Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Hank77]

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.

I believe she is doing this because she is going to run for President herself in a few years.

 

[Hank77]

A wedding ceremony is a religious event and is, therefore, protected by the civil rights laws.

A religious event is not protected under Public Accommodation Law, certain people are protected.

 

[Hank77]

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.

I don't think were are talking about civil rights laws here. We are talking about Public Accommodation Law. That is what is claimed that the baker violated.

 

[Hank77]

A broad right would be to deny services whenever you like on religious grounds.

Carte blanch if you will.

I still don't know what you would be referring to. What I consider religious grounds would have to be a very, very narrow description that is documented somewhere, such as in the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.
I wouldn't deny service to a gay couple who came to stay in a hotel I owned, or refuse to rent them a house. But I would refuse to be a photographer at their wedding.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe it should be.

Plenty of things "should be." They ain't.

 

[variant]

I still don't know what you would be referring to. What I consider religious grounds would have to be a very, very narrow description that is documented somewhere, such as in the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.
I wouldn't deny service to a gay couple who came to stay in a hotel I owned, or refuse to rent them a house. But I would refuse to be a photographer at their wedding.

At the point where you start saying religion is a good excuse to treat people poorly it becomes fairly hard to say whose religious feelings are valid and whose are not IMO.

Some other people may feel they can adjudicate who is being sincere and who just a jerk, but to me I think if you start allowing the excuse you can't really say who doesn't get the protection.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is a difference. Immigration policy isn't a religious ceremony.

Are you saying that it's therefore utterly impossible to have a religious belief about it?

 

[Hank77]

that providing services to this person would have compromised the owners sincerely held religious beliefs.

I don't think the owner said anything about serious held religious beliefs. Do you think that only religious people have moral values?

 

[Hank77]

At the point where you start saying religion is a good excuse to treat people poorly it becomes fairly hard to say whose religious feelings are valid and whose are not IMO.

That's why I said documented, a common belief of their faith. If they can prove that it is they should be excused. There very few instances where this would be true in Christianity. A gay wedding would be one, or being forced to participate in an abortion would be one. I can't think of another one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's why I said documented, a common belief of their faith. If they can prove that it is they should be excused. There very few instances where this would be true in Christianity. A gay wedding would be one, or being forced to participate in an abortion would be one. I can't think of another one.

Only religious beliefs that are written down are considered "sincere"?

 

[Hank77]

Are you saying that it's therefore utterly impossible to have a religious belief about it?

Not when it comes to Public Accommodations Law. The restaurant owner wasn't being asked to participate in anything to do with immigration. She wasn't being asked to take children away from the parents, create posters in support of that, take photos of children being taken away from the parents, etc.
So if her claim was a religious belief she wasn't being asked to do anything that had to do with that religious belief.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not when it comes to Public Accommodations Law. The restaurant owner wasn't being asked to participate in anything to do with immigration. She wasn't being asked to take children away from the parents, create posters in support of that, take photos of children being taken away from the parents, etc.

She was being asked to support people who do.

So if her claim was a religious belief she wasn't being asked to do anything that had to do with that religious belief.

She might say otherwise -- who are we to tell her what her religious beliefs are?

 

[Hank77]

Only religious beliefs that are written down are considered "sincere"?

No some of them that are written down are not sincerely held by people of that faith. But in a court of law there is evidence, proof that of what ones faith teaches, and in many cases, such as the bakers there is evidence of selling other created goods to gay/lesbian customers.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I'm curious though in the way that you put your comment: there is coming a moral awakening and a push for 'supposed' religious values...

Could you explain exactly what you're referencing there?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

A well known doctrine of the Adventist movement... legislated morality.

 

[Hank77]

She was being asked to support people who do.

So what? She wasn't be asking to participate in anything herself.

She might say otherwise -- who are we to tell her what her religious beliefs are?

Her religious belief is that she cannot feed people who don't share her political views.
You'd make a terrible attorney.

 

[HereIStand]

Are you saying that it's therefore utterly impossible to have a religious belief about it?

No not at all. Beliefs (or lack of them) could vary, as they might about tax policy.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

This is not true. I just saw the interview where he talks about this and he plainly says he was conflicted because he didn't want to take a picture with Paul Ryan, not that he had a problem with his kids. He specifically said it was Paul Ryan who he didn't want to pose with. This was at an event where he was invited by none other than Mitt Romney to speak about Alzheimer's awareness.

When you're at an event raising awareness about a horrible disease and someone who voted to cut people's healthcare wants to take a photo with you, the right and reasonable thing to do is to turn them down.

 

[Go Braves]

I believe she is doing this because she is going to run for President herself in a few years.

Gracious, I hope that is not the case. She's conducted herself, much like her boss has, like truth & ethics are entirely irrelevant, based only on what he feels it ought to be. Folks have rightfully criticized her for using her official Twitter account instead of her personal one to talk about being asked to leave the restaurant.

 

[Go Braves]

This is not true. I just saw the interview where he talks about this and he plainly says he was conflicted because he didn't want to take a picture with Paul Ryan, not that he had a problem with his kids. He specifically said it was Paul Ryan who he didn't want to pose with. This was at an event where he was invited by none other than Mitt Romney to speak about Alzheimer's awareness.

When you're at an event raising awareness about a horrible disease and someone who voted to cut people's healthcare wants to take a photo with you, the right and reasonable thing to do is to turn them down.

You're correct, Liza's wrong. Seth Rogan also described Paul Ryan's kids as lovely.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You're correct, Liza's wrong. Seth Rogan also described Paul Ryan's kids as lovely.

I just couldn't let a nice guy like Seth Rogen have his character assassinated like that.