Sarah H. Sanders refused service at VA. restaurant

1. 80

   Credence2posted 5 years ago

   Just after I was finished bashing the Right over the gay cake-bake thing in Colorado, along comes Sarah.
   
   As I say, you are in business to serve customers, discrimination based on race, color, creed, religious preference and sexual orientation is not authorized. That even protects those who have contrary ideological orientation viewpoints, in otherwords, Right-wingers.
   
   I dissaprove of the restaurant's owner behavior.
   
   Keep your conscience and points of view regarding customers, outside business related factors, at home where they belong.
   
   Have a look at the article if you please.
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/restaur … 35133.html

   replyreport
   1. 67

      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously, what else could Sarah Sanders Huckleberry possibly expect? I'd refuse to serve her food or services as well, and then serve her a few explitives as the door hit her in the you know what:
      
      It would be the same treatment for the entire grifter Trump family, John Kelly and anyone else who aids and abets Donny the 3rd world dictator:

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That would be my gut reaction, but I would grit my teeth and serve her.

         replyreport
      2. 80

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I can't follow you on this one, Jake, because that will allow everybody and anyone to deny service to people for non business related reasons.  A business owner could apply this "moral quandary" to Muslims for example and there are plenty that would certainly find that to their liking.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I agree Cred, but if a public business can refuse to serve someone they don't morally agree with, then it opens a whole can of worms as to all businesses. Who decides? SCOTUS?

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "I agree Cred, but if a public business can refuse to serve someone they don't morally agree with, then it opens a whole can of worms as to all businesses. Who decides? SCOTUS?"
               ------------
               Randy, I definitely say that a public business should not have the option to not serve someone they don't agree with as they may not "morally agree" with someone of the wrong color. Then, we will be going backwards.
               
               I think that the only reason that the conservatives prevailed in the last recent SC case was due to a series of technicalities. The idea of equal access to public accommodation had never really been threatened. Even the current rightwing leaning court could not ignore such a basic tenet and precedent in American Law.
               
               I would take that for myself to mean that I would be obligated to remove anyone harassing Ms. Sanders or her family in my establishment. Anyone should be able to dine at my greasy spoon in peace and be treated equally.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree anyone should be welcome in any public establishment, Cred. I was simply giving examples of where such a refusal of service can lead. Was not surprised at the SC case outcome. The Bible Belt and all that....      Both racism and homophobia is alive and well.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     In many states businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for just about any reason, Sarah Sanders Huckleberry and her association with an individual who commits crimes against humanity and then spends her day lying about it to the American people is a perfect example of why the law was enacted:

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it's okay to refuse to serve her because of moral convicttions, just as I don't think it's okay to refuse service to a gay couple because of moral convictions.
      
      It will be interesting to see if those who support the baker who wouldn't make a cake for a gay couple will also support this restaurant owner.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I look at ita s the same thing as the baker refusing to serve the gay couple. If a restaurant opened and refused to serve Xtians you'd see the sh*t hit the fan from those on the right. Of course, if you put yourself out there in the political game, being criticized comes with the territory. She claims she treats everyone with courtesy, but it you've ever watched a WH briefing, you'd know better. She often lies and makes sarcastic remarks to reporters,especially when she doesn't want to answer a question.
         
         
         Apparently her presence in the restaurant was disturbing the other diners who were there to get away from the border fiasco, and she apparently was a constant reminder to some as she had her children with her. She deserves the infamy and stench by representing such a cretin as her boss.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Believe me, I dont feel sorry for her in the least. Many people despise her for legitimate reasons. She lies to the American people with a horrifying lack of emotion or remorse. And she calls herself a Christian.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Xtians--or rather those who claim to be--are often the most self righteous and judgmental of any religious sect. And just as often, they have no clue where their handbook actually came from or who compiled the many stories. For some reason, preachers never go into that with their congregation... 

               replyreport
      2. 80

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I would have to ask that question, as well.....

         replyreport
   3. 81

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      While I agree and completely understand the sentiment, in terms of the law, the section of the Civil Rights Act relating to discrimination in public accommodations, does not include political belief as a protected class:
      
      "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin"(1)(my emphasis)
      
      The relevant state law (Virginia) expands on those protected classes, but still does not include political belief:
      
      "It is the policy of the Commonwealth to:
      
      1. Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability, in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions; in employment; preserve the public safety, health and general welfare; and further the interests, rights and privileges of individuals within the Commonwealth;"(2)(my emphasis)
      
      So although the owner's behaviour may not be to everyone's liking, she doesn't seem to have broken any laws, as far as I can tell.
      
