Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Liza B.]

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?

Absolutely not. None of the Christian bakers--make that none--would "refuse to do business" with gay people. It's the weddings they have a problem with. They would make them any other product. But ironically, for Sarah Sanders, she was turned down for ALL services expressly because of who she is. Just exactly what liberals have been projecting on Christians this entire time.

 

[SummerMadness]

I do not think she should be denied service, but it's funny to seek the supporters of denying the LGBT service are not happy about this. It's hilarious. Wheels keep a-turning...

 

[Snappy1]

Absolutely not. None of the Christian bakers--make that none--would "refuse to do business" with gay people. It's the weddings they have a problem with. They would make them any other product. But ironically, for Sarah Sanders, she was turned down for ALL services expressly because of who she is. Just exactly what liberals have been projecting on Christians this entire time.

Oh what a freaking load.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They would not feed this woman nor her family because of her political views. She didn't ask The Red Hen to cater a Trump event. Just to feed her and her family, and the owner refused. For the record, were it me as a born-again Christian, I would never refuse a gay couple dinner if I owned a restaurant. Or Democrats.

But that's where we are now, and most of you are defending this. Let's see where this goes, then.

“Feed”? Don’t make it sound like this was some charity operation where she was left to starve.

Absolutely not. None of the Christian bakers--make that none--would "refuse to do business" with gay people. It's the weddings they have a problem with. They would make them any other product. But ironically, for Sarah Sanders, she was turned down for ALL services expressly because of who she is. Just exactly what liberals have been projecting on Christians this entire time.

No, it was because of who she works for and what she does in her job every day. Do you really not understand the difference?

 

[ubicaritas]

You're applying a double standard. Hard-line anti-immigration policies, harsh policing policies, big cuts to the social net, acquiescence to bigots (under the banner of state's or individual rights), and a general attitude of "I got mine" are central to conservative ideology. On top of that, Trump's high approval ratings withing the Republican party suggest that he's a lot more mainstream than you seem to think. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with Ben Shapiro, but given the titles of his first two books, if he's what passes for mainstream, that doesn't make conservatives look too good. And given their popularity, it's to hard argue that other, more poisonous figures like Hannity and Coulter aren't representative of the mainstream.

OTOH, "literally Hitler" and the supporting of cop killings and firebombing of businesses are decidedly not mainstream among the left.

I'm no fan of conservativism but the angry tribalist response hasn't exactly disuaded conservatives or caused them to "see the light". Don't get me wrong, I only have so many olive branches to hand out, I just resent the idea that I'm supposed to go to war with my own family members because they support a regime that backs horrible social policies. I figure the best I can do is just to pray and live my life the best I can, for my own sake, and not to stoop to the vulgarity and barbarism of Trump.

 

[miamited]

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

Hi ubicaritas,

Well, I'm not sure I'd describe the current situation like that. Surely the division part is much similar. During the civil war our nation was definitely divided by strong feelings and convictions on both sides. I didn't actually live through those days so I can't honestly say that the malaise of the nation was the same. But yes, the feeling of deep division on a national level is certainly much similar.

I guess, much like you say that the fierce and deep division of the civil war has grown cold, I don't see the current issue as 'reopening an old wound'. But I can see how, for someone who is likely much more familiar with the national angst of the civil war days than I am, how today's political divisiveness could be likened to those days.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[HereIStand]

I do not think she should be denied service, but it's funnny to seek the supporters of denying the LGBT service are not happy about this. It's hilarious. Wheels keep a-turning...

Really, it's not that funny. The difference between the two has been delineated by more than one poster.

 

[Liza B.]

I do not think she should be denied service, but it's funny to seek the supporters of denying the LGBT service are not happy about this. It's hilarious. Wheels keep a-turning...

They were denied service because the baker did not want to participate in a gay wedding. If Sarah Sanders came into the Red Hen and asked the owner to cater a TRUMP EVENT, fair enough, the owner should be able to refuse.

But she didn't. She simply wanted a meal. The owner still refused.

Surely you can see the difference.

 

[Liza B.]

“Feed”? Don’t make it sound like this was some charity operation where she was left to starve.



No, it was because of who she works for and what she does in her job every day. Do you really not understand the difference?

Oh, the owner had an actual religious objection to that, that she could not feed her a meal? And her children, presumably?

 

[Liza B.]

I think this mentality of punish the whole family seems to be a thing of the left as well. This wasn't Sarah Sanders on her own, but with her family as well. And the left would to more to adhere to the premise of not punishing everyone in a family just like Trump is doing.

And Seth Rogan would not take a picture with Paul Ryan's kids, and bragged about it on TV. Because they are Paul Ryan's kids.

So again, here we are, folks. I mean for comparison, imagine the Obama daughters, if they wanted one, being refused a picture with Clint Eastwood. Everyone would have gone berserk. But the other way? Meh.

Except the "meh" is not so meh anymore. Not on the side of conservatives. Trust me.

 

[Liza B.]

I haven't heard of anyone kicking out a gay person from restaurant. People not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is different from asking someone to leave a restaurant based on her political affiliation.

I doubt anyone ever has. Because if anyone had, we would have heard about it.

They don't realize it yet, but this is a very, very, very, very, very bad week for the liberals. VERY bad.

 

[ubicaritas]

I think its a deficiency of Americans Puritan past we can't unmask this moral preening for what it is, the Old Adam in drag, playing the self-righteous game that human beings always tend to do.

It's good from time to time to take a step back and just be an ordinary human being and not frame everything in moral categories.

 

[mama2one]

Seth Rogan would not take a picture with Paul Ryan's kids, Because they are Paul Ryan's kids. for comparison, imagine the Obama daughters, if they wanted one, being refused a picture with Clint Eastwood.

no comparison
Paul Ryan is not POTUS

 

[miamited]

Really, it's not that funny. The difference between the two has been delineated by more than one poster.

