Similarly treif, as so deemed by its owners, was a Palestinian pin worn by one of its servers. Which judgment initiated a series of events that recently placed the Fells Point eatery in the news.

According to a social media post by the restaurant, a customer complained about a staff member wearing a “Pro-Palestine” pin on their uniform. The customer claimed it was disturbing their dining experience.

When asked to remove the pin, the employee complied and continued working. But a week later, another employee, wearing a similar pin, when asked to do the same, refused.

That employee, according to the restaurant, then quit.

The incident prodded the restaurant to meet with a group of employees in order to institute elements of a dress code.

After the meeting, Bunny’s announced on social media that, since it wants to promote an inclusive workplace, it won’t be allowing “political, religious, or divisive” attire or buttons at work.

A group of outraged employees then organized a protest outside the restaurant for what they contended was the firing of the employee who the restaurant said had resigned.

One of the protesters, Sydney Browne, said that she herself was fired the next day, as, she contended further, were some—although not all—of the other protesters.

That a food establishment has a right to maintain a dress code is incontestable. And if a customer registered chagrin over a display of a symbol, a restaurant is within its rights, indeed is responsible, to do whatever it feels is necessary to avoid any future such irritation.

The issue of firing workers because of their protesting outside of work hours and out of any uniform is somewhat more complicated. Terminating employees for simply protesting their working conditions is illegal, but that has to be proven as the reason for termination. An employer does have the right to terminate an employee for causing a disruption of the business.

Last spring, for instance, Google terminated 50 employees for conducting a pro-Palestinian sit-in. Some of the terminated employees filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. But Google’s CEO countered by stating that the employees were fired for having disrupted coworkers and for creating an unsafe work environment.

That Bunny’s fired only some of the protesters raises the suspicion that those dismissed had gone beyond simple protesting. Should any of those whose employment was terminated take legal steps against the restaurant, that issue will be central.

The response to the Bunny’s brouhaha has been, as one might expect, mixed. Several people announced on social media that they would be boycotting the establishment (let ‘em eat pizza). One comment, in reviews of the restaurant, huffed: “Food was not good. It is seasoned with hate towards Palestine.”

But comments on the website of the local CBS affilate, WJZ-TV, were strongly positive toward the restaurant. Several who posted there said they had never dined at the establishment but planned to become patrons, as a show of support for its owners.

Lost in the legalities, laudings and laments, though, is the fact of just what a “pro-Palestinian” pin means in the context of the nonce. At a more quiescent political time, it could have simply telegraphed the desire for a “two-state solution,” something that seemed, even to many supporters of Israel, to be a worthwhile goal to pursue.

Today, however, a Venn diagram showing supporters of a Palestinian state and celebrants of Hamas savagery would show a considerable overlap of circles.

Sometimes, as in our times, a symbol morphs in meaning. In ancient India, what we call a swastika was considered a sign of good fortune. Today, well, as a poet once put it, things have changed.

And, leaving labor laws and two-state advocacy aside, the message sent by any “pro-Palestinian” pin these days is the chilling chant “from the river to the sea,” which is indisputably about making the Holy Land, as the previous century’s adopters of the swastika might have put it, Judenrein.

This article first appeared in AMI Magazine