Yes. She is always being an asshole.
That’s an entirely different claim than what you’ve been saying. Let me refresh your memory:
italics mine.
You’ve been claiming that she has the right to be served. You then changed your argument to suggest that it’s illegal to discriminate against her. I asked you for cites but you produced none. Re-reading this, I’d like to know what you feel she was discriminated against for. And with that, was it a for being part of a protected class?
In any case, you just changed your entire argument. What started out as a rights violation has now morphed into them risking aliening their customers. There’s a pretty big gap between stripping someone of their rights and annoying your customers.
I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I don’t think they should have been refused either. The SCOTUS made a mistake last week.
I see. Perception is reality. Good thing no one would ever say that about you or I.
Well, no, they wouldn’t, because our jobs do not have us standing in front of the cameras for millions of people to watch as we lie to justify the administrations behavior.
If I had a job that gave me that much public exposure, then I would expect that my actions in that job would have an effect on the way I am received by the public.
I’ve changed my entire argument in your mind maybe. In my mind it’s pretty consistent. I grew up with the notion that the customer is always right, famous or not. Or to put it another way, you err on the side of generousity when treating customers. Sarah Sanders and her entourage did nothing wrong by seeking a restaurant to eat at one evening. This is bigotry whether she was part of a “protected class” or not. It shouldn’t happen with reputable businesses. I’m all for Democrats, but this was not the way to get things done. It makes the restaurant owners seem childish.
Ever heard of “don’t shoot the messenger”?
Right there is your problem. The customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is very often wrong.
No, you humor reasonable requests by customers, as they are, ultimately, your source of income. You do not err on the side of generosity, that’s how you lose money and go out of business.
No, she did something wrong when she went to work that morning. She continued to do wrong when she didn’t quit before she left.
It is not bigotry, as that would be against a group of people. This is against a single person for specific, articulable reasons.
Put it this way, if Bill Cosby shows up at your establishment, would you take his business? He didn’t rape any of your employees, and is not currently raping anyone, so by your logic, you would have to take him.
Yes, and that doesn’t apply in the slightest here. She is not simply a messenger, that would be the TV that you watch her lies on. She is the spokesperson. She is not just relaying messages, she is actively lying and defending the administrations behavior and policies.
Herd this one before.
The one thing that a tolerant society cannot afford to tolerate is intolerance.
Sarah Sanders is not just the White House Press Secretary, she was a senior adviser for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and is not some innocent worker.
Waters was encouraging protest and harassment; which are usually protected by the First Amendment.
Lets look at Trump’s response.
“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”
And lets review that it is Trump who has called for violence in the past.
In addition he:
Called violent nazis “fine people.”
Leveraging religion to justify all manner of discrimination.
Gross, reckless fabrications about Muslims and Mexicans and immigrants.
Ignoring evidence of a Russian interference that threatens our national sovereignty, irrespective of his potential involvement.
Unhinged Twitter rants against private citizens and their businesses, against celebrities and political opponents and world leaders.
Now Trump wants to pretend to be civilized?
Now Tump and his followers want to talk about measured debate?
Now his fans are waggin your finger at Democrats for being disrespectful?
Now they want to shame the Democrats for supposed lack of manners?
Now they want to gaslight Democrats into guilt and apology—as if they’ve lost their dignity?
Trump doesn’t get to play that card. That request is off the table for him.
He lost that moral high ground somewhere between excusing his mocking of a disabled reporter and celebrating brown-skinned kids in cages.
We need to make life hard on the intolerant, as it is the only way we can maintain a tolerant society.
You claimed that what the restaurant did was illegal. Calling something illegal and saying that something shouldn’t happen because you disagree with it are two very different things.
When you claim that something is illegal, you can point to the law that states this fact. When you say something shouldn’t have played out the way it did, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. However, when you start by calling something illegal, then try to quietly switch over to saying that it shouldn’t happen because it’s bad for business, that’s changing your argument.
Why don’t we start over.
Did the restaurant do something illegal or take away someone’s rights? Can you tell us what law they broke, right they took away or how they did something illegal?
If you can’t back that up, you really don’t have an argument.
On the other hand, if you are saying that kicking her out is bad for business, that’s different. If that’s what you want to argue, have at it. It’s really just about opinions at that point.
And, to be clear, you’re not going to gaslight me into thinking that I’m simply interpreting your argument differently. All your posts are there to read, you can see how they changed.
They evolved.
Remind us again which law pertains to that, please.
No one has said she or they did.
No, I don’t think I’m inclined to let you re-define “bigotry” that way; I’m going to stick with the current definition.
And I agree that you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how far it diverges from reality. But none of us is obligated to accept it or to not mention how utterly divorced from the facts it is.
These are all excellent reasons—to punish Trump.
Fine. The restaurant did nothing that’s by the book illegal. Happy now?
So, the administration is limited to only trump? You are saying that if trump himself came in, then it would be okay to deny him service?
How about sessions, who helps implement these policies?
Or other cabinet members for their failings of the american people?
I’ll agree that the white house landscapers have no influence over policy, so kicking them out over the white house’s actions would be a bit harsh.
But I would argue that SHS is closer in level of having an impact on the policies and actions of the white house that holding her accountable is fair. You feel that she is less culpable, and so shouldn’t be held responsible by the public for the actions she represents.
That is a difference of opinion that I can respect. For my part, I probably would not deny service to any of these people, as, if nothing else, most of my customers are conservatives, and while not exactly trump supporters, align closely enough that it would be a poor business decision. I would not have made the same decision as the restaurant owner, but I completely respect her right to do so.
One thing the restaurant owner did that was helpful was to get a discussion going at the very least. That discussion gets people to consider the culpability if those who are involved in a crooked administration. So there’s that.
That is an invalid metaphor in this case because we are not discussing shooting her here.
Yup.
…lets break this down.
As an analogy this is a fail. Its a fail because it doesn’t compare something to anything for the purposes of explanation or clarification. What you’ve done instead is offer a suggestion. “If they did this, then that would have been fair” is a suggestion, not an analogy.
In addition to that there was no reason for the the restaurant to have a sign saying “we don’t serve Republicans” because they didn’t have a policy of not serving Republicans.
They didn’t have a sign saying “We don’t serve members of the Trump Regime” because they didn’t have a policy of not serving members of the Trump regime.
What your suggestion shows is that you still have a fundamental disconnect with what actually happened here.
This wasn’t a planned event. The owner of the restaurant got a call from their staff to say that SHS was dining and made the decision to ask SHS to leave based on the wishes of the staff that were working that night. So the suggestion they could have put up a sign bears no relation to the situation at hand. It nonsense as a solution, and its nonsense as an analogy.
Apparently there’s more than one of us here who doesn’t understand analogies.