Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

TMZ reported that she was kicked out of the restaurant -- The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia -- on “moral grounds” and cited a waiter who said that Sanders was served “for a total of two minutes before my owner kicked her out along with seven of her other family members.”

Outrageous. Next bakers will refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples on "moral grounds." What is this country coming to?

Would you bake a cake for a Klan wedding?

Why? Are you getting married?

Can’t answer the question?

I'm not a baker. I do deal with the public in my work, and even when someone is obviously a racist I treat them no differently than anyone else. I would rather educate than condemn. Perhaps if the baker quoted the Bible as he took their order we wouldn't have this debate.

It’s a simple enough question. The point is, some people do not want their product used for purposes that go against their conscience.

So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.

They sell their product to dealers, who in turn sell to citizens.

Do they vet the dealers?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

originally posted by: DJW001

So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.

How about Hammers...same thing...hammers kill too. The bottom line is does a criminal go to the manufacturer and say I want YOU to make me a gun, or XXX number of guns they have a moral right not to do it along with a legal right.

The bakers cake could be used wrongly to in their eyes too. Someone buys a marriage cake and pulls off the girl and puts another guy on top...lol Just like the gun manufacturer the baker could feel offended that their product was used not as intended, so I'm not sure where your no conscience fits into all of this.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

TMZ reported that she was kicked out of the restaurant -- The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia -- on “moral grounds” and cited a waiter who said that Sanders was served “for a total of two minutes before my owner kicked her out along with seven of her other family members.”

Outrageous. Next bakers will refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples on "moral grounds." What is this country coming to?

Would you bake a cake for a Klan wedding?

Why? Are you getting married?

Can’t answer the question?

I'm not a baker. I do deal with the public in my work, and even when someone is obviously a racist I treat them no differently than anyone else. I would rather educate than condemn. Perhaps if the baker quoted the Bible as he took their order we wouldn't have this debate.

It’s a simple enough question. The point is, some people do not want their product used for purposes that go against their conscience.

So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.

They sell their product to dealers, who in turn sell to citizens.

Do they vet the dealers?

I’m sure they have to be liscenced, but could be wrong.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

What right would that be?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

OK, i stand corrected.

You are arguing for allowing your own bias of inferring motive to allow the trampling of religious freedom.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

What right would that be?

The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs. In a secular society, everyone has the right to be treated equally, irrespective of race, religion, beliefs, gender, and so forth. The gay couple believed that their marriage was acceptable in our secular society, and had every reason to expect that the bakery would treat them like any other couple. As it was, the baker did not. He claimed that by providing them with the same service that he would provide anyone else somehow infringed his practice of religion.

Now, my understanding of Christianity suggests that its core values include tolerance, forgiveness of sin, and the desire to spread redemption, wherever possible. A Christian baker, living in a secular society, would treat a secular business transaction as rendering Caesar unto Caesar. He would take the order from the supposed sinners, forgive their sin, ask forgiveness from his god for enabling their sin, then pray for their redemption. That's not what he did. He approached the secular transaction with prejudice and rejected it without forgiveness or prayer for redemption. It was a secular choice, not a religious one. It was a political act, not a "spiritual" one.

When the restaurant expelled Sarah Sanders' party, there was no hypocrisy. It was a blatantly political act. The two cases are essentially the same, and the Supreme Court has made it possible. If Sanders sued, all the restaurant would have to do is say that Sanders' support of Trump's policies "violated their religious beliefs."

See how that works?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are arguing for allowing your own bias of inferring motive to allow the trampling of religious freedom.

And you are inferring bias and motive to me.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

What right would that be?

The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs.

Do you guys realize you're arguing the same point...from different viewpoints?

originally posted by: DJW001


The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs. In a secular society, everyone has the right to be treated equally, irrespective of race, religion, beliefs, gender, and so forth.

It isn't a secular society. It is a secular government. Our society is whatever the constituent parts are, and is in no way homogenous.

An example: as someone who is decidedly not Christian, I felt uneasy pressure when asked to lead the prayer for Rotary club. Not doing it would expose me to bias from my business community peers. So I led the prayer as if i was a good Christian, everyone nods in approval, and my position is at least secured among that set of peers.

I have no reason to expect that it would be otherwise, as the society I lived in at that time was very Christian. And while I could certainly try to exert some claim of bias in a human rights sense...it likely wouldn't have gone too far as there are a million reasons to not do business with someone. Including just not liking them.

Nonetheless, you have some basic misconceptions about our nation and its laws. If you are arguing that political parties/beliefs are akin to religion, then they need to be banned from participating in government altogether. And that suits me just fine.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are arguing for allowing your own bias of inferring motive to allow the trampling of religious freedom.

And you are inferring bias and motive to me.

Incorrect. I am using your words to deduce a point. That point seems ridiculous when repeated back to you, so now I get an illogical fallacy (im rubber and your glue).

a reply to: DJW001

Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.

What do you even think my argument is?

You are arguing against religious freedom.

Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.

What right would that be?

The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs.

Do you guys realize you're arguing the same point...from different viewpoints?

No. One side places religion over civil society, the other places civil society above religion. The First Amendment assures freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. The bakery would lose nothing, objectively speaking, by baking the cake. On the contrary, it would be making a profit. On the other hand, the gay couple were actively deprived of a service any other couple could expect. Thanks to the Supreme Court, religion can be used to justify denying goods and services to anyone.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It isn't a secular society. It is a secular government. Our society is whatever the constituent parts are, and is in no way homogenous.

That is a fair point; but the government determines the laws that govern society's transactions, and those laws are therefore secular.

a reply to: DJW001

The laws themselves are secular....the people being governed are not. Or, at least aren't necessarily.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.

They found her actions, such as justifying breaking families apart and imprisoning innocent children, violated their sense of decency. That is a matter of conscience. By your own standards, that means it is not "persecution."

a reply to: DJW001

I'm not arguing with you. Looking at it from outside you are arguing the same thing. What you said, "The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs." Those beliefs aren't the same, what ya'll are on about IS.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

The laws themselves are secular....the people being governed are not. Or, at least aren't necessarily.

But ultimately, it is the law that applies to societal interactions. The United States was established as a secular entity; it is precisely this secularity that enables the diversity of religion practiced here. Making an exception for one religion or another undermines the freedom of all the others. Would the Supreme Court have ruled the same way if a Jewish deli refused to cater a Muslim wedding? If a Muslim cab driver refused to drive someone to the airport because they had a bottle of wine?

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Few are saying they can't. Because, quite obviously, they can. However, this could turn out to be very much a case of cutting ones nose off, to spite their face.

For every action, there is a consequence. Maybe it's one this owner can live with, maybe it'll turn out not to be.

One should be very careful when staking out ones "higher moral ground".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001

Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.

Wrong.

The Red Hen had started serving Sanders. They then asked her to leave. The rest of her party left of their own will, and The Red Hen didn't charge them anything.

The baker never even started serving.

The two situations are distinctly different. The baker refused gays (a category), ergo discrimination. The Red Hen refused Sarah Sanders (a person), ergo they don't like Sarah Sanders.