      In relation to the case involving the baker, relevant state law (Colorado) includes sexual orientation as a protected class, so the case was brought because the owner discriminated against people on the basis of that protected class:
      
      "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . ."
      
      In contrast, Sarah Huckabee Sanders may have broken federal regulations by tweeting about the incident from her official White House Press Secretary account:
      
      "Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so."(5)
      
      Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) says:
      
      (b) Appearance of governmental sanction.
      
      Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another."(4)
      
      I think posting her response from her White House account rather than her personal account could "reasonably be construed to imply" that the government sanctions the activity of the restaurant owner, but I accept that's open to interpretation.
      
      (1) https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-ci … mmodations
      (2) https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/tit … n2.2-3900/
      (3) 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation
      (4) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702
      (5) https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/101 … wsrc%5Etfw

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Don W.
         
         But, surely you see how that interpretation can be a convenient excuse to discrimate against anyone. The kook in Tennessee who places the placard at the entrance of  his business establishment, NO LIBERALS ALLOWED".  So, I can't order my chicken fried steak, because the proprietor said I that was a liberal, as most black people tend to be. So, am I being asked to leave because he presumes me to be a liberal or because I am black? He skirts both the letter and spirit of the law. Just because this Sanders is hired as a Trump mouthpiece does not necessarily reflect her political affiliation. The proprietor is making a judgement call, that I believe is not warranted
         
         Not allowing Sanders to dine is based on circumvention of the law. Using ones contrary political affiliation as an excuse to discriminate to avoid prosecution normally reserved for those who violate the right of equal accomodation for the protected classes is just a ruse, in my opinion.
         
         --------
         "In relation to the case involving the baker, relevant state law (Colorado) includes sexual orientation as a protected class, so the case was brought because the owner discriminated against people on the basis of that protected class:"
         
         From what I understood sexual orientation was not a "protected class" at the time the incident regarding the cake occurred?
         
         -------------
         
         "In contrast, Sarah Huckabee Sanders may have broken federal regulations by tweeting about the incident from her official White House Press Secretary account:"
         
         Don, I can't speak to this as she may very well be guilty regarding this matter....
         
         
         Oh, by the way, being a Rightwinger is a "disability" of a sort.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I  was just looking at the legality of the owner's actions, but I can see why it looked like I was defending it. I don't think it's the right thing to do either for the same reasons as you.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I agree as well. If I owned the place I'd let her sit there and face the music as long as she liked.

               replyreport
         2. 67

            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Credence2, Let's not forget, being gay is not a crime, but Sarah Sanders acting as an accomplice and being complicit with a reprehensible madman in the white house who is as we speak, committing atrocious crimes against humanity right here in the former United States of America, by abusing innocent children, is indeed a criminal act:
            
            When you choose to act in the capacity that Sarah Sanders does, willingly and intentionally lying profusely to the American people and enabling the racist in the oval office, you should expect nothing less then the consequences you receive including patriotic business owners who rightfully refuse to serve you:
            
            Would anyone here as business owner serve Joseph Goebbels? Yes, yes, I know, there are some right wing crazies like many of Mr. Trump's cult members who definitely would, but how about patriotic Americans?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               So according to your brilliant reasoning about Sarah and Trump , James Comey , McCabe  ,Strocky baby , Page honey , and all the rest should be the fault of Obama right ?  ...............I mean Right ......uh .....Randy ?

               replyreport
            2. 80

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "Credence2, Let's not forget, being gay is not a crime"
               
               Hey, Jake, of course being gay is not a crime, no dispute there.
               
               We may agree and hold much of the same opinions regarding Trump and his administration, but it is still "opinion" all the same.
               
               Until there are formal charges and convictions, my point of view is no more valid than those of the rightwingers on this forum. Otherwise, I have to rely on the electorate to correct what I consider, the error.
               
               There are plenty on the Right that would laud Miss Sarah and we on the left all have to avoid extralegal processes to get at these people. Because, I don't want that approach used against me and those that I advocate.
               
