Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[Go Braves]

The two have some glaring differences which are being glossed over. Thew Christian cake shop would have sold the undecorated cake no problem. The Gay couple wanted a decorated cake in Colorado when gay marriage was still illegal there and that is why the couple got married in Massachusetts. Had their reception back in Colorado. They targeted the business. It was a set up by gay activists. None of that went on with the Sanders incident. Sanders and company simply walked into the wrong restaurant. It was Sanders who was targeted by the owner. Refused service and accused of all sorts of alleged wrongdoings. So the two are hardly equalized. Back to the segregated lunch counters of the 50s.

Well, at least you're correct that there's some glaring differences. Wrong with the rest of the post.

The owner of the restaurant did not want Sarah to remain in it - she'd already been served - on account of her behavior. Not on account of the color of her skin, her sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or political affiliation. The rest of Sarah's party was welcomed to stay. They declined the offer & chose to leave. The restaurant told them the wine and cheese platters they'd already enjoyed were on the house.
It's completely incomparable to the segregated lunch counters of the 50s. It's corrupt to make a comparison between the 2. The correct sign is We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone. That is legal on account of how it's based NOT on a protected class but on behavior. This was on the menu at a restaurant we went to recently:

 

[SimplyMe]

The two have some glaring differences which are being glossed over. The Christian cake shop would have sold the undecorated cake no problem. The Gay couple wanted a decorated cake in Colorado when gay marriage was still illegal there and that is why the couple got married in Massachusetts.

Had their reception back in Colorado. They targeted the business. It was a set up by gay activists. None of that went on with the Sanders incident. Sanders and company simply walked into the wrong restaurant. It was Sanders who was targeted by the owner. Refused service and accused of all sorts of alleged wrongdoings. So the two are hardly equalized. Back to the segregated lunch counters of the 50s. Dems never change. Only their targets.

View attachment 231889

Sorry, but no. The bakery was not targeted, other than it was recommended to the couple by friends (not gay activists) who honestly just wanted a cake for their wedding celebration. And it doesn't matter in any way, shape or form that gay marriage was not legally recognized (but not illegal) in Colorado at that time.

Further, the bakery would not have sold them an undecorated cake to celebrate their wedding; he would not sell them any cake for the celebration of their wedding.

And exactly who was being "segregated" in the Sanders story? It wasn't women, since other women are welcome; it isn't people with the last name Sanders or conservatives, since both of those are welcome; perhaps members of the Trump administration?

 

[revanneosl]

I really don't think that the government officials who are currently promulgating and defending a policy designed to traumatize hispanic children have any understanding of who makes and serves their food.

These are wealthy, powerful, busy, hard-working people. They eat out a lot. And the behind-the-scenes staff at American restaurants, the prep cooks, line cooks, expediters, etc., are overwhelmingly immigrant labor: i.e. people whose children these officials have demonstrated that they would be delighted to traumatize.

What I'm saying is that Ms. Huckabee-Sanders was perhaps lucky to have been asked to leave the restaurant. I don't think that she or any of her collaborators can be confident that they are receiving spit-free food in any restaurant for the foreseeable future.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Well, conservatives championed the baker who discriminated against a gay couple, so why are they complaining when a restaurant with gay employees discriminates against a conservative? That hypocritical.

Here's the difference. The gay couple were compelling the baker to be a part of something the baker found to be against his religious beliefs. The situation with Ms Huckabee was not compelling the staff to engage in something they were against. They were only to do their job. In the service industry, personal feelings get put aside to get the job done professionally.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I really don't think that the government officials who are currently promulgating and defending a policy designed to traumatize hispanic children have any understanding of who makes and serves their food.

These are wealthy, powerful, busy, hard-working people. They eat out a lot. And the behind-the-scenes staff at American restaurants, the prep cooks, line cooks, expediters, etc., are overwhelmingly immigrant labor: i.e. people whose children these officials have demonstrated that they would be delighted to traumatize.

What I'm saying is that Ms. Huckabee-Sanders was perhaps lucky to have been asked to leave the restaurant. I don't think that she or any of her collaborators can be confident that they are receiving spit-free food in any restaurant for the foreseeable future.

Isn't that a shame though... whatever happened to professionalism. The staff at the Red Hen were not asked to do or participate in anything against their own beliefs... they were there to do their jobs regardless of who the customer is.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It was Sanders who was targeted by the owner.

This is incorrect. The staff had contacted the owner letting her know they were uncomfortable serving Sanders. The owner came down to the restaurant to settle the problem that had arose and they came to the conclusion that she'd ask Sanders to leave and she accepted and left without making an issue out of it. I'd say right there Sanders handled it quite well. I'd do the same if someone asked me to leave their restaurant. It's their place and no one is entitled to it. You are a guest in a restaurant.

Back to the staff. Not to generalize too much but the people who usually work in a kitchen staff are very often of Hispanic/Latino descent. I'm sure you can figure why some Latinos might have a problem with Sarah Sanders after this week. Whether they are justified or not, people don't like her.

