Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Snappy1]

Okay, sure. Why not.

Oh did you have some legal experience other than that? Or was that an overestimate?

 

[brinny]

Wow. You are literally defending oppressing a small business owner for standing up to a public official in this very thread.

Not only are you defending it, you are encouraging it and you seem to be doing it with anger and spite.

I'm not the one whose posts seem to be angry.

This restaurant's practices are deceptive. There should be a sign outside that anyone who does not agree with the owner's political affiliation is un-welcome. It should also be stated in any of their advertisements and on Yelp, etc.

The bottom line is, not everyone is welcome there. They should clearly state that they're a "private club" and one requires "membership" to enter the facility, and be served, and not be considered "trespassing".

That's deceptive to not advertise it

And blatantly so.

 

[Liza B.]

He sold wedding cakes to straight people but not to them. What's the difference between those two types of customers? Seems like orientation plays a pretty significant role.

And he has a basis for that which is also a Constitutionally-protected one: religious freedom. Such a big decision the SC basically punted on it. They most certainly did not shut down the baker and force him to bake the cake.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

It isn't even ideology that's the issue here. It is choosing to lie in public for a wildly unpopular administration. I mean, we're a civilized society so people like that can't be hung from a lamppost or anything anymore, so what are people supposed to do to express their displeasure? This seems like a perfectly reasonable way of showing that maybe this person should reconsider their life choices.

Don't want people treating you badly because of the horrible things you choose to do? Stop doing them.

 

[Liza B.]

Oh did you have some legal experience other than that? Or was that an overestimate?

I do not. I didn't think you had to be a lawyer here to discuss American law. Maybe we should all fess up. Who here is a lawyer and has passed the bar? If not, stop talking American law. Per Snappy.

 

[Snappy1]

Been doing nothing but providing evidence this entire thread. I don't appreciate having my opinion presumed.

Well that isn't true.

 

[KCfromNC]

Also of note: using the wrong twitter account is a much worse violation somehow than being kicked out of an establishment.

Only one is illegal.

 

[Liza B.]

It isn't even ideology that's the issue here. It is choosing to lie in public for a wildly unpopular administration. I mean, we're a civilized society so people like that can't be hung from a lamppost or anything anymore, so what are people supposed to do to express their displeasure? This seems like a perfectly reasonable way of showing that maybe this person should reconsider their life choices.

Don't want people treating you badly because of the horrible things you choose to do? Stop doing them.

I don't even know what to say anymore.

If there's anyone who can be reasonable anymore, read it and weep.

 

[Snappy1]

I do not. I didn't think you had to be a lawyer here to discuss American law. Maybe we should all fess up. Who here is a lawyer and has passed the bar? If not, stop talking American law. Per Snappy.

Or just learn a little something and don't go shouting an uneducated opinion and then act flabbergasted at the very idea that anyone would disagree with you.

 

[Liza B.]

It isn't even ideology that's the issue here. It is choosing to lie in public for a wildly unpopular administration. I mean, we're a civilized society so people like that can't be hung from a lamppost or anything anymore, so what are people supposed to do to express their displeasure? This seems like a perfectly reasonable way of showing that maybe this person should reconsider their life choices.

Don't want people treating you badly because of the horrible things you choose to do? Stop doing them.

Just so you know...I'm approaching this post like you would approach something really warily. I don't know if you realize how bad it is. Do you?

Press secretaries spin the facts for their administration. They always have. They always will. That's what they do. Do you realize that you said, "people like that can't be hung from a lamppost anymore..." in reference to Sarah Sanders?

Can you begin to conceive how this comes across? What if I said that about Hillary Clinton? "well we can't hang her from a lamppost".

Hello?

ETA: I mean I guess if it occurs to you to hang people from lampposts, but we can't do it because we're "civilised", then maybe you think a really great alternative is just to kick people out of your restaurants and close them to public life.

Here we are, America, 2018. Jesus, God, and all the angels help us.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, and what's particularly harrowing about it is there's no mitigating effect of real religion.

One of the many unintended consequences of promoting the whole "religious people can ignore they law if they just believe hard enough" arguments supporting discriminating against minorities. Did no one stop to think that hey, there are lots of different religions? And hey, not all of them agree with my right wing extremist stance against the wrong types of minorities? Some even have issues with presidential administrations that I feel I have to give my unconditional support to?

 

[Liza B.]

One of the many unintended consequences of promoting the whole "religious people can ignore they law if they just believe hard enough" arguments supporting discriminating against minorities. Did no one stop to think that hey, there are lots of different religions? And hey, not all of them agree with my right wing extremist stance against the wrong types of minorities? Some even have issues with presidential administrations that I feel I have to give my unconditional support to?