               Yes, I am not particularly fond of Joseph Goebbels, David Duke or any number of other seedy characters, but if I used the fact that I don't like them as a reason to not serve, am I not opening myself to be treated that way by others based on the same reasoning?
               
               I have to respect the office, even if I dislike the current occupant and will remain professional until the opportunity presents itself to act in the appropriate way.

               replyreport
2. 88

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   The replies to the OP are a really unexpected and disheartening illustration.
   
   Sad, very unfair.... :-)
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Nice to have you back, GA. May I presume that the view of the purples reflect my own? I am now waiting to have the "red" folks weigh in.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Cred, I don't think a color has anything to do with the depressing responses I see here. None of the responses I am talking about come from political ideology or thoughts on discrimination.
         
         But yes, I do agree with your perspective.
         
         What was most disheartening was they prompted a recall of a thread years back, when Margaret Thatcher died. I was flabbergasted when several forum posters that I regularly engaged with, were hopping with glee at her death. Their comments were so bad that the ones that just sang; "Ding-dong The witch is dead..." were almost praise-worthy.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not gleeful in the very least about how people are acting, but with a lying, dishonest, and immoral POTUS setting an example with his behavior, what did you really expect?  Are you surprised at all?

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               With one exception, yes Randy, I am surprised.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not, GA. When people willfully overlook lying from the POTUS on such a grand scale, and you have to admit he has little affinity for the truth, it emboldens his followers to feel it's acceptable. Such a creature affects the actions of both his friends and foes, resulting in what you are witnessing now.
                  
                  
                  Do you see the situation improving as long as the POTUS keeps lying so much?

                  replyreport
         2. 80

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I remember the days when President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were thick as thieves. Even though I don't know why, I had a grudging admiration for her during her heyday and mourned her passing.
            
            It was akin to wishing Arnold Swartzenneger well as The Govenator of California even though he was GOP.  You couldn't help but to like the guy. He was still keen on California values and kept his conservatism within levels acceptable for the state.

            replyreport
3. 69

   Aime Fposted 5 years ago

   Slippery slope. I don’t think refusing people service based on political affiliation sets a great precedent. They should have sucked it up and served her.

   replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   I've been waiting on this one to see where people would go with the issue.
   So , this is where I speak of the great hypocrisy of a party of the left,  Why?
   
   The hypocrisy ? This is one woman , a woman who holds an important government position , fifty years ago in America , totally unheard of !   These last forty years the LEFT has championed the causes of women and her presence  , their place in society ,on the jobs , in the office , in positions of power but MORE than all of that in positions of equality !  Womens issues were and are just one of the championed causes of the left , yet although that attribute has been self promoted by you here , individually you have chatized the individual woman over and over  !
   
   You party does the same as has happened with Sarah Sanders with the individual issues of the immigrant , the child , the professor , the poor , the elder , the minority , the student ,  the victims , the victims of rape , of child abuse ,the prisoner , making again a victim  of every single championed entity of ideological cause , Once the group was attained for the vote ---the individual is forgotten from that which is perpetrated against them !
   Guaranteed !
   Hypocrisy !
   
   This is where YOU say ," Oh but  It's just because Sarah  works for Trump " , --and where the Doctor says  ," Go ahead double up on swallowing your hypocrisy pill prescription  , apparently it's not helping "

   replyreport
5. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I just read that DHS employees have more been warned their lives are in danger from left wing activists.
   
   What is wrong with the left? We are way past comparisons of behavior patterns when Obama was in office.
   
   The left is proving to be more and more a threat to liberty and freedom.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Liberty and freedom is not a concern of the far left.  Only that the rest of the country is forced, using any method, to follow their grossly distorted version of what they term "morality".  The only difference between them and the far right is that the far right is better controlled and has less propensity for violence.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I'm getting tired of all the entitled whining and bullying. I don't think they realize just how detrimental their tactics are to their cause.

         replyreport
      2. 90

         IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         LOL

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, the KKK and White Supremacists are well known for their kindness. 

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               So you're comparing that restaurant owner to the KKK? Interesting.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You just don't understand do you LTL .............
                  
                  
                  One woman declares war on another and they turn it to bigotry and race ?
                  I don't get them either !