Personally, I'd just do my job no matter who walks in the door but, I can't be mad at someone for not feeling up to serving a public figure they find deeply objectionable. The owner of the place only settled a problem that arose with her kitchen staff and up until she tweeted about it, Mrs. Sanders didn't seem to have a problem obliging her.

Refused service and accused of all sorts of alleged wrongdoings.

What were those accusations? Could you please list them?

 

[mala]

Here's the difference. The gay couple were compelling the baker to be a part of something the baker found to be against his religious beliefs. The situation with Ms Huckabee was not compelling the staff to engage in something they were against. They were only to do their job. In the service industry, personal feelings get put aside to get the job done professionally.

Newsflash! The baker is also part of the service industry. All he had to do was bake a cake.
Stop trying to twist reality like a pretzel.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The owner of the restaurant did not want Sarah to remain in it - she'd already been served - on account of her behavior.

Can you elaborate on Sarah's reprehensible behaviour at the restaurant that lead to her voluntary departure?

 

[Yarddog]

Here's the difference. The gay couple were compelling the baker to be a part of something the baker found to be against his religious beliefs. The situation with Ms Huckabee was not compelling the staff to engage in something they were against. They were only to do their job. In the service industry, personal feelings get put aside to get the job done professionally.

The Baker refused to make the gay couple a wedding cake designed for them. He discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, which is illegal, except SCOTUS, overturned it because of freedom of religion. (Legal discrimination)
The restaurant owner refused service to Mrs. Sanders based on her political ties. (Legal discrimination)
In both cases parties we're legally discriminated against based on the owner's beliefs.

It is hypocrisy to accept one without accepting the other.

 

[dmmesdale]

since when is baking a cake illegal?

Where did i say it was?

so you're point in that regard is meaningless.
and what is your evidence that it was a setup?

All we have to do is look at the timeline of events. Along with the other incidents of the same nature at the same time period. Also the writings of the gay movement encouraging this sort of thing. Are you telling us they just waked in? They targeted the bakery. Why not buy a generic cake and decorate it without the baker? Gay marriage was illegal in Colorado at that time. Another fun fact to be ignored.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/how-a-cakemaker-became-an-enemy-of-the-state/

We'd like you to design a cake for our wedding, the man explains, motioning to his partner at the other side of the shop.

Sorry, Phillips responds, I can’t create specialty cakes for gay weddings. If you’d like, I can sell you anything else you want — cupcakes, pastries, whatever.

Anger flushes over the would-be customer, who stands up, curses, and flips off Phillips while he heads for the door —

A half hour after Mullins and Craig storm out of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the store’s phone rings. An irate caller asked Jack if he’s the jerk who turned away the gay couple. Well, no, I just don’t design cakes for same-sex weddings; I didn’t turn away anyone, he explains.

This distinction fails to pacify the agitated man, and after offering an array of colorful suggestions, he hangs up. In the hour between the incident and closing time that Thursday night, Phillips estimates he received another six comparably incensed calls berating him for cake-denying bigotry. When he finally got home, his inbox is fuller than it’s ever been. And it’s not because locals have a sudden hankering for Funshine Cookie Pops.
------------------------------------

The thing was an organized set up designed to harass and punish the Christian baker.

and you're right the two incidents are hardly alike.
one was clearly discrimination based off of the cake shop owner's bigotry.

That is only if you ignore the religious convictions of the baker. The Supreme court did not.

the other is that an individual was denied service based off of her actions in defending a corrupt administration.

What corrupt? Trump has not been convicted of anything and accusations of wrongdoings do not equate to convictions.

 

[mala]

Ya this belongs in the tinfoil hat section. Cya.

 

[revanneosl]

Isn't that a shame though... whatever happened to professionalism. The staff at the Red Hen were not asked to do or participate in anything against their own beliefs... they were there to do their jobs regardless of who the customer is.

Now pretend she's a gay person ordering a wedding cake.

 

[dmmesdale]

The Baker refused to make the gay couple a wedding cake designed for them.

He would sell them a generic cake, no problem.

He discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, which is illegal, except SCOTUS, overturned it because of freedom of religion. (Legal discrimination)

Then it is not and never has been illegal in Colorado at a time when gay marriage was illegal.

The restaurant owner refused service to Mrs. Sanders based on her political ties. (Legal discrimination)

Is still discrimination like white only restaurants in the south was legal discrimination.

In both cases parties we're legally discriminated against based on the owner's beliefs.

The gay couple was not discriminated against.

 

[Yarddog]

He would sell them a generic cake, no problem.

They didn't want a genetic cake, they wanted a cake made for their special occasion just like heterosexual couples want. The Baker refused to do it for them. That is discrimination.

Then it is not and never has been illegal in Colorado at a time when gay marriage was illegal.

It is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in Colorado. That is why the lower courts sided with the gay couple. SCOTUS over turned their verdict based on religious freedom.

Is still discrimination like white only restaurants in the south was legal discrimination.

I said it was discrimination.

The gay couple was not discriminated against.

Yes they were. Do you need me to provide you with the definition?