Hi HIS,

Personally, I can see where the restaurant owner has a more stable leg to stand on than the baker. In the civil rights laws we find that one cannot exclude for race, religion and sexual orientation. Political leanings seem to be exempt from the protections of these laws. The baker refused service because of the sexual orientation of the requesting couple and the idea of a same sex marriage which was abhorrent to his personal beliefs. The restaurant owner was refusing service because of the known nature of Ms. Sanders politics. Her faith and support of the U.S. President was what seemed to drive her ouster from the restaurant.

Now, depending on the restaurant owner's clientele base, he/she may suffer loss to the business because of this action, but I'm not sure that the action itself is not allowed by the owner of any business to refuse service to anyone they want, so long as it's not based on the restrictions of the civil rights laws. On the other hand, the restaurant owner may find themselves flush with business. All of the polling since President Trump took office would indicate that, overall, there are more people who would likely not want to have anything to do with him and his administration than there are those who would. It just seems that everyone who works in this administration, one of the big job qualifications, is that they have to be able to tell the lie with a straight face. To buy the spin, so to speak.

This all started with Sean Spicer who quickly gave up on a job that required daily spin doctoring of everything that the president did or said. Sarah Sanders just seems to be more tenacious in holding on to that position and seems to have mastery in the technique. Her demeanor seems to be largely one of a sour and distraught person who, while being good at her job, has inner turmoil even within herself of what she's asked to do on a daily basis. But, she has accepted the mantra of everyone who is successful in working with Donald Trump: Whatever he says is the truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Liza B.]

no comparison
Paul Ryan is not POTUS

What are you talking about? They're kids. It was okay to blow off Paul Ryan's kids because he's only Speaker of the House and not president? I don't understand

 

[HereIStand]

Hi HIS,

Personally, I can see where the restaurant owner has a more stable leg to stand on than the baker. In the civil rights laws we find that one cannot exclude for race, religion and sexual orientation. Political leanings seem to be exempt from the protections of these laws. The baker refused service because of the sexual orientation of the requesting couple and the idea of a same sex marriage which was abhorrent to his personal beliefs. The restaurant owner was refusing service because of the known nature of Ms. Sanders politics. Her faith and support of the U.S. President was what seemed to drive her ouster from the restaurant.

Now, depending on the restaurant owner's clientele base, he/she may suffer loss to the business because of this action, but I'm not sure that the action itself is not allowed by the owner of any business to refuse service to anyone they want, so long as it's not based on the restrictions of the civil rights laws. On the other hand, the restaurant owner may find themselves flush with business. All of the polling since President Trump took office would indicate that, overall, there are more people who would likely not want to have anything to do with him and his administration than there are those who would. It just seems that everyone who works in this administration, one of the big job qualifications, is that they have to be able to tell the lie with a straight face. To buy the spin, so to speak.

This all started with Sean Spicer who quickly gave up on a job that required daily spin doctoring of everything that the president did or said. Sarah Sanders just seems to be more tenacious in holding on to that position and seems to have mastery in the technique. Her demeanor seems to be largely one of a sour and distraught person who, while being good at her job, has inner turmoil even within herself of what she's asked to do on a daily basis. But, she has accepted the mantra of everyone who is successful in working with Donald Trump: Whatever he says is the truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

A wedding is considered a religious ceremony. Sitting down and having a meal is not. Some Christians refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because they believe that they would be lending support to a wedding that is antithetical to Christianity. These same Christians would not refuse a meal to a gay couple. Sarah Sanders and here family were denied a meal.

 

[miamited]

A wedding is considered a religious ceremony. Sitting down and having a meal is not. Some Christians refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because they believe that they would be lending support to a wedding that is antithetical to Christianity. These same Christians would not refuse a meal to a gay couple. Sarah Sanders and here family were denied a meal.

Hi HIS,

Yes, that's exactly my point. A wedding ceremony is a religious event and is, therefore, protected by the civil rights laws. A politician or employee thereof, is not so protected. So, in the eyes of the law, it is the baker who did wrong. While the restaurant owner certainly made some folks angry, what was done was not against the law.

As I said in my first post on this subject, I wouldn't have refused them service. But, I'm not everybody and unlike President Trump, I neither think nor expect that everyone else has to agree with me. But, I do get to voice my concerns and opinions just as anyone else does.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[HereIStand]

Hi HIS,

Yes, that's exactly my point. A wedding ceremony is a religious event and is, therefore, protected by the civil rights laws. A politician or employee thereof, is not so protected. So, in the eyes of the law, it is the baker who did wrong. While the restaurant owner certainly made some folks angry, what was done was not against the law.

As I said in my first post on this subject, I wouldn't have refused them service. But, I'm not everybody and unlike President Trump, I neither think nor expect that everyone else has to agree with me. But, I do get to voice my concerns and opinions just as anyone else does.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

No one should be forced to participate in a wedding which violates the tenets of his faith. That's inhibiting freedom of religion, which should be an exception to civil rights laws. I'm unsure how the restaurant owner is protected by civil rights law. Otherwise, anyone can refuse service for any reason, which he can't.

 

[Go Braves]

I think SHS acts in a detestable, disgraceful way that's detrimental to this country, to Christian witness, on account of how she claims she is one, but I also think that it's better to take the high road. I'd never invite her an establishment but once she was already there with her family or friends I wouldn't kick them all out, unless they deliberately behaved in such a way that was necessary. Them just being there wouldn't count as that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I doubt anyone ever has. Because if anyone had, we would have heard about it.

They don't realize it yet, but this is a very, very, very, very, very bad week for the liberals. VERY bad.

Oh no! We lost Liza you guys!

Plaese stahp!