When a group of teens was kicked out of an American cafe for being rude, they saw the opportunity to make big bucks by suing the business for discrimination, claiming they were removed from the establishment due to their religion. However, once the owners discovered their sadistic plan, they came up with a brilliantly nasty surprise for their accusers.
Because Muslims commit such mass persecution, discrimination, and terror, they often inflate inconveniences or even falsify reports to portray themselves as the victims of hate crimes. While the mainstream media always latch onto these stories, they’re strangely silent once the claim turns out to be yet another hate crime hoax. Disturbingly, even a shred of evidence suggesting that Muslims were unnecessarily offended could result in harsh criminal charges. Unfortunately for a group of teen Muslims, they chose the wrong business owners to sue for Islamophobia.
In 2016, a group of young Muslim women secured an enviable patio table at the popular Urth Caffe in Laguna Beach. While sipping their drinks, the girls rudely dismissed the restaurant’s policy that diners using a patio table for over 45 minutes must vacate or share their table with other patrons. After staff politely told the Muslims that they must leave since they refuse to share their seating, the police had to escort the women off the premises.
Of course, the Muslims expected that they could merely claim that they had just sat down when the restaurant forced them to leave because of their religion, as it was presumably the word of a privileged minority against American business owners. With the media and political left immediately on their side, the Muslims believed they had the perfect lawsuit cut out for them. What they never expected was that not only is one of the business owners a Muslim herself, but they are now suing the accusers for defamation and have filed a motion for the court to release the names of the cowardly teens so that they can be held accountable for spreading a hate crime hoax.
WND reports that the 7 Muslim accusers who were allowed to conceal their identities in the discrimination lawsuit have been outed after lying about fears for their safety by enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in television interviews and heated rants on social media. The last of the hate crime hoaxers have been identified as Sara Khalil Farsakh, Soondus Ahmed, Rawan Hamdan, Sara Chamma, Yumna Hameed, Safa Rawag, and Marwa Raga, all of whom claimed that they would face a backlash if the public knew their names.
In a refusal to back down, the restaurant responded to the girls’ false allegations of discrimination by counter-suing them, claiming that the Muslim women were engaging in Sharia “lawfare.” Several details of which the teens never accounted are that Jilla Berkman, the co-owner, is a Muslim woman and that a large percentage of their customers are Muslim.
The American Freedom Law Center has taken the case and expects a big win for Urth Caffe. In their lawsuit, they have outlined 3 key details proving that the teens are not only guilty of a frivolous lawsuit but also of aggressive behavior and trespassing on private property.
“This lawsuit is nothing short of an abuse of process,” David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, said. “Several key facts demonstrate the contrived and abusive nature of the women’s claims. First, one of two owners who manage the Urth Caffe is herself a Muslim woman. Jilla Berkman, a co-owner of the Urth Caffe with her husband, was the one who actually authorized the call to the police after the women now claiming victim-status were loud and abusive to the Urth Caffe employees and refused to give up their table per the stated policy. Second, the lead plaintiff in the frivolous lawsuit is Sara Farsakh, a college-age activist for Palestinian causes who self-promotes her involvement in radical organizations, at least one of which calls for the destruction of Israel. Third, the organization behind the scenes organizing this fraudulent lawsuit is CAIR, or the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations.”
Additionally, the complainants alleged that they require anonymity for fear of their safety but had no problem exposing their identities on the internet. In fact, the only individuals who received any backlash were the employees of Urth Caffe.
“It is an odd, if not untenable position, to claim a fear of public exposure while exploiting public exposure to generate a social media firestorm by accusing defendants of being bigots and engaging in illegal discrimination,” explained the filing, which was posted online. “Indeed … only Urth Caffe employees have been the subject of direct criminal threats, which necessitated the filnig of a criminal report by Urth Caffe management with the FBI and local police and employing armed security to escort employees to their automobiles at night,” said the legal filing in Superior Court in Orange County, California.
To disprove their claims that they would face a backlash if their names were revealed, Yerushalmi pointed to the fact that there’s no instance in which Muslims were harmed for filing a discrimination lawsuit. In fact, it is typically non-Muslims who are at risk of violence and threats when battling Muslims in court.
“In this case, the plaintiffs not only refused to provide their names for the public record but also refused to provide their names to the defendant Urth Caffe pursuant to a protective order that would have kept the names out of the public domain,” the brief said. “However, they could point to no instance of a single threat to their safety nor could they point to a single instance where Muslims had sued for discrimination, and there are plenty of high-profile cases to choose from, where a single Muslim was put in harm’s way as a result of the filing of a lawsuit for discrimination in his or her own name.”
Like millions of so-called moderate Muslims in the U.S., these teens are attempting to use our justice system in order to establish Sharia law, namely blasphemy legislation. In Islam, criticizing Muslims is “worse than murder,” and those guilty of such an offense are to be put to death. Hate crime hoaxes reported by Muslims not only serve to silence the critics of Islam but to pressure our government to outlaw dissent. Islam could never stand as a legitimate religion if it did not invoke the death penalty for both criticisms of its fundamentals and apostasy.