Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[TuxAme]

And what, exactly, does "morally offensive" mean? If I found tattoos to be undesirable, could I deny service to people with tattoos under the guise of "I find what you did to your body morally offensive"? Is moral offense anything I want it to be?

 

[Tutorman]

Interesting how the LGBT expect service everywhere and are fully supported by the Libs yet this behaviour against Cons is ok with them.... hypocrites.

Exactly

 

[TuxAme]

I find that some people only want it to be OK to discriminate against the people that they don't like. They don't care who you don't like (or merely disagree with), you have to do business with them, and are strongly encouraged to refuse your service or products to the people they don't like.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. There's some Bible wisdom for you, and I do not mean this in the least bit threatening. But what I do mean is that liberals really do not understand that they are pushing much too far. The whirlwind will be political, but it will be massive.

I'm not offended or even angry. I'm discouraged by this and even sad. We're teetering on the precipice of a place most of us do not want to go. Lots of people either seem to not notice it or do not care.

So be it then. Maranatha.

FWIW, I don’t necessarily agree with the restaurateur’s actions, but the idea that the libs are the ones starting this divisiveness is laughable. I’ve been hearing anti-lib vitriol since I was kid. Many on the right have for decades espoused ideas that are ridiculous and downright horrible. Most people, however, weren’t really aware of them or at least of their implications. That’s changing, and folks are starting to expect better - just at the time that the right is letting the malicious crazies take over.

Fortunately, the demographics are shifting and folks are moving away from conservatism, even if it’s more slowly than I prefer.

 

[ubicaritas]

I find that some people only want it to be OK to discriminate against the people that they don't like. They don't care who you don't like (or merely disagree with), you have to do business with them, and are strongly encouraged to refuse your service or products to the people they don't like.

Whatever happened to Christians being kind to their enemies? Has that gone out of fashion?

 

[miamited]

I'm not offended or even angry. I'm discouraged by this and even sad. We're teetering on the precipice of a place most of us do not want to go. Lots of people either seem to not notice it or do not care.

So be it then. Maranatha.

Hi liza,

I agree with you that our entire nation seems to be teetering on the precipice of a place that most of us do not want to see us go. Political division where our grand and glorious leader won't even cotton to sit down with the representatives of the other side of the aisle. He has pretty much shut every Democrat out of even working towards laws with any kind of 'team effort' skills. He encourages a lot of this political pettiness in the way that he only allows himself to be surrounded, and to work with, people who agree with him. That's not how politics is done. We have libertarians and republicans and democrats that have all taken on the responsibility of working within the structure of our government to hammer out laws and policies, but our present glorious leader has just shut all of that down. He has even bragged that he enjoys the kind of atmosphere where everyone is fighting against everyone else.

President Obama at least let everyone sit down and work on the issues together before any decisions were finalized and that's as it should be in our structure of government. President Trump doesn't understand that about the mechanics of our governance and so has created a lot of this 'us vs. them' political divisiveness. He should do just as President Obama and the many presidents before him handled governance. He gets to tell the legislature what he'd like to see done and then tell them to go out there and work together to do it. If it ends up like he wanted it to be, then great. If not, then he just has to accept that. Trust me, if you go through the history of our governance, you'll see that there have been ample examples of laws and policies made through our legislature that don't particularly sit well with the president, but it's not the president's job to make all the laws and policies. That is the legislatures responsibility in our representative form of government, but President Trump won't allow that to continue. Everything has to be his way or the highway and there is no room for discussion or debate on the issues. It just has to be his way and if he can't get the legislature to do it his way, then he'll do it through executive decision.

I'm sorry and I know there will be plenty of people in disagreement, but this issue of 'us vs. them' has just gotten progressively and quickly bigger since President Trump was elected and as the leader of our nation, I hold him responsible for that and can see how his method of rule has led to that. He honestly wants to run the country like his TV program. You either do it my way or you're fired!!

That's one of the issues that I think a lot of people have against President Trump. He is actively trying to change how our government operates as a representative democracy. He's been to several nation meetings and every time he comes back, if the nation he went to visit has a somewhat democratic form of governance he's had nothing good to say about that nation and its leaders. But, if the nation is some communistic styled government then he heaps all sorts of praise on how those leaders get to say that such and such is the way things will be done and that's how they're done.

Unfortunately, that kind of governance, many in America feel, is going to lead to exactly what we didn't want the U.S. to become. A monarchy with some demagogue as its leader and maker of all laws and policies. His idea of making America great again is really not making America great 'again', but changing our entire form of governance to make America the kind of place that he, and his Trumpites, think it should be. All other positions and ideas are not welcome.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ubicaritas]

Hi liza,

I agree with you that our entire nation seems to be teetering on the precipice of a place that most of us do not want to see us go. Political division where our grand and glorious leader won't even cotton to sit down with the representatives of the other side of the aisle. He has pretty much shut every Democrat out of even working towards laws with any kind of 'team effort' skills. He encourages a lot of this political pettiness in the way that he only allows himself to be surrounded, and to work with, people who agree with him. That's not how politics is done. We have libertarians and republicans and democrats that have all taken on the responsibility of working within the structure of our government to hammer out laws and policies, but our present glorious leader has just shut all of that down. He has even bragged that he enjoys the kind of atmosphere where everyone is fighting against everyone else.

