The Restaurant owner (who bought the property while a Confederate group owned the flagpole, and was flying the Confederate flag) is a moron.
A retarded moron. A full-blown retarded moron.
If what the restaurant owner is saying is true, and folks do not want to eat at the restaurant because of the flag... Then no one is going to win.
The restaurant owner will get what he gets for being a moron who did not know the Confederate group owned the flagpole when he bought the property... The restaurant owner will lose.
And Confederate sympathizers cannot see a run-down, closed-down, weed-filled parking lot as a goal for their victory. They should *want* people to see the flag and read the monument. Not see a closed-down business, with no business owner who wants to be associated with the Confederate flag. If that is their ultimate goal, they are just as much morons as the restaurant owner.
This is a no-win situation if there is one, if what the restaurant owner is saying is true.
Maybe business is booming, and the restaurant owner just does not want to admit it...
To be clear, it is *good* to see property rights upheld. And I think the biggest moron in this scenario is the restaurant owner who bought the property knowing it was flying the confederate flag, and not knowing who owned the flagpole...
But this can potentially be a lose-lose situation for both parties in the end... Confederate sympathizers cannot possibly see a shut-down business, and dilapidated parking lot as an honor to their flag and monument... But maybe business is booming, and the restaurant owner is lying.