I'm having a hard time listening to this since the hanging from lampposts comment, sorry. Address that first.

PS when I have an issue with dissenting beliefs I don't imagine kicking them out of restaurants. Or other things. I would just like you to know that for you own edification.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just so you know...I'm approaching this post like you would approach something really warily. I don't know if you realize how bad it is. Do you?

Press secretaries spin the facts for their administration. They always have. They always will. That's what they do. Do you realize that you said, "people like that can't be hung from a lamppost anymore..." in reference to Sarah Sanders?

I'm just referencing historical approaches towards wildly unpopular political figures who dared to show their faces in public and noting that there are better ways to handle it. For example, ostracizing them from respectable businesses.

Can you begin to conceive how this comes across? What if I said that about Hillary Clinton? "well we can't hang her from a lamppost".

I'd say you have an unhealthy need to constantly drag her into conversations where it is totally off topic.

ETA: I mean I guess if it occurs to you to hang people from lampposts, but we can't do it because we're "civilised", then maybe you think a really great alternative is just to kick people out of your restaurants and close them to public life.

Why not? What's so bad with people who make poor life choices facing consequences?

 

[Brent W]

I'm not the one whose posts seem to be angry.

How does your post not come off as angry? You are wishing the end to a small business because they did not serve a public official. What other emotions cause ill will on a small business owner and their livelihood other than spite and anger?

This restaurant's practices are deceptive.

No they are not. Anyone versed in law knows that a business can refuse service to you for a variety of reasons. Are you saying that you do not understand that this is the law?

There should be a sign outside that anyone who does not agree with the owner's political affiliation is un-welcome.

Not a requirement by law. When you walk into a business you are walking on to private property and that private property is protected by laws. A businesses right to refuse you service based on your political beliefs is protected by law. Especially if they are denying service to a political figure that takes taxpayer money.

Being ignorant to this fact is not cause to be angry at the law or the business but only at oneself.

It should also be stated in any of their advertisements and on Yelp, etc.

Again, does not need to be.

The bottom line is, not everyone is welcome there.

Of course. That is their right under the law.

They should clearly state that they're a "private club" and one requires "membership" to enter the facility, and be served, and not be considered "trespassing".

They are not required to under law.

 

[Brent W]

I do not. I didn't think you had to be a lawyer here to discuss American law. Maybe we should all fess up. Who here is a lawyer and has passed the bar? If not, stop talking American law. Per Snappy.

Interpreting the law and stating the law are two very different things. You are attempting to look forward and interpret how a potential lawsuit might end. I am telling you the law.

Please understand the difference in approach here and why I asked what qualified you to interpret the law.

 

[Liza B.]

I'm just referencing historical approaches towards wildly unpopular political figures who dared to show their faces in public and noting that there are better ways to handle it. For example, ostracizing them from respectable businesses.
I'd say you have an unhealthy need to constantly drag her into conversations where it is totally off topic.
Why not? What's so bad with people who make poor life choices facing consequences?

So to be clear. You would like people with whom you disagree--or whatever--to be closed to public life.

 

[KCfromNC]

And he has a basis for that which is also a Constitutionally-protected one: religious freedom.

I'd love to see court cases backing that up.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm having a hard time listening to this since the hanging from lampposts comment, sorry.

OK, then don't. No one's forcing you to read my posts.

 

[brinny]

Exactly. Because this is not, "I cannot participate in this event with you," but, "I will not even serve you a meal."

That's where we are now. God help us indeed.

Indeed.

How does your post not come off as angry? You are wishing the end to a small business because they did not serve a public official. What other emotions cause ill will on a small business owner and their livelihood other than spite and anger?



No they are not. Anyone versed in law knows that a business can refuse service to you for a variety of reasons. Are you saying that you do not understand that this is the law?



Not a requirement by law. When you walk into a business you are walking on to private property and that private property is protected by laws. A businesses right to refuse you serve based on your political beliefs is protected by law. Especially if they are denying service to a political figure that takes taxpayer money.

Being ignorant to this fact is not cause to be angry at the law or the business but only at oneself.



Again, does not need to be.



Of course. That is their right under the law.



They are not required to under law.

Bigotry and blatant displays of it should not be tolerated or defended.

This owner has sunk her own restaurant because of her own displays of bigotry.

 

[Liza B.]

OK, then don't. No one's forcing you to read my posts.

To remind you: you would like to see people with whom you disagree--or whatever--closed to public life.