By Ejecting Press Secty Sarah Sanders - Red Hen Restaurant Hurt The Entire Town.

Four Words:

GET WOKE GO BROKE

That's the problem with all of this: Once a company starts mixing politics and business, they usually loose.

That's because the vast majority of people are not polarized and are more interested in stability than uncertainty. Also they mis understand their customer base and actually cater to people and ideas which are not adding value to their business.

Disney just did it by firing James Gunn without hesitation. They knew who they customers are and they wouldn't do anything to hurt their business.

The system still works and it ensures that no harm is coming to it.

The town would have gained instant support had they tarred and feathered that owner, and run her out publicly. Send the message and people and their wallets will roll in.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of digital ad campaign they could do to undo the damage here.

Anyone have any good ideas?

Red Hen, it's what's for dinner! C'mon back and visit us y'all!!!

Yep, I wonder who is this Stephanie......she's fugly.....not judging her looks just where her heart for humanity is!!!!.

Not just ugly.....FUGGLY

As you think its OK to punish everyone in the vicinity of the restaurant owners, that's sad that you think innocent people should suffer....

It's not about making people suffer.

It's about not going somewhere where you feel unwanted. Really as simple as that.

The town is very small, and initially showed little remorse or need to immediately separate itself from such views, so why should anyone assume other neighboring businesses are any differently minded?

Its funny when its a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple the Trupites think its okay to say no. When a restaruant refuses to serve the moral/ethical equivalent of Baghdad Bob is suddenly outrageous.

Its one or the other not both.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ausername

Hi! We hate you and what you think, but we sure do like your money! Just give us all that you have and we'll talk crap about you after you leave.

wont work. I wouldn't trust them to serve me food. They would spit in it or worse . No thanks

originally posted by: FredT
Its funny when its a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple the Trupites think its okay to say no. When a restaruant refuses to serve the moral/ethical equivalent of Baghdad Bob is suddenly outrageous.

Its one or the other not both.

The difference would be that they gay couple did it solely to enrage people. Sanders was just going out to eat. She also didnt sue and try to make a stupid point.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's called consequences.

Before you shoot off your mouth, whether figuratively, or literally in this case, one should give consideration to the effects it might have--both positive and negative.

It'd probably be very easy to fix. Apologize. Or, double down and hope to survive.

Consequences.

#GetWokeGoBroke

a reply to: Gazrok

I surely wouldn't.

A long time ago, while my Dad was still in the Air Force, he was stationed at Fairchild AFB, near Spokane, Washington--this was just after the Korean War.

There were elements in town that didn't particularly like members of the military, and weren't shy about expressing it, in the form of various harassments, that included being beat down by the local constabulary. Didn't happen very often, but often enough that the base commander decided that a lesson needed to be taught.

One week of pay was paid in 2 dollar bills...and base personnel were encouraged to spend it in town. The town was, as you might expect, flooded with 2 dollar bills. The lesson was learned.

a reply to: FredT

It's a private business. It can refuse to serve anyone, at anytime. They did. Both the bakery and the restaurant. There are consequences to these actions.

Losing business is just such a consequence.

I would support the bakery's right to deny service, doesn't mean I like what they did, nor would I give them my business. Consequences.

A restaurant owner/manager deny's service to a customer. They're well within their rights to do so. Not arguing that, at all. They are also free to suffer the consequences of those actions.

originally posted by: FredT
Its funny when its a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple the Trupites think its okay to say no. When a restaruant refuses to serve the moral/ethical equivalent of Baghdad Bob is suddenly outrageous.

Its one or the other not both.

"He's not MY President!!" Isn't that were all this started about 30 seconds after Trump hit 270 votes? I can also say the last three Presidents greatly out paced anything Trump has done in both moral/ethical departments, but with them we didn't hear the "He's not MY President!!" that has been a constant whine from the left even before day one in the office.

originally posted by: FredT
Its funny when its a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple the Trupites think its okay to say no. When a restaruant refuses to serve the moral/ethical equivalent of Baghdad Bob is suddenly outrageous.

Its one or the other not both.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The baker had a religious moral code he adhered to. The gays did it for publicity and to be assholes. Nothing more.

Regardless, if you disagree or not is irrelevant. If you want to bitch about religion head on over to Raqqa where they will throw you to your death, burn you, and cut off your head for being gay, Christian, or speaking out against Islam. Then come back and tell me how archaic our laws are.

The Red Hen threw out a person simply because that person worked for someone they didn't like politically. Nothing more. How the hell are you even trying to equate the two as being remotely similar?

a reply to: seagull

I have no issue with consequences for people that screw up, I do have a problem though with collateral damage, the people close this the restaurant owners should not be made to suffer as well.

a reply to: Outlier13

Its not apples and oranges. Its apples and apples produced by a grower that say uses shady business tactics.

The proprietor of the business in question had an issue with a customer. They both refused service. If the guy can refuse to make a cake because he has an issue with gays be it ignorance, religious, whatever then the restaurant owner can also do the same for someone who she finds morally repugnant.

Also whats with the Islam strawman? At some point you just gotta stop using that particular Baba Yaga and try to argue you point on its merits or lack thereof no?

BY your logic its okay to descriminate against gays, but if say Joseph Goebbels walks into my restaurant then its NOT okay to deny him service? And failing that. Ill make some reference to religions issues in ISLAM................... Hey look I can create a strawman too

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

How do you propose to do that? Make people shop/eat in the town??

It sucks, there's no two ways about that. If I'd been harassed out of a restaurant, I might, too, be a little reluctant to return to the area--I probably would, but the thought would most assuredly be there to not return.

How do you propose to limit the damage? The only one I can think of is a general apology, and a specific apology. But it may be too late for that.

a reply to: seagull

I'm not sure it can be fixed.

How would you feel if one member of your family screwed up and the rest of your family were targeted for revenge ?

I think people need to calm the # down and stop being so childish, what is happening here will only lead to more trouble.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I'd deal with it.

However, whatever, way necessary. Which is what those businesses need to do.

a reply to: seagull

Sure but do you think its an exceptable consequence, do you think its OK innocent people have to deal with the fallout ?