Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

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.

Phillips himself claimed the conversation lasted 20 seconds or less, where he said simply that:

"Sorry, guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

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?

^^^
This.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

Womp womp.

Well that solves the whole problem !!

What took you so long ?

😃💥😃

a reply to: JinMI

The way you skew facts

Justifications for actions are not facts. They are justifications.

a reply to: RowanBean

Really? My family does, quite often. I've yet to see a face punched in.

...and my family runs the gamut from right of, well, everyone to left of, huh, everyone... But we manage to have civil conversations--they may get a little loud upon occasion, but nothing a glass of wine or another beer don't cure.

Maybe it's because we're all adults? Maybe. But mostly it's because we agree to disagree.

My friends are, without exception, like that as well.

A lesson some, too many, need to learn, apparently.

a reply to: SailorJerry

But if you hate everyone equally, how can you be a bigot??

Thought this was a well written and thoughtful assessment of the topic.

www.theroot.com...

Nice to see racism alive and well in our society. This particular website is a potential starting point for dozens of threads.

originally posted by: DrBobH
Thought this was a well written and thoughtful assessment of the topic.

www.theroot.com...

Nice to see racism alive and well in our society. This particular website is a potential starting point for dozens of threads.

The article you linked points directly to the same issue we have seen here.

Any outrage is justifyable as long as "my side" is doing it.

It's not.

Wrong is wrong.

a reply to: carewemust

Hardly.

For every Democrat who acts like a moron, there's a Republican more than willing to take up the challenge.

Nope, I'll remain a Democrat, as painful as that has been, and seemingly will remain, for the past few years...sigh. One day the worm'll turn, and they'll come back to those of us they left behind.

a reply to: Greven

Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.

a reply to: loam

It truly is only a matter of time. One idiot is going to go, as they used to say, postal. Then the fat'll be in the fire for fair.

a reply to: jimmyx

Maybe it's because 99.999999% of people crossing the border are brown? Just a thought there. And we have been sending Central America billions over the years in aid, yet, like Africa, it gets squandered on everything else. $750 million a year could fund a wall, lots of new judges, and lots of new border patrol agents so that the process could take days, not a month or so.

Meet the Press had a Senator on today explaining that 89k people cross the border every MONTH and that only 2% return for their hearing. 2%. 98% choose to go on the run...illegally. Your good with that? Your fine with 89,000 people a month blasting across the border? The senator also said that around 10% of those caught are on terror watch lists.

www.wola.org...
www.cnbc.com...

Patriots, be sure you don't punish the wrong "Red Hen" restaurant!

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: loam

It truly is only a matter of time. One idiot is going to go, as they used to say, postal. Then the fat'll be in the fire for fair.

Unfortunately, that has already taken place.
Remember the Gabby Giffords shooting...and the Steve Scalise Republican softball team shooting?

a reply to: carewemust

Is it hot over there or something? Has the fluoride been upped? Opioids in the water supply maybe? Peeps is dumb these days.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven

Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The opinion that those quotes are from.

The opinion that 6 of the 7 justices who supported the ruling agreed to.

It seems like you disagree with the SCOTUS.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Too easy.

That is, quite simply, not exciting enough for today's outrage driven society. Or so it seems, at times.

Apparently, if you aren't outraged about something, you're not trying hard enough.

It's rather sobering, and not a frightening at times, to see just how easily people are lead to being outraged. Half the time, they don't even seem to know why they're outraged. Just that they are.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven

Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The opinion that those quotes are from.

The opinion that 6 of the 7 justices who supported the ruling agreed to.

It seems like you disagree with the SCOTUS.

No I don’t. The Colorado civil liberties association were hostile towards philips because of his religious beliefs.

a reply to: intrepid

Nope. That sums it up, 'trep.

a reply to: seagull

I know.

Believe me I know.

I've been an adrenaline junky myself for most of the last decade.

I've noticed over the last few days ... if you have a reputation for being on "one side," and then seem to start speaking for the "other side" ... "both sides" are now furious at you.

That tells me where I am ... in the majority middle.