Last year about this time Tory went across the street from the LMT here in Clearwater to eat at Daniela's Kitchen. Daniela's seems to be run by Scientologists. When they seemed to realize who Tory was, they said they wouldn't serve her (Tory, please correct any errors I may make here). Tory said she'd call the cops if they didn't, so they did. This was a Friday.

The next Monday, Mark and I decided we'd see if Daniela's would serve us. Besides, we'd eaten there once before and enjoyed the food, plus it's just across the street and handy. The place was a little busy as we stood in line to order. One woman (Daniela?) came out from behind the back and said something like "gentlemen, we have a table in back for you." I thought that was a strange thing to say but couldn't tell if she was talking to us or someone else in line, so I just didn't think much else about it. We got our food and sat down (not in the back) and enjoyed a tasty meal with no problems. As we left, a guy stood up and opened the door for us. He said something like "we didn't realize who you guys were. We don't serve anyone who works with that bigot Bob Minton, so you're no longer welcome here." We asked who he was but he just went back inside. I assumed, though, that since he said "we" that he must be a co-owner.

Well, Mark, Tory and I were a bit puzzled by this. Is it possible that such discrimination is allowed? Can a cafe decide not to serve a certain segment of the population, like against the blacks in the '50's and 60's? Could they put up a window sign "no critics of Scientology served here"? Also this came after the owner of the One Stoppe Shoppe allegedly refused to serve some critics as well. So maybe in Clearwater it's ok to do this?

We decided that the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights was the place to find out if we had any legitimate grievance. Tory, Mark and I filed complaints and waited for a decision, assuming it would take a few weeks. Well, today, almost a year later, I got a letter from the Office of Human Rights. Now ealier they had called Mark and I in for a final interview, so I knew from that that they were trying to figure out if we were part of any protected group for the laws that they try to enforce. We weren't being discriminated against because of our national origin, our sex, or our religion (unless you call our antipathy of Scientology a religious belief), so they seemed to be hung up on whether the discrimination laws could be applied to this case. The letter, dated August 27, gives the answer: ..."after consideration of all available information from the investigation of the above-referenced charge, filed under Chapter 70 of the Pinellas Code, it has been determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful act of religious discrimination has occurred as alleged."

I must point out that we were not claiming religious discrimination. We were claiming discrimination because of our beliefs and association. Now we know sadly that the Pinellas Office of Human Rights cannot or will not protect us against such discrimination. Apparently, such discrimination is allowable in Clearwater at least.

So it looks like all Scientologist owned businesses downtown can put up "critics of Scientology not served here" signs. Maybe the city will join in and make us sit in the back of the bus.


---
When a Scientology staffer used a syringe to force a mixture of aspirin, Benadryl and orange juice into McPherson's throat while others held her down, it was "spiritual sustenance," the church argues.

Go Back