Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ParasuvO

Would you speak that way to someone in person?

What possible good does that serve? Are you showing a better way?

Why?

It's a cautionary tale.

Those who agitate and create trouble are often the first targets of a new regime right after the scapegoats. After all, if they agitated and upset the apple cart once, they can do it again and there is no guarantee they won't bite the hand that fed them before.

There is a reason a certain Soviet called them "useful idiots."

So the overall enemies list would be enemies of the state first (you know those of us who are deplorables) and then those who helped upset the old regime to usher in the new because they're a clear danger to do it again. They'll be helpful too because they'll do it to prove their loyalty and turn on each other.

That's how intersectionalism and the progressive stack works. You can already see instances of them eating their own. Ask the professor at Evergreen who thought he was one of them ... until he wasn't.

originally posted by: Xenogears
I hear it is Middle and Upper Middle not 20-30k.

Some say part of the migration is due to new taxes that start at 40+k in cali.

The idea of blue states facing loss of taxes suggests it is the wealthy moving, the ones that pay most of the taxes, not the poor.

There's some of that, but not as much. One popular strategy in California is to buy a home at a very high price while collecting the corresponding high wages. Build equity for 5-10 years, then take a lateral move to a less expensive state, where your California home equity now outright buys an even nicer home. Those who had the means to do that have in recent years been selling off and moving as their next step after the 2008 crash.

Edit: The same thing does not work in reverse. If a company sets up shop in California, due to cost of living issues it becomes very hard to get established professionals to move there as the move requires going from financial security to financial insecurity unless the company spends a lot of money on wages. This means that as people leave, no one else is moving in. Not due to any issues with the states politics but rather with the cost of living in their cities. Eventually enough people will leave that the housing pressure is alleviated and people can start moving back in but we're a long ways away from that.

a reply to: ketsuko

And you just responded in a manner comparable to the way I’m sure you would if you and I were having coffee.

I don’t agree with 98% of what you said, but to engage you in return would be reasonable conversation.

The post I responded to accomplishes NOTHING except division which I why I asked what they hope d to achieve.

I don’t believe you are a racist or sexist or homophobic; therefore in the sense the word was originally used ... you are not a deplorable.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My assumption with this particular group, #TheResistance, is that they want nothing less than to overthrow the government we have and install their own regime. I'm not sure how much they're thought about it beyond that, but I'm pretty sure they've gotten that far.

Generally speaking, they have to have realized that in order to do this much since their legal means look to have about been exhausted, they're looking at some form of violent overthrow which is what we see being agitated dressed up as nasty behavior. In the far-fetched actuality of such a coup, consolidating power would mean somehow detaining and/or otherwise kneecapping any opposition to the actions you've just taken.

This when history usually tells us that things get ugly. This is when you have to politically neuter your foes, and if that cannot be achieved, then you find other ways to remove them. In this case, a lot of rhetoric has been spent on making people who think and believe similar to how I do into de-facto racists, bigots, etc., simply because our way of thinking has been branded that whether or not it is. Most of the people who ended up in the concentration camps during WWII weren't what the Europeans and Germans were told they were, too, but people bought the emotional rhetoric.

It's much easier to brand it with an emotional label to short-circuit any real examination of ideas and attach emotions rather than reason. Then you have the mob engaged in a good v. evil moral struggle over an intellectual debate which is far riskier.

And once you have what you set out to do, then you remove the ones on the lower levels who helped you do it unless you can guarantee their loyalty. You find out which ones the loyal are by asking them to turn in their fellows who are less than morally perfect. The Soviets perfected that, too.

We are a long way from there still, but sometimes, I wish I hadn't spent time studying history. It really sucks to see the similarities staring back at me. I think we live in dangerous times, and I'm too old to fight a Civil War.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, if she did indeed poll every member of the staff and the vote was unanimous---they are getting their just desserts. But I really, really doubt that every member of the staff got a "vote" in the matter. I don't know any restaurant owners who run their business that way. I know I didn't when I was an owner. Of course, my degree isn't in religious history.

a reply to: ketsuko

I just did a quick review of the #TheResistance. I see nothing there that remotely suggests they are either intending or capable of "overthrowing the government" any more than the various militia/patriot groups were under Obama. (Actually, a Twitter hashtag group is not even a shadow of the militias, but I digress.)