President Obama at least let everyone sit down and work on the issues together before any decisions were finalized and that's as it should be in our structure of government. President Trump doesn't understand that about the mechanics of our governance and so has created a lot of this 'us vs. them' political divisiveness. He should do just as President Obama and the many presidents before him handled governance. He get to tell the legislature what he'd like to see done and then tell them to go out there and work together to do it. If it ends up like he wanted it to be, then great. If not, then he just has to accept that. Trust me, if you go through the history of our governance, you'll see that there have been ample examples of laws and policies made through our legislature that don't particularly sit well with the president, but it's not the president's job to make all the laws and policies. That is the legislatures responsibility in our representative form of government, but President Trump won't allow that to continue. Everything has to be his way or the highway and there is no room for discussion or debate on the issues. It just has to be his way and if he can't get the legislature to do it his way, then he'll do it through executive decision.

I'm sorry and I know there will be plenty of people in disagreement, but this issue of 'us vs. them' has just gotten progressively and quickly bigger since President Trump was elected and as the leader of our nation, I hold him responsible for that and can see how his method of rule has led to that. He honestly wants to run the country like his TV program. You either do it my way or you're fired!!

That's one of the issues that I think a lot of people have against President Trump. He is actively trying to change how our government operates as a representative democracy. He's been to several nation meetings and every time he comes back, if the nation he went to visit has a somewhat democratic form of governance he's had nothing good to say about that nation and its leaders. But, if the nation is some communistic styled government then he heaps all sorts of praise on how those leaders get to say that such and such is the way things will be done and that's how they're done.

Unfortunately, that kind of governance, many in America feel, is going to lead to exactly what we didn't want the U.S. to become. A monarchy with some demagogue as its leader and maker of all laws and policies. His idea of making America great again is really not making America great 'again', but changing our entire form of governance to make America the kind of place that he, and his Trumpites, think it should be. All other positions and ideas are not welcome.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

The divisions of the Civil War never really went away, they just have run cold. It's not surprising you look at modern political maps and they tend to look very similar to the political divisions of 1861.

 

[miamited]

Hi again liza,

And there's a real problem with the kind of governance that President Trump would like to see in our nation. The biggest being, ok, what happens when the next guy takes the reigns and want's everything done differently. We'll very quickly become a nation that can't be counted on to keep our commitments beyond the term of the sitting president.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[TuxAme]

FWIW, I don’t necessarily agree with the restaurateur’s actions, but the idea that the libs are the ones starting this divisiveness is laughable. I’ve been hearing anti-lib vitriol since I was kid. Many on the right have for decades espoused ideas that are ridiculous and downright horrible. Most people, however, weren’t really aware of them or at least of their implications. That’s changing, and folks are starting to expect better - just at the time that the right is letting the malicious crazies take over.

Fortunately, the demographics are shifting and folks are moving away from conservatism, even if it’s more slowly than I prefer.

Here's the thing: even with President "Literally Hitler" Trump, these attitudes you discuss aren't mainstream in conservatism. If you're looking for what mainstream conservatism is, I would point to congressmen like Ted Cruz, comedians like Steven Crowder, or political commentators like Ben Shapiro.

On the contrary, who does the left point to as being "mainstream liberals"? I'll leave it for you to answer. I will comment on the values, however, that I perceive to be mainstream. Supporting the suppression of opposing views on college campuses seems rather mainstream (the constant protests against Ben Shapiro come to mind). I've even seen support for the violent "protests" in reaction to officer-involved shootings- justified or otherwise. You know, the ones where businesses and individuals who had nothing to do with the event are firebombed or robbed, respectively. Then there's the obvious one- the bakers, florists and photographers who are sued and publicly maligned when they refuse to violate their consciences by participating in an event they disagree with.

If people are moving away from conservatism to embrace this, we should all be very worried.

 

[TuxAme]

Whatever happened to Christians being kind to their enemies? Has that gone out of fashion?

Maybe we have a different idea of what it means to be kind, because I don't buy into the idea that you have to be accepting of and participate in events you find morally objectionable in order to be kind. In fact, I find it very unkind to try and force such participation from someone.

 

[miamited]

The divisions of the Civil War never really went away, they just have run cold. It's not surprising you look at modern political maps and they tend to look very similar to the political divisions of 1861.

