People, here and elsewhere, would probably use that exact word to describe me. I’d argue that someone that regularly lies, belittles others, and uses a government microphone to attack a public business is also an asshole.
You have constantly attempted to argue that Sanders has a right to service that trumps the rights of the business owner. This isn’t about political opinion, or else they’d refuse service to all Republicans.
As a weekend bartender, I right off guests all the time. Drunk and belligerent? Bye! Making rude comments to my staff? CYA! Being known nationwide as someone who burns facts in order to get that perfect smoky eye shadow? Don’t even bother sitting down. She’s not the messenger, she is actively engaging in misleading the American people.
That, I think, is the misunderstanding here. She wasn’t asked to leave because of ‘who she is’, but rather what she chooses to do.
That’s simply not true. There’s a certain point at which you simply have to cut your losses and send a customer out the door either because it’s not worth dealing with them or they’re driving away other customers.
A few years ago I told a regular customer (she was probably in at least once a week) that she couldn’t shop here anymore because she was harassing the employees. Twenty bucks is twenty bucks, but when she tried (multiple times) to startle the person using the meat slicer and in her words ‘I hope you cut your fingers off’, it was time for her to go.
I kicked out a person yelling racial slurs at another customer.
At your store you may be more tolerant of these things and maybe after doing this for almost 40 years I’m a bit jaded, but I don’t have an issue asking people to leave. Yes, it’s generally because of things they’ve done while in the store but my point is that just because you have money doesn’t give you the right to shop here.
If I were a restaurant owner who had her come in, I would not have kicked her out.
I also would not have subjected any of my staff to waiting on her.
I would have waited on them myself, I would have ensured that the food was prepared correctly and hygienically, and I would have told her this.
Something along the lines of, “Due to your actions as the spokesperson for this administration, none of my staff is willing to serve you. I will take care of you and your party, I will ensure that no one on my staff does anything to your visit anything less than pleasant.”
Then I would have refused to take her money, and asked her to not return.
But that’s me, because I am a coward who is terrified that doing something like this owner did could ruin my business. I applaud her decision, and wish I either had the customer base or at least the courage to stand up to those who are destroying our country.
I’m going to try to monitor this thread so I can point out to you every time you bring it up that this issue with Ms. Sanders is not about “differences in political opinion.” Until you understand that, you won’t understand why she was asked to leave.
Oh, I’m pretty sure I understand why she was asked to leave. It’s pretty simple really. Some people don’t like her or what she stands for. It would be like having to wait on the press secretary for Kim Jong Un or some other tyrant. However, the anger at SHS, while real, is also misdirected. If someone ejects SHS from their establishment, how exactly will that affect Donald Trump? Will it make him change his mind on border security? A Muslim travel ban? Tax breaks for the super rich? If one could persuade SHS in a more inviting atmosphere, one might actually be able to catch her ear. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
(Cue the knee jerk responses—“we’re not talking about flies here!”)
You’re still looking at the entire issue from a Trump-centric view. It’s not about Trump. It was never about Trump. It’s about HER lies and rudeness. Sean Spicer eventually got sick of being the mouthpiece of the administration shitshow after often looking ashamed about it. Anyone remember the bushes?
SHS treats the press room like her own little dictatorship, and the press as her serfs who must be punished.
She definitely comes across as arrogant. But I don’t think arrogance alone will get you booted from a restaurant. It might get you foreign substances in your food however.
I cooked in an upscale restaurant for a couple of years. Adulteration of what comes out of the kitchen did not happen. If anything, we would be activists in favor of food quality. I remember the kitchen manager approving trays of cod for the kids’ menu fish-n-chips. The fish was juuuuust starting to turn, and would likely never be noticed by the consumer once it was battered and fried, but we refused to cook the cod and it was dumpstered.
Restaurant chefs/cooks/prep people are repeatedly defamed by this suggestion. It’s an ignorant statement.
People in this thread have suggested that it’s entirely possible. It wasn’t an idea I came up with, so you’ll understand if I object to your calling the statement ignorant.
She questioned the ability of a national level journalist of being incapable of understanding a simple question.
That’s akin to Trump calling others “low IQ”. That’s not just arrogant, that’s demeaning and insulting. Remember your statement about honey and vinegar?
What the hell is the smoky eyed bitch trying to catch?
What effect would it have on trump if trump were the one kicked out? None at all, I imagine.
The real question is, is what effect does it have on her, as she is the person that is being denied service. She is not just some random person who happens to be associated with the white house administration, she worked to help get him elected, and she is currently working to defend his policies to the public.
If they persuaded her to stop telling lies in service of the administration, that would be great. If they convinced her to quit her job, as that is the only way for her to stop telling lies, that’s fine too.
The thing that you keep coming back to is that she’s just poor little SHS, with no agency, no actions, not a thing at all that she is responsible or culpable for, and that is not true. She is culpable for the actions of the administration, and if members of the public want to hold a government official to account for their culpability, that is entirely their right.
ETA:You may get more flies with honey than vinegar, but they actually like piles of shit best of all.
I don’t feel sorry for Sarah Sanders at all. I’m more concerned that Democrats may end up resembling the deplorables on the other side of the divide. Manners go a long way. Still, it’s been done, and it’s certainly got the conversation going if nothing else.
The bottom line is that public-accommodation businesses such as restaurants do have the right to refuse service, so long as the refusal is not based on membership in certain classes. The particulars vary by state, but most are some version of what the ACLU lists: race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, or disability.*
Theoretically a restaurant could refuse service to any public official based on that official’s known words and actions. That this does not happen more often–given that the staff of a restaurant may have very strong feelings about said words and actions–is probably down to the power of public opinion as a whole.
For example, if Restaurant A routinely turned away Democratic officials, they might lose business due to a public perception that the refusal of service was unfair. Even Republican voters might not be willing to assume that all officials belonging to the Democratic party were automatically horrible enough to merit being excluded from the restaurant—public opinion might lean toward the idea that the owner/operator of Restaurant A was a bit of a nutbar. And, even if Republican themselves, they might not care to eat in a restaurant operated by a nutbar.
But this isn’t a case of “all Republicans will be turned away.” It’s a case of a specific Administration that is taking specific actions that many people find to be abhorrent. And if owners and staff of some public-accommodation businesses find that they cannot offer service to people whose work consists of specific abhorrent actions, and they are willing to risk a public reaction that such refusal is unjustified—then they are within their rights to make that choice.
That right ends at discriminating against demographic groups (people of a particular race or religion or national origin or sexual orientation or gender or age). And that right would be on extremely shaky ground when it comes to discriminating against particular groups that are voluntary associations (as opposed to demographic characteristics)–members of political parties or members of social or interest groups.
But refusing service to a member of Trump’s administration is legal; whether or not businesses choose to do so is a function of the strength of their objection to the particular official’s conduct, and of their willingness to risk public condemnation of the refusal of service. The latter will be an important factor for many.
How would you feel if Milo Yionotgonnalookuptospellhislastname or Richard Spencer were turned away? Would you feel that that is due to their political party affiliations, or due to what they have said?
I don’t know who they are, so I can’t say. What I can say is that there is more than a hint of sexism here in defending the turning away of Sarah Sanders as opposed to a male member of Trump’s team. People seem okay with the fact that she should face the music for being press secretary. I don’t recall Sean Spicer getting blasted quite the same way, nor any other male member of the Trump administration. Coincidence?
