Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

I do not believe that you can refuse to serve someone based on their religion. I believe that is settled in judicial precedence.

Yes, but you can certainly find another pretext. At base, that is what we are debating here. The government has made certain sorts of exceptions based on religion. Quakers, for example, do not need to serve in the military. The question is how far these exemptions should be allowed to extend, and whether or not "religion" is necessarily the motivation for certain actions, or a pretext. A lot of young men became Quakers back during the Viet Nam War.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
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."

per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
"her family fled religious persecution"
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill-treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill-usage, discrimination, tyranny; More

So then the bakery was persecuting the gay couple?

No, you forcing the Christian to violate his religious beliefs is persecution.

Why is baking a cake violating his religious beliefs?

He explicitly stated why, and these reasons are freely available.

But are they good reasons? Or a pretense?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

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.

He didn’t refuse gays. He refused to have his cake used in an event that violated his conscience.

Don't know, but they probably also wanted a custom made cake with two men on top.

a reply to: The GUT

It's been co-opted for the better part of thirty years, since Reagan--possibly even before.

Or maybe when they dropped Eagleton in '72 was the hint of it...though I may be exaggerating a touch. I do remember it cost McGovern any chance he had getting votes from my family.

a reply to: DJW001

I’m not a Christian. Given that he offered other product, and even closed down the wedding cake aspect of his business, it doesn’t appear to be pretence.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Business have the right to refuse service for any reason unless its a protected class.

Maybe the owner didnt want the hassle of other customers getting heated with the newcomers.
Just looking after his own interests.

I thought that was a "big thing" for Americans ..freedom to run your business how you like

So they are allowed to refuse whites, but not any other race? How about that's some racist BS.

BwaaaaaHaHaHa

Share the Misery.


BREAKING: Owner of Red Hen restaurant gets bad news from Historic Lexington

Stephanie Wilkinson, a co-owner of a restaurant who refused to serve Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Friday reportedly cited morality and living up to "certain standards” as the reason why is now under fire. The Historic Downtown Lexington Virginia Facebook page has a poll up asking "Should Stephanie Wilkinson of Main Street Lexington be able to keep her position as Director?" and it appear to be unanimous that Wilkinson should step down. As of this writing, 95% call for the Red Hen owner to step down as Director of Main Street Lexington.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: DJW001

Ever heard the saying if you remove GOD from the country then he will turn your country into hell.


Stop look around here it comes...

Likely he would get some orange tinted person to finish off the job.

Finally! A "Trump is the Antichrist" post!

Thank for the solidification of thought

Maybe i was talking about satan

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Any excuse, right?

Good grief, people.

Any excuse to expose hypocrisy and throw it back in face of the purveyor? You betcha!

Sanders and the Trump administration, and posters here on ATS, have implied that immigrant parents seeking asylum deserve to lose their children for bringing them to America, a dangerous journey, in the first place.

When you're Sarah Sanders, or Stephen Miller or Kristjen Nielson, eating out could expose your children to loud and outspoken political backlash. THINK OF THE CHILDREN SARAH! Order take out for awhile!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your refusal to do your job is sufficient reason.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: tinner07

So two wrongs is the way it works now, eh?

Way to show your superiority. The Presidents a rude SOB upon occasion, so it's OK for me to be. That's the new rule now?

Tryin' to keep up here. I was always taught that two wrongs never make a right...?

why not be rude?, the president puts down people in almost every tweet he vomits out, and he loves doing it...just look at melania's jacket...."I really don't care, do you" while AT A DENTENTION CAMP FOR KIDS......she came out and said it, she and the president don't give a s**t about poor brown kids from other countries, how else could anyone interpret it any other way?......it's a wonder that the people in that restaurant didn't throw their food at saunders while she was leaving.

originally posted by: xuenchen
BwaaaaaHaHaHa

Share the Misery.


BREAKING: Owner of Red Hen restaurant gets bad news from Historic Lexington

Stephanie Wilkinson, a co-owner of a restaurant who refused to serve Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Friday reportedly cited morality and living up to "certain standards” as the reason why is now under fire. The Historic Downtown Lexington Virginia Facebook page has a poll up asking "Should Stephanie Wilkinson of Main Street Lexington be able to keep her position as Director?" and it appear to be unanimous that Wilkinson should step down. As of this writing, 95% call for the Red Hen owner to step down as Director of Main Street Lexington.

awesome satire

i mean if a facebook group says it then it must be followednot

how about let the free market decide?

or would you rather be run by bots?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your refusal to do your job is sufficient reason.

Oh? So, only business owners have the right to invoke "deeply held moral beliefs", and employees don't?

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Business have the right to refuse service for any reason unless its a protected class.

Maybe the owner didnt want the hassle of other customers getting heated with the newcomers.
Just looking after his own interests.

I thought that was a "big thing" for Americans ..freedom to run your business how you like

So they are allowed to refuse whites, but not any other race? How about that's some racist BS.

Sanders was asked to leave because she's white?

Really?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The way you skew facts to justify this is the exact reason for the outrage.

At least there is plenty of company in that regard.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

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.

He didn’t refuse gays. He refused to have his cake used in an event that violated his conscience.

Don't know, but they probably also wanted a custom made cake with two men on top.

He can legally refuse to put 2 men on a cake celebrating a gay wedding.

That has nothing to do with refusing to bake a cake.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show me where there is any sort of policy that says parents should lose their children for bringing them here.

What parent in their right mind would allow their minor child to trek across a dangerous country with no intention of entering through The Big Beautiful (Legal) Door.

$5,000 is what the average cost is to sneak someone in illegally. Who do you think is paying that $$$? The poor parents living in a hovel in El Salvador? Don't be stupid.

Drug smuggling and child/human trafficking is the end goal. Get these teens into the country first, turn them over to their "aunt/uncle", dispense them through the country.....then wait till they are groomed and ready.

Why are people so stupid? Or a better question, "Why does a person's political bias become so toxic they then become blind to Common Sense"?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
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."

per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
"her family fled religious persecution"
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill-treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill-usage, discrimination, tyranny; More

So then the bakery was persecuting the gay couple?

No, you forcing the Christian to violate his religious beliefs is persecution.

Why is baking a cake violating his religious beliefs?

He explicitly stated why, and these reasons are freely available.

Perhaps you should understand what the SCOTUS ruling said, because it seems as if you think it says something else.

Justice Kennedy wrote:

“it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

What the baker 'won' from SCOTUS was:

“The commission’s hostility [to Phillips and his religious beliefs] was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote. “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision-maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection.”

That is the decision - not that the baker can refuse to make a cake, but that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not consider his religious objection neutrally. The case itself was between the baker, Jack Philips, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

What is left unresolved:

"The outcome of other cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” said Kennedy, who has authored most of the court’s most significant gay rights cases. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious belief, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

All I've found for what Phillips said is:

“This cake is a specific cake, a wedding cake is an inherently religious event and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said, explaining his objection to making the wedding cake for the same-sex wedding.

So, what did SCOTUS say about Phillips' reasoning?

Kennedy dismissed this argument. “Few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise in protected speech.”

Hmm...

a reply to: xuenchen

Womp womp.

Maybe Sarah Sanders should just apologize for wanting to eat out with her family.

Maybe she should attend a class or classes on the proper way to think.

Maybe she should quit her job and hide her face in shame for the rest of her life because she was a press secretary for a president.

I'm just really proud of everyone in the media and here for not calling for her death. That shows a high degree of intelligence and compassion and for that, I humbly thank each and every one of you!