Hi ubicaritas,

There may be some small grain of truth to that, but the actual history of our country wouldn't support it. There have been times that our various party elected officials have worked well together to keep our nation up and running without all the 'us vs. them' mentality. That's how we're supposed to work.

Some legislator creates a bill and brings it up on the floor. That bill gets debated fairly between all members and groups of members. Then a vote is called and a decision is made. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but it's how our government has always operated. If you look into the history of our nation you'll see that even that method was used to first establish our nationhood. Not everyone in the government wanted to fight the British for freedom from their rule. But the issue was fairly debated and then a vote was cast and a decision was set.

I don't really agree that we've had this 'us vs. them' mentality, as we seem to have today, since the days of the civil war in our governance. Now, yes, maybe among the people there has long been this undertow of division that the south should have won or the north should have won. Maybe even among the people there has been a similar undertow of division between republicans and democrats and libertarians. But, I don't really see that it has been such a big deal until the ACA came about. That, to me, was the defining moment that started it all and President Trump has done his best to encourage that way of thinking among our legislative bodies.

In going back and rereading your post, perhaps a misjudged what you were saying. Yes, such pure divisiveness may have gone cold for 200 years and now has been awakened, but was always there to some degree.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ubicaritas]

Hi ubicaritas,

There may be some small grain of truth to that, but the actual history of our country wouldn't support it. There have been times that our various party elected officials have worked well together to keep our nation up and running without all the 'us vs. them' mentality. That's how we're supposed to work.

Some legislator creates a bill and brings it up on the floor. That bill gets debated fairly between all members and groups of members. Then a vote is called and a decision is made. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but it's how our government has always operated. If you look into the history of our nation you'll see that even that method was used to first establish our nationhood. Not everyone in the government wanted to fight the British for freedom from their rule. But the issue was fairly debated and then a vote was cast and a decision was set.

I don't really agree that we've had this 'us vs. them' mentality, as we seem to have today, since the days of the civil war in our governance. Now, yes, maybe among the people there has long been this undertow of division that the south should have won or the north should have won. Maybe even among the people there has been a similar undertow of division between republicans and democrats and libertarians. But, I don't really see that it has been such a big deal until the ACA came about. That, to me, was the defining moment that started it all and President Trump has done his best to encourage that way of thinking among our legislative bodies.

In going back and rereading your post, perhaps a misjudged what you were saying. Yes, such pure divisiveness may have gone cold for 200 years and now has been awakened, but was always there to some degree.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Do you think it is more accurate to say that Trump has reopened an old wound?

 

[ubicaritas]

Maybe we have a different idea of what it means to be kind, because I don't buy into the idea that you have to be accepting of and participate in events you find morally objectionable in order to be kind. In fact, I find it very unkind to try and force such participation from someone.

Disinterested service is morally objectionable? That doesn't sound right. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, why should I be any different.

 

[SilverBear]

What does denying someone service- for any reason- do for you? Let's start with that, because it seems to me that both a baker who doesn't want to cater an event they disagree with, and someone who doesn't want to serve a member of the Trump administration, are seeking to avoid doing business with someone (or an event) they disagree with. What makes the one OK, and the other, not?

that is pretty much what i was asking you. Do you think that denying service to individuals based on morally offensive behavior is wrong?

 

[SilverBear]

I find that some people only want it to be OK to discriminate against the people that they don't like. They don't care who you don't like (or merely disagree with), you have to do business with them, and are strongly encouraged to refuse your service or products to the people they don't like.

you just broke the irony meter.

 

[Snappy1]

I love all the "But wut about de geyz and ther cakes?!?!!1?!" posts. It's a wonderful demonstration of the fact that none of these people understood the basics of that issue in the first place.

 

[variant]

Interesting how the LGBT expect service everywhere and are fully supported by the Libs yet this behaviour against Cons is ok with them.... hypocrites.

The Supreme Court struck down those rules at the conservatives behest.

So is it only OK to deny service for religious reasons now?

Or, will any kind of hatred do?

 

[brinny]

Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

Boycott the restaurant and the owners: Stephanie Wilkinson and John Blackburn. Ms. Wilkinson is the owner that ordered an employee (Jaike Foley-Schultz ) to:

'86 — Sara Huckabee Sanders'.

It means to "throw out. The employee said he had just started serving Sarah and her 7 family members when the owner, Stephanie Wilkinson told him to "86" Sarah Sanders and all 7 of her family members. Sarah had apparently pre-booked this reservation.

Link --> Sarah Sanders 'gets kicked out of a Virginia restaurant' | Daily Mail Online

 

[TuxAme]

Disinterested service is morally objectionable? That doesn't sound right. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, why should I be any different.

Talk about twisting Scripture. Because we're called to co-habitate with non-believers in peace, you believe that we must also participate in the immoral events that others try to drag us down into? Or that it gives you or someone else the right to force the participation of others?

 

[TuxAme]

you just broke the irony meter.

Explain.