 

[Hank77]

The Baker refused to make the gay couple a wedding cake designed for them. He discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, which is illegal, except SCOTUS, overturned it because of freedom of religion. (Legal discrimination)
The restaurant owner refused service to Mrs. Sanders based on her political ties. (Legal discrimination)
In both cases parties we're legally discriminated against based on the owner's beliefs.

It is hypocrisy to accept one without accepting the other.

Then there is a problem because the SCOTUS did not overturn the verdict because of Freedom of Religion or any other constitutional freedom. They did not say that it was legal for him to refuse.

 

[dmmesdale]

This is incorrect. The staff had contacted the owner letting her know they were uncomfortable serving Sanders.

Who cares. Serve them anyway or get a different dead-end job. What would your boss tell you if you told him you do not want to do your job because you are uncomfortable?

The owner came down to the restaurant to settle the problem that had arose and they came to the conclusion that she'd ask Sanders to leave and she accepted and left without making an issue out of it.

Well that was not so smart. Could she see past the end of her nose? Did she think it would not come with consequences? Why no just serve them? Betcha paying child molesters receive better treatment than does a high official on team Trump.

I'd say right there Sanders handled it quite well.

Agree including outing the incident so the owner would be exposed.

I'd do the same if someone asked me to leave their restaurant. It's their place and no one is entitled to it. You are a guest in a restaurant.

Agree. If it is for no rational reason then i would reserve the right to inform others of the business policies and encourage not going there.

Back to the staff. Not to generalize too much but the people who usually work in a kitchen staff are very often of Hispanic/Latino descent. I'm sure you can figure why some Latinos might have a problem with Sarah Sanders after this week. Whether they are justified or not, people don't like her.

I don't care if they have problems. Whites had problems with blacks at lunch counters in the south.

Personally, I'd just do my job no matter who walks in the door but, I can't be mad at someone for not feeling up to serving a public figure they find deeply objectionable.

There is no rational reason to find Sarah Sanders deeply objectionable.

What were those accusations? Could you please list them?

Was referring to the statement by the owner as to why she asked Sanders to leave.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The Baker refused to make the gay couple a wedding cake designed for them. He discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, which is illegal, except SCOTUS, overturned it because of freedom of religion. (Legal discrimination)
The restaurant owner refused service to Mrs. Sanders based on her political ties. (Legal discrimination)
In both cases parties we're legally discriminated against based on the owner's beliefs.

It is hypocrisy to accept one without accepting the other.

Legally maybe but not spiritually.

 

[Yarddog]

Then there is a problem because the SCOTUS did not overturn the verdict because of Freedom of Religion or any other constitutional freedom. They did not say that it was legal for him to refuse.

They set aside the ruling against the baker in a 7-2 decision saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Baker's 1st amendments rights.

 

[Mayzoo]

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.

You can refuse service to anyone so long as you do not site discriminatory reasons for doing so. If your reasons are discriminatory, you are best to remain silent when asked.

Participation in a wedding would include:

1. Being one of the two parties getting married.
2. Officiating the vows.
3. Being in the wedding party.
4. Being a guest (and trust me, not all guests approve of the wedding they are attending.)
5. Sure I am missing a few

BUT not the person who cut the flowers for the decorations, the guy who changed the oil in the honeymoon vehicle, the cashier at the gas station, or the one who printed the stationary for the invitations....these people are not even on site during the wedding. They are being paid for a service they freely choose to provide to the general public.

Providing a distant service ,for a wedding, that you willingly hired yourself out for does not count as "participating" in a wedding. The baker is not on premises during any of the wedding. They are being paid for a service to the general public they willing choose to offer as a means of earning money. There is not a hint of approval or disapproval in the paid service providers participation.

If the contention is that providing the service you commonly hire yourself out for is moral approval, I would like to see a notation/example of a baker, florist, photographer asking each (or any for that matter) potential wedding client if they are getting remarried. If they answer is yes, then these folks must be asking the follow up of documentation for the divorce to prove the second wedding is not based in adultery. Adultery made it into the ten commandments, so if religious morality/purity is the REAL motive, then this one must weigh VERY heavily on these peoples mind--so it would not be something they neglected to ask each and every time. And, if they are asking, it would be documented in the news somewhere during all this discussion of morality in service providers participating in these weddings.

If people do not wish to provide wedding (or fill in the blank) services they are free to stop doing so. It is not complicated. You either offer your services to the general public or you do not.

Oh, and I also believe the restaurant owner should have provided service to Mrs. Sanders. Political reasons for not serving someone.........*sigh*. If you are offering services to the general public, then just provide them to the general public folks---maybe even offer a smile and a thank you?? Is it really THIS hard people?

 

[Hank77]

They set aside the ruling against the baker in a 7-2 decision saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Baker's 1st amendments rights.

They said that the CCRC were biased against him when they compared two previous cases they had ruled on and by recorded statements they had made during deliberation that were clearly against his religion.
This was a one time ruling on this particular case because the CCRC had screwed up. Believe me I wish that they had ruled in his favor on the grounds of his sincerely held religious beliefs under freedom of religion.