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     It was asinine. I read where the woman claimed it was because she had certain standards of conduct for her patrons. Really? I wonder what she knows of any of her patrons. The left has lost all ability to rationally discern truth from fiction.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I guess your kumbaya only applies to the right, eh?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Except the" Kumbaya "was actually invented by the left and for only the left , we wouldn't dream .

                           replyreport
                        2. 61

                           Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           My kumbaya? If letting people move freely in a free society,without undue harassment is kumbaya, then it should apply to all.

                           replyreport
               2. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Dan stated those on the far right weren't violent and IB laughed at the comment, L2L.  My comment was meant to give an example of those from the far right who are anything but nonviolent.  Geesh!

                  replyreport
6. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   I think we can all agree Sanders has very difficult job trying to represent her boss and explain the many different lies he tells on a daily basis. I also get her sometimes petulant and sarcastic remarks to the reporters in the room.
   
   Let's face it though, she is on the government payroll and answers to the citizens for her boss. I hear she's leaving soon but don't expect anyone better to take her place.  When someone speaks for an arrogant liar, they should know it reflects on them personally and expect to be treated ill by some.
   
   
   It comes with the territory.

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Leave it to the absolute  brilliance of some to excuse poor business behavior and mannerisms of the restaurant  establishment and criticise  the noting of it by the victim and whether legal or not  ,  I'm sure Sarah knows that the majority of people actually experienced in business and serving the public are more profit savvy , better behaved and far more mannered than these absolute losers . What kind of business seriously  and intentionally compromises half of its clientele ?
   
   The owner or manager actually had the nerve to allegedly  take a vote  among the servers , Don't worry Sarah , keep mentioning on whatever sight you have at your disposal  and these idiots serving thirty dollar burgers in Virginia will be looking for a new career and wondering why they failed this one  and have to resort to franchising a Wendy's next year !   
   Not that I don't love Wendy's .
   
   The other ideology and the hypocritical left would have already filed papers suing for discrimination against Sarah's being served because of her gender , Good thing she didn't order a wedding cake for her straight friends  .

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Franchise a Wendy's? Then they'd be blaming their notoriously slow service on background checks to verify they really want to bag that burger.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Of course they would have to hire REAL employee's and not illegals  ,pay them a wage , not just tips ,  clean up their kitchens to livable standards and maybe even fly an American flag  ?

         replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   OH SARAH , we know you're a conservative but how could you ?  Blast all over the internet that you were asked to leave that restaurant , How could you you "feckless" Trump supporter , How Could You ?..............And you're a woman too ! Shame on you for  wearing a dress and acting the victim ! Shame on you !
   
   Umm, Is that about right ?
   
   Did I act  appropriately  outraged ?
   
   Maybe we can sue Sarah for discriminating against her thirty dollar 'shroom burger and causing a blanket meltdown ?

   replyreport
9. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   Someone refresh my memory please, what's happened to all of the complaints about having to be too politically correct? 

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Aime Fposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If it personally offends them then it’s outrageous and unacceptable. If they aren’t personally offended then everyone else is just too sensitive.
      
      People lack objectivity much of the time.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      As a business owner I served anyone who walked through the doors. Whether I liked them, or not. Whether their stated political views agreed with mine, or not. Being too politically correct involves picking and choosing based on your views of what you perceive other views to be. It has nothing to do with right, or wrong. It involves just doing what you think you are supposed to, based on how you think Facebook will respond. It's a substitite someone uses when they don't want to bother to think for themselves.

      replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    This ALL points to one major truth that liberals seem unable to comprehend
    about yesterday , today  and apparently tomorrow . 
    
    Liberals  have absolutely no political message !
    
    Minor P.C. obstructions all  "here today gone tomorrow "issues , Not one of them with any amount of "stick to itness "   from their original Russian  collusion  all through each and every unproven one .  Not ONE true political leader with a cohesive message exists on the left .   Politically , a party that has a message can grow on it or grow from it .Your party is grasping at "politically correct" straws . Latest ;--- After Sarah Sanders being refuse , A Burger King refusing service to two uniformed cops .
    
    Political message 2018  - 2020 ?..............O
    
    All you can expound upon is refusing service to conservatives ?
    Ahorseback truth of the day :  Better find a political message and fast .
    See you in 2024 - 2028?

    replyreport