Petitions, phone calls to Congress and the White House, protests, etc. are well within the rights of Americans to use as redress of grievance.

I'm not sure what part of the extremist media is ramping so many up over the last few days, but, remember a few years ago when so many were so put out with Obama that the usual conversation here from many was about the possibility of overthrowing the government, secession, etc?

Yeah. All respect to you, I don't see this hashtag group as anything serious.

a reply to: xuenchen


Sadly, it looks like Democrats have a history of chasing people out of restaurants. Look what they did to Black restaurant patrons.

Source: twitter.com...

The shame. How can anyone admit to being a Democrat this year?

a reply to: carewemust

Thank goodness that well-known Republican LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

His Master Plan is still on target too.

😲💥😲

a reply to: xuenchen

Like Democrats could stick to a plan ... LOL

Right off the bat, I knew that "gay cakes" equivocation was not valid here. The reason not to force someone to bake an offensive cake is based on relgious pretense.

Here in the restaurant case, we have the offending owner claiming their discrimination was based on political grounds.

The reason they are not the same is the constitutional principle that separates church and state. The law is choosing NOT to govern the religious aspect, their "beliefs". Political "beliefs" don't enjoy the same protection.

This is just my opinion. I'm unsure if this is the applicable legal argument, but it answers the question.

It is the spirit of laws regarding public accomodation that it is wrong to deny service to members of the public in such an establishment. It is virtually universally accepted that a business has the right to deny service based on a) disruption of their business or b) the health and well-being of the general public. Neither of those was the case here.

Regardless of whether a given state has various protections in place for specific classes or not, the spirit of all such laws speak directly against keeping anyone from using public accomodations because of some arbitrary reason.

a reply to: Gryphon66


The Supreme Court said that Gay people don't have to be sold a cake, if the business doesn't want to serve them.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66


The Supreme Court said that Gay people don't have to be sold a cake, if the business doesn't want to serve them.

No, that’s not even close to what the Supreme Court said.

SCOTUS ruled that Colorado had failed to remain neutral to the bakers religious beliefs and on that basis reversed their findings of bias. In fact, Justice Kennedy made it clear that Colorado has a right and duty to protect all her citizens right including the LGBT ones.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
What would have been great would have been if the owner would have served her and then sat down with her for discussion and political debate.

And if you wasn't interested in a debate he could have just started blasting Mexican music on the radio

What would have been great was if the owner just served her, took the money and then went on living.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66


The Supreme Court said that Gay people don't have to be sold a cake, if the business doesn't want to serve them.

No, that’s not even close to what the Supreme Court said.

SCOTUS ruled that Colorado had failed to remain neutral to the bakers religious beliefs and on that basis reversed their findings of bias. In fact, Justice Kennedy made it clear that Colorado has a right and duty to protect all her citizens including LGBT ones.

Can the Baker LEGALLY deny to make a cake for the next Gay couple, or not?

originally posted by: CliffoCambridge

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
What would have been great would have been if the owner would have served her and then sat down with her for discussion and political debate.

And if you wasn't interested in a debate he could have just started blasting Mexican music on the radio

What would have been great was if the owner just served her, took the money and then went on living.

^^^^
This.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66


The Supreme Court said that Gay people don't have to be sold a cake, if the business doesn't want to serve them.

That is not the decision from the SCOTUS. It chose not to rule on that.

This is the decision from the SCOTUS, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not consider the baker's religious objection neutrally:

“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.”

a reply to: carewemust

Not if he’s doing it because they are gay.

That particular baker knows how to refuse legally now and claim it is a custom order which he declines because of his freedom of expression.

However if he doesn’t serve them as any other customers ... it’s just as wrong as what was done to Mrs. Sanders AND family.

originally posted by: CliffoCambridge

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
What would have been great would have been if the owner would have served her and then sat down with her for discussion and political debate.

And if you wasn't interested in a debate he could have just started blasting Mexican music on the radio

What would have been great was if the owner just served her, took the money and then went on living.

Well, the owner's staff had already started serving her party before Sanders was asked to leave by the owner.

The rest of her party left, and the restaurant didn't charge them anything for the food they had eaten.