Sarah Sanders was told to leave a restaurant (so she alleges) because she works for Trump. Given the debate over the baker and the gay couple, I’m surprised to see no thread here.
Original Twitter thread here. CNN’s version is here.
I agree with her that it bespeaks the petty-mindedness of the owner and am pleased to see her take the high road.
The right of Free speech comes with the responsibility to respect the free speech of others.
Taking the “high road” would require her to resign and apologize to the American people for so many lies, and so much defense of the indefensible.
Also to respect the decision of the owner, not merely to the point of complying with the request to leave, but beyond that, to the point of refusing to incite a rhetorical lynch mob against the restaurant.
One notes that while her tweet included self-praising language wrt her own demeanor, she was silent about the demeanor of the restaurant’s owner. Mad props to her, I suppose, that she didn’t fabricate any tales of verbal abuse on the part of Ms. Wilkinson. OTOH, she DID imply that she has the ability to peer into her (Wilkinson’s) soul and catalog her moral failings.
What’s the debate, and how does it bear any relation to the cake case?
And yet a gay person wanting a wedding cake is fair game for discrimination by a business owner that doesn’t believe that behavior is right.
She’s a lying sack of shit in regards to her own praise of how she treats others who don’t agree with her.
As I understand it, Used Ta Be that a restaurant or a bakery or whatever could refuse service to pretty much anybody for pretty much any reason. Like, I could open up a place and say We Only Sell Our Products To Folks Under Six Feet Tall — and that was exactly as cool as if I’d said No Girls Allowed or Blacks Get Out.
As I understand it, some of that has now been struck down, and there’s a debate as to whether homosexuality is on that list. But, as I understand it, there’s no real debate as to whether a bunch of other stuff still defaults to Yeah Sure Whatever.
Seemed to me that this was more the stuff of a Pit thread.
A restaurant owner doesn’t want to serve someone actively defending child abuse, and somehow SHS is the one taking the high road?
How far morality has fallen…
A business can’t refuse service on the base of race, sex, creed, color, ethnicity, and (depending on state law) sexual orientation. But if they want to refuse service to an individual customer for reasons unrelated to any of the protected categories, that’s still their right.
As I understand it, British common law says a business open to the public can’t turn away customers, period. We’ve never adopted that standard here in the U.S.
No debate here that I can see. Asswipe is not a protected class.
She didn’t take the high road, though. The high road would be saying that she doesn’t comment about what does or doesn’t happen in her private life but appreciates that people were concerned about her. Instead, she used her public office and its official communications channels to blast a private business for the way it handled a personal business transaction. I guess her boss flagrantly mixes personal and public, so she should too. The fish rots from the head down, etc.
She shouldn’t have been booted from the restaurant. I don’t see how we can spend so much time crying about MS-13 killer babies from Mexico when the great injustice of lying scum being kicked out of a restaurant continues.
As much as I despise the Trump cabal, I think unless someone is being actively disruptive then a business open to the public should not be allowed to refuse service to a customer.
Not sure I understand the ethics problem he is pointing out. Seems a bit thin but not like it matters in this administration. Sanders could torture a kitten in the press room of the White House with no repercussion.
Free speech does not mean “You can say anything you want and I cannot react to it.” Free speech means, “You can say anything you want, and I have the right to tell you to shove it up your ass.”
Lock her up! Lock her up!
(Ethics violating SHS, that is.)
Other quotes by Ms. Huckabee-Sanders:
“Only if your mind is in the gutter would you have read it that way.”
“The premise of your question is completely ridiculous and shows the lack of knowledge that you have.”
“If anything has been inflamed, it’s the dishonesty that takes place by the news media.”
“Outrageous … ridiculous … outrageous.”
The right wing has mastered the art of bullying and then playing the victim card whenever someone responds to it.
Quartz, you seem confused about the principle of tolerance that underlies modern liberalism. It’s basically this:
As long as you’re not hurting anyone, I should put up with your special self.
So if you’re marrying another dude, you’re not hurting anyone, so I should put up with your special self and bake you a goddamn cake already.
If you’re enabling our government as they put children in cages and separate them from their parents by the thousands, you’re hurting someone, so I don’t have to put up with your special self and serve you a goddamn meal already.
I strongly disagree. I’ve had people who I’d sent to collections years prior walk in and want to do business with me. I told them to GTFO, why shouldn’t I? I also had a situation where a local dude had served his time for a fairly heinous sex crime against a child. An employee found him on the Megan’s Law site, showed me that the guy was in fact this man, and said she wasn’t comfortable interacting with the scuz. I agreed, and asked him to leave.
If SHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, Melanoma Trump, PolPot, etc wanted to do business with me I’d [del]politely[/del] ask them to leave.