[Vision2020] Protest at Archies on the Square

[Chasuk]

JeanC wrote (of Archie's on the Square):

"... a family with a disabled daughter were asked to leave as her
presence was bad for business."

Of course, she was reporting this story at one remove; a friend
conveyed this information to her, and now it is a matter of public
discussion on Vision2020.

I talked to Jim Johnson today.  He and his wife ("Archie"), are the
proprietors of Archie's on the Square.  I don't get free meals at
Archie's.  I'm not any more enamored of the meals served there than I
am of meals served at any other dining establishment in Moscow.  In
short, I'm as impartial as it is possible to be while still feeling
sufficiently motivated to conduct my own investigation.

Mr. Johnson's version of events are quite different than those that
JeanC provides us.  Mr. Johnson was chatting with a table of senior
citizens, apologizing for lukewarm coffee.  A young man (possibly in
his early-to-mid-twenties) interposed himself between Mr. Johnson and
the senior citizens.  This young man (let's call him David) was
mentally handicapped, but this was not obvious to Mr. Johnson.  For
all appearances, David was a young drug abuser.  Mr. Johnson invited
David to sit at a nearby table until he had finished business with the
senior citizens.  David continued his disruptions, and his companion
-- now known to be his handler -- did nothing to intervene.

Eventually, Mr. Johnson gave up and went back to the kitchen.  Neither
David nor his handler were asked to leave.

It was not until David's handler later phoned to complain (of Mr.
Johnson's apparently insensitive behavior) that Mr. Johnson learned
that David was mentally handicapped.  The handler threatened to write
a letter to the editor.  Mr. Johnson suggested that he write two, the
second to be inserted up the handler's ass.

Mr. Johnson reports that they have never had such a busy Sunday, and
that those aware of the situation are sympathetic to his side.  He
further requests that the protesters return on Mon/Tue/Wed nights, as
it might again improve his business.

So, now we have not a little girl and her family cruelly evicted by
the heartless proprietors of a local restaurant, but instead the paid
companion of the mentally handicapped not doing his job.

Or maybe we just have a misunderstanding that could have been
rectified if anyone had bothered to do five minutes of research?