Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Brent W]

Indeed.


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.

She refused to serve a political public servant who had power over her and her employees. That power was actually shown by that public official using a Government social media account to attack her. 7 other people who held the same beliefs as here were welcomed to stay, despite the owner and the 7 people having different opinions. Her protest was the ugliness of Sarah Sanders and how partisan and divisive she was. It was not simply a difference of political opinion.

You are not looking at the facts. The facts do not show bigotry. The facts show a small business owner and U.S. Citizen standing up to a public servant who takes tax payer money.

The facts show a public official attacking a private small business owner in retaliation using Government property.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

"or whatever" in this case being "public officials who choose to consistently lie to defend a wildly unpopular, corrupt and likely law-breaking presidential administration". Let's not pretend this is about forcing all registered republicans onto reservations or anything.

 

[brinny]

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

Scary, isn't it?

This is nothing new. All throughout history, history has repeated itself.

This is how the de-humanization of others begins.

God help us.

 

[Liza B.]

"or whatever" in this case being "public officials who choose to consistently lie to defend a wildly unpopular, corrupt and likely law-breaking presidential administration". Let's not pretend this is about forcing all registered republicans onto reservations or anything.

So what. I thought President Obama lied, in my circles he was "wildly unpopular, corrupt and likely law-breaking." So tell me which President Obama officials could have been denied public life on our say-so?

 

[KCfromNC]

So what. I thought President Obama lied, in my circles he was "wildly unpopular, corrupt and likely law-breaking." So tell me which President Obama officials could have been denied public life on our say-so?

I don't know, gay ones?

Way to totally avoid the point, though.

 

[Liza B.]

Scary, isn't it?

This is nothing new. All throughout history, history has repeated itself.

This is how the de-humanization of others begins.

God help us.

It's really frightening. I'm trying to make them see. I don't know if they can't see it, or do see it but won't back down. But the de-humanizing is really, really bad.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Might want to add a question mark there. Otherwise it might look like you don't understand what I actually wrote.

 

[Liza B.]

I don't know, gay ones?

Way to totally avoid the point, though.

I want you to understand something. There is no one I think needs to be denied public life. I'm not saying that because I think I"m better than you. I want you to understand that I think what you're proposing is really, really scary. No matter how much you dislike someone, what we do in America is speak against, not act like totalitarians.

This is worth saying.

 

[KCfromNC]

Scary, isn't it?

This is nothing new. All throughout history, history has repeated itself.

This is how the de-humanization of others begins..

Yeah, legal peaceful political protest (against the Trump admin, at least) is the start of a new holocaust. Sure. Uh uh.

 

[brinny]

She refused to serve a political public servant who had power over her and her employees. That power was actually shown by that public official using a Government social media account to attack her. 7 other people who held the same beliefs at here were welcomed to stay, despite the owner and the 7 people having different opinions.

You are not looking at the facts. The facts do not show bigotry. The facts show a small business owner and U.S. Citizen standing up to a public servant who takes tax payer money.

The fact is, that Sarah booked a reservation for herself and her family, and later came there to that restaurant with her family, as a customer.

The restaurant owner treated this customer and the customers with her (7 family members) abominably, "throwing" Sarah and consequently, all 7 of her family members out, as if they had trespassed and committed a crime by entering the place, then sitting in the place, as customers.

This owner, in essence, stated by this action, that Sarah had no right to be there, and essentially "trespassed".

There's no way to get around this. This owner just dug her own hole.

Those who dig holes for others, fall in those hole themselves.

 

[Liza B.]

Yeah, legal peaceful political protest (against the Trump admin, at least) is the start of a new holocaust. Sure. Uh uh.

Um. The Jews were shut out of public life.

 

[brinny]

I want you to understand something. There is no one I think needs to be denied public life. I'm not saying that because I think I"m better than you. I want you to understand that I think what you're proposing is really, really scary. No matter how much you dislike someone, what we do in America is speak against, not act like totalitarians.

This is worth saying.

I agree.

Totalitarianism is dangerous.

As a matter of fact, it's deadly.

 

[brinny]

Um. The Jews were shut out of public life.

Exactly.

And it was perfectly "legal".

 

[KCfromNC]

I want you to understand something. There is no one I think needs to be denied public life.

Unless one is gay and trying to buy a wedding cake. Then the only thing which matters are the beliefs of the person owning a business because freedom!

But if the beliefs of the business owner go against the divine right of Trump and his admin then it is totalitarianism. Good thing there's no hyperbole in this thread.

 

[brinny]

It's really frightening. I'm trying to make them see. I don't know if they can't see it, or do see it but won't back down. But the de-humanizing is really, really bad.

It's downright deadly.

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree.

Totalitarianism is dangerous.

As a matter of fact, it's deadly.

That might be. But I can't find "private businesses refusing service to customers who have shown hostility to their employees" under the definition of totalitarianism. Did you mean to post in a different thread?

 

[section9+1]

The incident doesn't bother me. She got up and left. She didn't scream or throw things or start a riot like too many others do. It was peaceful. The restaurant set a good example. Maybe it will inspire others. If businesses could serve who they wanted based upon their own preferences, maybe there'd be a lot less strife. Maybe someday people in the ACLU will have to take side jobs to stay busy.

 

[Brent W]

The fact is, that Sarah booked a reservation for herself and her family, and later came there to that restaurant with her family, as a customer.

Great. We got started with some facts. Lets add to the fact that Sarah Sanders did not book it under her name which would have immediately given the private small business a chance to decline that reservation. If we are doing facts lets get them all out there.

The restaurant owner treated this customer and the customers with her (7 family members) abominably,

This is not a fact. This is your opinion. Please, stick to facts.

For example, this is exactly how the exchange went:

The small business owner asked to privately speak to Sarah Sanders and did so. She explained to Sarah Sanders that she and her employees were not comfortable serving her due to her divisive character and political power she holds as a public servant. This small business owner was making a political protest solely against Sarah Sanders and only asked her to leave.

"throwing"

Hyperbole. Why the quotes? What is your intention here trying to highlight this? There was no "throwing". Sarah Sanders stated that she said, "Fine, I will leave." She then left the property.

and consequently, all 7 of her family members out

The remaining 7 party members were told they were welcome to stay and enjoy the meal on the house.

as if they had trespassed and committed a crime by entering the place, then sitting in the place, as customers.

This is not a fact. It may be what you wish had happened but is certainly not a fact. Can you provide evidence that the exchange happened as you have described?

This owner, in essence, stated by this action, that Sarah had no right to be there, and essentially "trespassed".

Sarah had no right to be there after she was asked to leave. This is a fact. The owner has a right to refuse service to customers under certain circumstances. This was a circumstance where the owner was lawfully able to deny service to Sarah Sanders. Sarah Sanders understood this at the time which is why she left the property.

There's no way to get around this. This owner just dug her own hole.

Opinion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Um. The Jews were shut out of public life.

Please expand on the comparison you're trying to make. Is any policy where people are "shut out of public life" one which needs to be opposed? Perhaps any which restricts illegal immigrants from fully participating in public life, or is that different because reasons?

I'm curious how far this goes. Or if it is just a made up excuse because a far-right mouthpiece is finally suffering consequences for trying to demonize a certain group for cheap political points.

 

[Brent W]

Um. The Jews were shut out of public life.

Private property != Public life. Stop with extremism. It is embarrassing to read someone try to compare a private citizen denying service to a public official in the same manner as what the Jews went through.