Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Go Braves]

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

I think he's got a bulletproof vest over his character so that assassination attempts aren't going to work.

 

[mala]

Hi hank,

I think that up until the big divide over the ACA that President Obama also worked well with both parties. But even after the fall out created by the ACA vote, President Obama never made any outward effort to shut out the republicans from debate and decisions on legislative work. This complete shut out of the other party in the work of the legislature is a new signature of President Trump. But I do say that it began to turn that way after the ACA vote. From what I remember of President Obama's term is that after the ACA vote, the republicans themselves began to close ranks and shut themselves out of legislative work and it became very acrimonious between the parties. But, none of that was ever encouraged or supported by President Obama.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I find that to be an extremely rosy view of things.
The republicans pretty much met and decided to stonewall the president from the day he took office.

 

[mala]

The most interesting to me isn't that she was kicked out, a thing to which i am indifferent because i really can't generate sympathy for people like this, but the fact that violated ethics laws when she tweeted about it on her official account instead of using her personal one.
But then again this particular ethics violation has been prevalent in this administration who isn't against using government power/positions for personal gain.

 

[SilverBear]

A baker will sell birthday cakes, cookies, ready made cakes to the people who have behaviors that are offensive to him, but not create a special cake for an event he doesn't agree with, says to me that he isn't discriminating against the people or their offensive behavior.

How does that compare with refusing to serve Sanders? What/who was the owner discriminating against?

so in the segregated south the fact that African American's could go to the back door of a restaurant to pick up food, just not walk in the front door and sit at a table shows that that business owner wasn't discriminating against them.

 

[SilverBear]

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.

a generation ago it was common faith based belief that people of African decent were social inferiors to whites - meaning segregation was moral and blacks were never really discriminated against.

 

[jazzflower92]

so in the segregated south the fact that African American's could go to the back door of a restaurant to pick up food, just not walk in the front door and sit at a table shows that that business owner wasn't discriminating against them.

And that card is cheap.

 

[miamited]

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

Hi hank,

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by public accommodation law. I'm referencing federal anti-discrimination laws which, in a nutshell, say:

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religion or creed
• Sex
• Age
• Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
• Veteran status

Notice that political persuasion or ideology is not one of the protected classes.

see here: What does "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" really mean? -

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

see here: Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service | LegalMatch Law Library

Now it may well be determined, if this issue is brought before the courts, that this owner was using an extremely arbitrary condition, but that will have to be determined by the courts. That same article states that: In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

A case might be made that the presence of Ms. Sanders and her party were detrimental somehow to the restaurant itself. Perhaps that particular restaurant is a hot bed of the democratic and libertarian parties. I don't know, but as the first article points out what I've been saying, a business can refuse service to just about anyone so long as the person being refused service is not a part of, or the reason is not on the grounds of, a protected class and their protected rights.

However, I never meant for it to be inferred that a religious group was protected, but in the case of the baker, just because of his religious convictions, he should not have been allowed to refuse service based on a customers sexual orientation. The SC apparently decided that is not why he was refused service. Although, as with most SC decisions, there was a dissenting opinion.

I got sidetracked by HIS in his response to me in mentioning 'a wedding is a religious ceremony'. You're right. A religious ceremony is not a protected right. Nor is it given any protections under these laws, but the people involved do have rights that are protected by these laws and in this case I meant to be saying that the people asking for the cake for a gay ceremony cannot, by these laws, be refused service because they are gay.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[jazzflower92]

The most interesting to me isn't that she was kicked out, a thing to which i am indifferent because i really can't generate sympathy for people like this, but the fact that violated ethics laws when she tweeted about it on her official account instead of using her personal one.
But then again this particular ethics violation has been prevalent in this administration who isn't against using government power/positions for personal gain.

Big difference here her family was also shafted. And I notice a lot of these types are not above getting their families involved, which ironically runs against their point.

 

[miamited]

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

Hi ECR,

Ok, thanks.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[SilverBear]

And that card is cheap.

you say that only because it is the same rational that Hank just laid down justifying discrimination.

 

[jazzflower92]

you say that only because it is the same rational that Hank just laid down justifying discrimination.

I believe when people go to hysterical levels of believing declining working on a gay wedding is an atrocity then it becomes ridiculous.

 

[miamited]

I find that to be an extremely rosy view of things.
The republicans pretty much met and decided to stonewall the president from the day he took office.

Hi mala,

You could be right. I didn't see it that way for his first term because the big battle over the ACA hadn't begun yet. I would agree that by the time we got around to his second term that the republican position had been pretty well set. I also know that the birther movement was a predominantly republican driven agenda that did begin shortly after President Obama was elected to his first term. So, perhaps you're right in your summation of his presidency and how the republicans treated him.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[SilverBear]

I believe when people go to hysterical levels of believing declining working on a gay wedding is an atrocity then it becomes ridiculous.

as ridiculous as protesting this:

 

[jazzflower92]

as ridiculous as protesting this:

Again cliche response that actually has been proven not to be the same thing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

What happened to the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" crowd? That was one of the big defenses we heard when it was a bakery turning away a customer.

 

[SilverBear]

Again cliche response that actually has been proven not to be the same thing.

Hank said that because his hero baker would sell gay people cookies there was no discrimination. Well here the sign clearly says that this restaurant is happy to serve black people just not let them sit in their fine restaurant showing that there was no discrimination.

Its exactly the same.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Was Ms. Sanders born as the mouthpiece for a crude, belligerent, divisive man or did she choose that?

Lol what difference does that make?

You're saying they should be able to deny her because of her views?

 

[jazzflower92]

Hank said that because his hero baker would sell gay people cookies there was no discrimination. Well here the sign clearly says that this restaurant is happy to serve black people just not let them sit in their fine restaurant showing that there was no discrimination.

Its exactly the same.

And that is not what happened, which people on your side dishonestly portraying it as.

 

[Ana the Ist]

While I personally believe in being more gracious than refusing service even to someone with an odious political ideology, it's not at all comparable to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Political affiliation is not an immutable characteristic.

It's hard to imagine that anyone here would accept the argument of....

"I refused to bake a cake for that gay couple because I find their political beliefs...particularly those regarding gay marriage....to be wrong."

What happened to Sanders here was wrong.

 

[mala]

Hi mala,

You could be right. I didn't see it that way for his first term because the big battle over the ACA hadn't begun yet. I would agree that by the time we got around to his second term that the republican position had been pretty well set. I also know that the birther movement was a predominantly republican driven agenda that did begin shortly after President Obama was elected to his first term. So, perhaps you're right in your summation of his presidency and how the republicans treated him.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

it was reported to have happened that way.