Someone once asked how much JAQing is allowed before it’s threadshitting or derailing. The answer is this much. Without evidence this attack on the source is an obvious ad hominem and also off-topic to the point of derailment.
No more about CBS in this thread without new evidence.
Everyone else - please aspire to not be distracted so easily.
[/moderating]
Defend herself from what? There’s no indication that anyone would have ever heard about this if Sanders hadn’t made it public. It’s a tactic I call “preemptive retaliation”. If Sanders was defending herself, it’s all the other party’s fault and not Sanders’s. But if there was no further attack coming, and you’ve presented no evidence that there was, then the idea that she was defending herself is baseless. It’s just a way to deflect blame.
As long as they’re not using it for any government business that should be handled in a more secure manner, that comparison makes sense.
But that was the issue, wasn’t it? She didn’t just send personal emails from her government account, did she? She sent government emails from her personal account, didn’t she?
So the comparison you made is between two things that are significantly different.
Of course people would have heard about it. Plenty of people knew about it, it was highly political and social media is a thing. I’m slightly surprised Sanders reacted quickly enough to be the first to mention it.
You call it “preemptive retaliation” and of course you blame only the politician you disapprove of despite the fact that they were the target in this case. Which is why you call it “preemptive retaliation” when they mention it. It’s circular - you call it that because you blame them and you use that to “justify” blaming them. Or are you just annoyed that she got an attempt to mitigate the harm out first?
Business and public figures make statements all the time and will generally prefer to get their statement out first if they can and if it’s likely that someone else will use whatever happened to portray them in a bad light. It’s prudent defence to do so, especially now that social media exists so it’s always likely that someone else will use whatever happened to portray them in a bad light.
Sanders was totally reacting to the big social media storm that she started, seriously?
“Preemptive retaliation” is a term I came up with when the U.S. defended itself against Iraq by attacking them first. It’s a tactic I’ve seen other times since then, including now, from you. It’s just a way of saying that one side has no choice in their actions; all the choice, and therefore all the blame, belongs to someone else.
I’m not defending the restaurant owner. She chose to ask Sanders to leave. I haven’t seen her try to deny this, or to avoid the consequences. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about her actions. She’s also not a public figure who speaks on behalf of my country.
But the OP of this thread claimed that Sanders took the high road. I find that ludicrous. She chose to tweet about this and should own the consequences of her actions as much as anyone else.
Hello, 911 ? I believe I just saw someone getting savaged.
What’s the debate supposed to be about? Should Congress make Trump lapdogs, or Republicans more generally, a protected class? Or is the “debate” just “Liberals sure are hypocrites; Discuss” ?
I, for one, never supported the coerced gay wedding cake. Are there any Dopers who agree that that baker should not be coerced, but that Ms. Huckabee-Sanders has inalienable rights those gays do not?
I wouldn’t call it “defending herself” but I agree with you that she had every right to make this incident public.
The restaurant owner took a political stance against her actions as press secretary of the White House, which is, imo, also perfectly fine, but one of the consequences of political action is the right of everyone else (particularly the party exposed to such actions) to debate them publicly as well as counter or support them - within the rules set by the law, of course [and, hopefully, civil discourse].
Apparently, an expert with a much better grasp of the ethical rules set for her job disagrees with your position - and those should apply here. But you could indeed make an argument in favour of using the official channels.
If the reason for her expulsion had been personal behaviour in the restaurant, she would have been completely wrong to use or in this case rather abuse the resources and the reach of her political position to make the incident public.
But since it was this political position and the actions she took while holding it that motivated the restaurant to refuse service, it looks to me almost more appropriate to make this public using the official channel of this position and not a private one.
Government Speech is not Free Speech.
AFAICT it is going the other way - the baker should be coerced, but not the restaurant owner, because Trump.
The “debate” is mostly trying to cast around to find some way to justify “you can be forced to make them a cake but not serve them a cup of coffee”. It’s not really a double standard; it’s the same standard as always - people should be free to express their opinions as long as they agree with me.
Regards,
Shodan
nm
Or maybe it’s the standard of the accomodations clause of the Civil Rights Act, and whether or not sexual orientation and/or political public figures should be included or not.
For the record, I think bakers should be able to decide what messages they will write on cakes for customers, but must sell “standard” cakes to customers regardless of sexual orientation. And I think small business owners should be able to boot political public figures for actions they disagree with if they want.
The difference, I believe, is that discriminating against people in matters over which they have no control is fundamentally different than discriminating against people for their individual actions. The first is manifestly unfair, the latter the very definition of fair.
A person has no control over the colour of their skin, their gender, their ethnicity - but they damn sure can control who they work for, what causes they espouse, what opinions they express. I’ll discriminate against Nazis, fascists, and this current administration all night, all day, and twice on Sunday.
To those who cry that Sanders’s first amendment rights are being trampled on, I would say this: The whole point of the first amendment is to prevent the government from punishing citizens for what they say or think. If a private citizen had walked into a government-owned restaurant and the government official running the place had said “You have to leave because your political views are unacceptable”, that would be a violation of the first amendment. But the situation here is the opposite. A government official (under color of authority) is crying about being punished by a private citizen. You might as well defend a cop by accusing the person they arrested of “false arrest”. The concept is backwards.
As for the comparison to the bakery incident… no one chooses to be gay and being gay doesn’t hurt anyone. But Sanders chose to be an asshole and her being an asshole arguably does hurt people. If it had been my restaurant, I might have taken a live-and-let-live attitude and let Sanders eat there, but I support someone who made the opposite call.
I see no problem with either her being asked to leave, nor her tweeting that she had been asked to leave.
Isn’t that free speech at work?
The restaurant owner made his/her choice and Sarah got to make hers. Now everyone else gets to make their own opinion. If it brings in business yay, if it forces them to close shop, yay.
Working as intended.
…and now the President of the United States is weighing in. What a fucking world we live in.
Sigh.
The baker in question didn’t discriminate based on orientation - it was a political and moral message he was being forced to include.
Why shouldn’t a restaurant be obliged to sell “standard” coffee or menu items to customers regardless of political orientation?
Regards,
Shodan
Nope.
The owner of the restaurant was “artistically offended” by her presence, so he threw her out. Hey, the Republican Right set the rules, so they shouldn’t be complaining. After all, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Alas, SHS’s initial tweet was made after the incident had already been made public.
The ‘86 Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ image was posted at 2:16am on Jun 23 by Brennan Gilmore. SHS made her initial tweet at 10:53am on Jun 23. The story was already out there. SHS was not the instigator of the online story.