I didn’t say anything about "political orientation, rather I said “political public figures”. But if you want to make an argument one way or the other, please do so, and I’d be happy to give you my opinion on it.
You may be right, IF Mr. Gilmore posted this somewhere that garnered a fair amount of attention on its own, or surely would have on its own. “Out there”? “Online story”? Obviously Mr. Gilmore doesn’t have the huge bully pulpit (ha!) of the literal spokesperson of the most powerful office on Earth — but I’ll concede your point IF he was commanding a sizable audience with his posting. I honestly have no idea.
ETA: You used the phrase “made public.” Am I (for example) making something public, through this very messsge board posting?
I’m not exactly a liberal, but I haven’t mentioned it because I don’t particularly care about it. I think you OUGHT to be able to serve or not serve ANYBODY in your business, without any stated reason, then let capitalism sort it out (and capitalism WILL sort this one out).
Your political views are a choice. Being black, or gay, not so much. This is why laws protect those classes.
Which is impressive given the shithole reviews Trump properties have gotten for years.
In principle, I agree. When businesses send away customers based on some shared identifier, someone will realize that they also refuse to accept money people are willing to spend, which means there is an opening for a business.
Of course, this approach works best in an environment that allows an easy entry into the market; if the threshold is so high that it takes serious time, ressources and effort to close the gap, the exclusion could have serious repercussions for the discriminated.
In an emergency, even a temporary exclusion from products or services can have dire consequences.
I agree, in general, but there are very few things in life I consider “emergencies.” You’re gushing blood? Emergency. House burning down? Emergency. Seat at a restaurant table? Wedding cake? NOT any emergency.
He seems to have little faith in the ability of his Campaign Senior Adviser’s ability to choose clean restaurants.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trumpists may be delighted to learn that the Red Hen restaurant shut its doors the following evening — the owner had already received three death threats.
Experience has taught us that the Free Market does not, in fact, sort out these problems, at least not within any one person’s lifetime. Just look at any of the segregated businesses in the Jim Crow-era South.
That’s terrible. The owner apparently isn’t paying much attention to the events of the last couple years if she didn’t see that coming.
“Americans are waking up to the realization, as Germans once did, that 1/3rd of their people would destroy another 1/3rd, while another 1/3rd watched” - Werner Herzog
(That latter third are those upset about “civility”)
The moral message being “gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” The idea that the baker issue isn’t an issue of discrimination is laughable.
Now, if a group came to the baker and said, “We want to have a big rally to legalize gay marriage, and we want you to make the cake for this political event,” I’m fine with the baker saying, no way. But the sole issue here is really that gay people won’t be served wedding cakes, period, which makes it an issue of discrimination.
Further, if gay people come in to the shop who were well-known Jill Stein supporters, I have no problem with them being told to take a hike on the basis that they are Jill Stein supporters. But not on the basis that they are gay.
So, SHS wasn’t in any way being discriminated against for being a woman, white, Christian, or conservative. She was treated differently because she carries out her job to lie to people and insult other Americans with a great deal of zeal. That’s much different.
Yeah, but which one are the other 1/3rds? I’m a frequenter of yahoo comment section, and I regularly see both sides predicting and seemingly relishing in the idea of a civil war. Small sample, but still.
Besides, look at how she was dressed.
.
I can’t find anything resembling that last clause in the ethics regulations; I left my Penumbral Emanation Spectacles in my other jacket.
Actually, one of the restaurant’s employees also made it public, but I’m not sure how much traction it would have gotten if Sanders hadn’t publicized it.
Trump adherents are not a protected class. Gay people are.
A business is justified in refusing service and asking someone to leave if they are impacting the business, a point that’s been made several times before.
Why are you assuming that this was some calculated strategy? Why are you assuming that the person responsible for seating them had any authority to turn them away, or any interest in raising it with the owner? Doesn’t it make more sense to think that it took a while for the majority of staff – especially the non-floor staff – to become aware that Sanders was there, and for them to then make their objections known to the owner?
This is factually incorrect. The baker in question did not refuse service to gay customers, period. He offered to sell them any other cake.
Then we don’t disagree. Merchants should be allowed to discriminate against those who support things they find distasteful, or with which they disagree. Even if they are gay, or Trump supporters. Or if they are wearing a MAGA hat, or a BLM t-shirt, or a Jill Stein button.
I’ve already made the argument. Ms. Sanders was discriminated against because of her political orientation, which is that of a Trump supporter.
Of course the inestimable Maxine Waters thinks it’s a fine idea, because she believes that God is on her side, to harass members of the Trump administration in public everywhere. No doubt she would agree that the same tactics are appropriate directed against, say, her, or Obama.
Or perhaps not. 
Regards,
Shodan