. We will have little trouble overcoming the persecution of the person who owns this restaurant.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        It was not a case of refusing to accommodate Christians. It was the attitude of fhe group toward LGBTQ. Not all Christians are hostile to LGBYTQ.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          You’ve heard of the CINO argument, right…

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          good point. Yes. SOME Christians actually are Christians and have tolerance and acceptance of others that are different from them.

          The dialogue these days about what a “Christian” is or is not has gone off the rails to the point where some folks who claim to be Christians but say their “religion” allows them to “hate” others are claimed to be “persecuted” for their “beliefs”.

        3. If I was a restaurant owner, do you think I should be able to refuse to rent a private dining room to the DNC? Their attitude towards gun-rights supporters is extremely hostile.

          Or to the Nation of Islam? They have an extremely hostile attitude towards white people.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The idea of consistency is what is important here. If one is allowed to exclude the KKK then, yes, one should be able to exclude whomever one likes for whatever reason one likes. OTOH, if one can be forced to serve everybody then that means everybody (including the proverbial KKK – or FOTF in this case) regardless of how distasteful their message. I would say that I would prefer to break with the former approach at this point rather than the latter because… freedom… there are exceptions to this discrimination though… race is clearly one… as is sex…? is religion?… sexual orientation…?… age?… sexual identity…? … politics?…school association…? immigrant status…? accent…? where is this line drawn?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The idea of consistency is what is important here. If one is allowed to exclude the KKK then, yes, one should be able to exclude whomever one likes for whatever reason one likes. OTOH, if one can be forced to serve everybody then that means everybody (including the proverbial KKK – or FOTF in this case) regardless of how distasteful their message. I would say that I would prefer to break with the former approach at this point rather than the latter because… freedom… there are exceptions to this discrimination though… race is clearly one… as is sex…? is religion?… sexual orientation…?… age?… sexual identity…? … politics?…school association…? immigrant status…? accent…? where is this line drawn?

          3. I say don’t draw a line.

            A modest proposal: I would support allowing business owners to discriminate against anyone they wish, as long as they prominently post a list of the group(s) they will not serve at every entrance to their business. If a black business owner wanted to refuse to serve whites he would be able to. If a Muslim business owner wanted to refuse to serve Jews and Christians he would be able to . But each would have to post a “We don’t serve _____” sign clearly and prominently on the doors to their businesses.

            I doubt very many business owners would engage in such discrimination. And even those that might be inclined to would think twice about it if they were required to publicly post a list of the people they hate on their front door.

            As for customers, everyone would have to decide for themselves what kind of bigots (if any) they were willing to do business with. I know I would not patronize any business that discriminated against anyone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs.

            For those businesses that did post a list, I think there are enough decent, fair-minded people in this country for the free market to take care of them.

            A radical idea? Yes. Extreme? Probably. Would it work? Who knows? There’s a chance it might lead to more open discussions about bigotry, possibly resulting in less hate and acrimony.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      “Hard to support the website lady and condemn this.”

      Not really. The website lady was being asked to create something she specifically rejected. Serving somebody from a standard menu is not a restriction on free speech.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        It was not serving someone from a standard menu. It was renting a private dining room to a group to use for one of their functions.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Hobby Lobby? How about abortions within the boundaries of the law at Bon Secours hospitals, or end of life decisions?

      1. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
        Ronnie Chappell

        People don’t have to work at Hobby Lobby and Planned Parenthood is pleased to provide legal abortions, eliminating the need force those who believe abortion is crime against humanity to perform them.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Uh yep. People can quit. ‘Cause you know the people at Hobby Lobby have enough money to vacation in Cabo, and women with sepsis can take a taxi to PP from the ER.

        2. NotOnTwitter Avatar
          NotOnTwitter

          Planned Parenthood? Shouldn’t it change its name to Planned Non-Parenthood? Wouldn’t that be in accordance with the Truth in Advertising laws? How about “Baby Killers of America”? Even more accurate.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Yes, by George! The concept of planning when to become a parent also includes the concept of planning when not to become a parent… that is why it is called birth control. You just figured that out, eh? The well-known Conservative intellect finally kicked in! Congratulations!!

        3. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          People don’t have to have hobbies or abortions. But they do.

    4. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      When in the course of commercial business, serve all or serve none. O/wise, withdraw from commerce.

  4. DJRippert Avatar

    Oddly enough, this would be illegal in deep blue Washington, DC. That city has a law that prohibits refusal of service based on political beliefs.

    Virginia should have the same law.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I think it demonstrates the need for clarity in the law to be sure. One way or the other please.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I have to agree.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    So, some black kids in Klan robes showed up at the lunch counter after all.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    So, some black kids in Klan robes showed up at the lunch counter after all.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    People have differing ideas of what “free speech” is (or not) and what free speech “rights” are (or not).

    And this particular SCOTUS has pretty much opened the door to reexamining prior decisions as well as overturning prior precedents even long standing ones.

    But not clear how they can get to a decision that will be self-consistent and not subject to more litigation.

  8. These people found a place to have their meeting and meal where they were welcomed. That is good.

    Now, I think they should remember this incident, spread the word to like-minded family and friends, and never again patronize the Metzger Bar and Butchery for any reason. I am not even a supporter of the Family Foundation, but after reading this story I will not be visiting the establishment.

