A vaccinated couple was kicked out of a Texas bar for wearing masks, which was against the rules.
A Texas couple with an immunocompromised child was asked to leave a bar because they were wearing face masks, which was against the bar’s “no masks permitted” policy.
Natalie Wester and her husband met up with friends at Hang Time, a pub in Rowlett, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. They are completely vaccinated, but Wester stated in an interview with This website that they opt to wear face masks when they go out to safeguard their 4-month-old baby, who has cystic fibrosis.
When they arrived at the restaurant, the hostess requested that they remove their masks so that they could check their identification, which they did. According to Wester, she believed that this would be the end of the matter.
However, around 30 minutes later, when the party had already placed their food and drink orders, a server asked them to remove their masks, stating that the policy is “political.”
“Our waitress walked over, sat next to me, and said, ‘Our boss sent me over here because he isn’t as polite as I am, and this is a political matter, but you need to remove your masks,’” she explained.
Wester stated to the server that her child’s doctor recommended that they wear masks in public, but the waitress could only offer to cancel the tab, so the group paid and left.
She characterized the situation as “frustrating,” adding that she has never been in a place where wearing a mask is not an option.
“It makes no sense,” she stated emphatically.
To KTVT, a local television news station, Tom, the owner of Hang Time, justified the policy, claiming that the bar is a private business and that he has the right to refuse service to those wearing masks.
He told the news station, “I have put my money, my blood, sweat, and tears in this business, and I don’t want masks in here.” “I think the entire reaction to masks in the United States right now is ridiculous.”
He claimed that when the pair put on their mask and were told they needed to remove it, they refused and were asked to leave. He claimed he was ignorant that their son was immunocompromised, but vowed to uphold the regulation.
There are no indications that this is the case. This is a condensed version of the information.