    Oh, and the group should probably consider returning to the place that helped them out with last-minute reservations.

    1. NotOnTwitter Avatar
      NotOnTwitter

      Right on. I wouldn’t buy a single cup of coffee from these Christian-haters. Note: they probably hate Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as well.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Does the onwer not have opportunity to exercise his religious beliefs, or only the customer.

      Free market means public market and … well, this is one of those things that needs to be rendered unto Caesar.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        No, the owner of Snowflake Bar & Grill was not exercising any religious belief. They had not been asked to create anything special for the group. They did not create messaging with anti-LBTQ sloganeering on the food. As far as I know, the only way that the owners of Wokeville Tavern even knew the political beliefs of the group was to look them up on the internet.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          what if they wanted to have a religious cake they brought for dessert?

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            If they asked the restaurant to create the cake with a religious message I would agree that the restaurant could refuse.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            brought it with them for a celebration…with prayers…

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            setting up banners and such? Bring their own to set up?

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Restaurants have the right to refuse service to people who disrupt or make the staff feel uncomfortable or threatened. Witness Sarah Huckabee, at the Lexington restaurant.

          1. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Sara Huckabee sitting and enjoying a meal with her husband and family at a public restaurant was disruptive? Do you really believe that?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes.

          3. So, if I owned a restaurant I could refuse to serve Joe Biden and his family.

            Both he and his son make me feel uncomfortable and threatened, and his secret service entourage would be very disruptive to the other patrons.

            Same for Barack Obama and his family (less the son).

          4. So, if I owned a restaurant I could refuse to serve Joe Biden and his family.

            Both he and his son make me feel uncomfortable and threatened, and his secret service entourage would be very disruptive to the other patrons.

            Same for Barack Obama and his family (less the son).

          5. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I’m sorry to hear that.

          6. MagicKirin Avatar
            MagicKirin

            In the case of Sarah Huckabee the owner admitted it was strictly politics and no one felt threatened.

            This was pure religious discrimination from LGBT bigots

      2. Yes, he does, and I did not say he doesn’t.

  9. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Cook that steak bigot!
    (Hey, Lefties, you started this crap. This is where Civil Rights Laws swallow up society. But, if you can compel a Christian florist to make an arrangement honoring a gay wedding, how can a law firm refuse to file for the Nazi march permit? Maybe the farmer who supplies the meat to Metzger should stop supplying the meat. See where this ends? Maybe tolerance for disagreement is needed. Metzger only hurts itself here)

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Walt – supporter of “We don’t serve your kind here” signs… everywhere…

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I think Walter would probably be in favor of “we don’t serve your kind” across the board.

        I can see that being a real winner for companies like WalMart and McDonalds…

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Seriously Larry. You are now a useful idiot (in the historical use of the term) and a slanderer. The hypocrisy of forcing a florist or baker or web designer to do something (sound like slavery?) but then cheering a Metzger was the point. This leads to societal breakdown everywhere…but that’s kinda the problem with tyranny, isn’t it?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            societal breakdown? geeze.. you sound like JAB!

            So Walmart not allowed to do that but florists are if they are not a chain?

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Walmart would give the affected employee an alternative assignment as a reasonable accommodation. But you intolerant Leftists approach individuals ON PURPOSE to compel them to do something abhorrent to them, because you yourselves are hate-filled, horrible, intolerant people.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Since you are so brilliant, explain how you arrived at that slander. The “we don’t serve your kind here” was Metzger. Funny whose ox is being gored. Which brings us back to tolerance. You tyrannical jerks are the problem. Which is the problem with all governmental power. It can be tyrannical. See everything SlowJoe’s “justice” department is doing.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Can’t imagine where I would pick that message up in your comment…🤷‍♂️…

          “Lefties, you started this crap. This is where Civil Rights Laws swallow up society…”

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “On Wednesday evening, an hour and a half before a reserved Family Foundation gathering in a private room, Metzger Bar and Butchery denied entry and service to the pro-family group, solely based on their political opinions and religious beliefs.”

    Their who religious beliefs? Both, perhaps?

    Maybe they can hire a web designer?

  11. NotOnTwitter Avatar
    NotOnTwitter

    Christian haters rule this restaurant. The owner, who obviously is in league with the staff, should just hang a sign outside “Christians Not Welcome in this Restaurant”. And don’t expect Biden’s corrupt, tyrannical Justice Department to shut this down. They probably hate Christians as much as the restaurant owner does. Under the corrupt and evil Biden Administration, Christian hating is the one form of discrimination that’s permitted in America.

  12. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The menu at this fine restaurant offers items that look more like art than something decent to eat. Moderately priced though. I might give it a try and sing “Oh How I Love Jesus” for fun. I do like schnitzel.

  13. MagicKirin Avatar
    MagicKirin

    Metgers’s owner are bigots.

    you can’t refuse service based on race or religion

    1. Tuxedocat Avatar

      Nope. They are doing exactly what that group refused stump for. If you are upset by what happened, tough 💩. All you are saying is religious freedom and freedom of speech are just excuses for wanting special privileges over others.

Leave a Reply