This is an amusing piece. USA Today: Sarah Huckabee Sanders Guide to Refusing Service: Christian Baker Can, Red Hen Can't.
Of course I also wonder where the Liberals are who support that "All Business Must Do Business With All Comers". Shouldn't they be boycotting the Red Hen or something? :-)
Of course I also wonder where the Liberals are who support that "All Business Must Do Business With All Comers". Shouldn't they be boycotting the Red Hen or something? :-)
46 comments:
The Hill: Trump Insults Restaurant
Advocating the separation of children from the parents from a position of political power is on a different moral level than denying blameless people wedding cakes. And personally, I am not in favor of either one, a rare instance in which I am willing to be consistent. But we are not in an era of politics as normal. Trump advocates and exploits a politics of division, setting one set of people against another for his personal benefit. That has consequences, and one of them is that Trump and his enablers are no longer welcome in huge sections of this country. Trump can't throw out the first pitch. Trump isn't welcome at the Kennedy Center. Nobel Prize winners won't brunch with him. The master deal maker is unable to broker a deal that brings the Super Bowl winners to the White House to be honored. With respect to other sports he doesn't try. And yes, sometimes his aides will be refused service in restaurants. I regret these things. I even disagree with some of these things. But it was Trump's decision to exclude himself from many of our communities. He had to know what the consequences will be.
--Hiram
As a very wise person once said, we should be judged on "the content of our character."
Well...she was judged on that basis, found wanting, and rightfully shunned.
Moose
Hypocrisy is something Republicans accuse Democrats of. It's not something they worry about for themselves. That's also true for double standard arguments.
--Hiram
There's been a lot of talk about "civility" the last few days. I think you're seeing that our system is being strained in very real ways and that regular people feel disenfranchised. That feeling is stronger on the left now, but certainly the Tea Party movement of the previous administration was a reflection of that, too.
If you're a person on the left, you've seen two of your last five Presidential candidates win the popular vote and lose the election. Republican House candidates won 49% of the total vote in 2016, but they control 55% of the seats -- most experts think that Democrats need to win the national vote by at least 6-8 points this fall in order to have a chance to retake the House. Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstruction to block Merrick Garland from the Supreme Court, and Neil Gorsuch has delivered a number of critical 5-4 decisions this term. Freed by SCOTUS, many states have passed restrictions clearly aimed at making it harder for the poor and racial minorities to vote.
More broadly, elected officials of both parties are reliant on big-dollar donors. Universal background checks for gun purchases and a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients are supported by broad majorities of the public, but they're going nowhere in Congress. But, both parties will line up to pass financial deregulation to set up the next major crisis (we're already seeing the return of subprime mortgages!).
Use the courts to protect your individual rights? Good luck! The conservative court has neutered class-action lawsuits and empowered companies to force you into arbitration where they pay the judge. Join a union? SCOTUS is ready to further neuter the labor movement later this week. Oh yeah, and President Trump is today calling to end due process for some crimes. (End it for some, and watch it go away for all over time.)
Wanna protest these injustices? Well, Republican legislatures across the country are passing bills to make that a crime. (Heck, here in Minnesota, Republicans passed a bill --vetoed by Dayton -- that would have held peaceful protesters liable for damages done by rabble-rousers.)
Listen, none of this endorses violence. But if folks on the left want to use their abilities to take some less-than-perfectly-civil steps, it's not the end of the world. Republicans sure aren't opposed to shunning or shaming poor people. I think Sarah Sanders can survive with out her harissa-spiced polenta at the Red Hen -- heck, she got a free cheese plate out of the deal!
Since the Liberals are weighing in here...
I guess I am curious why it is okay for a private restaurant owner to shun Sanders because he disagrees with her life choices...
And not okay for that cake baker to say no to the LGBT couple where he fears for his eternal soul?
Do you think the Red Hen Owner has a greater right to association than the cake baker?
Since I support the right of Business Owners to refuse service in both these cases, I am fine with Sanders getting the hook.
As you note above, there are consequences when one chooses a non-standard life style. There is a chance that you will be judged and shunned.
Trump and crew have chosen to alienate or in general piss off half of America through their lies, attacks, actions, etc... Of course there are consequences of doing so. I have no problem with that.
This is America, we have the right to associate with like minded people.
As for SCOTUS, I am fine with Gorsuch replacing Scalia. SCOTUS would have been too Liberal if Garland had gotten in. I just hope all of the current Justices can out last Trump... I like a balanced SCOTUS.
And whining about rulings after the LGBT marriage ruling seems disingenuous, sometimes the coin lands on heads and sometimes on tails...
Ironically that questionable and political inflammatory ruling likely helped to get Trump elected.
Kind of like how Trumps current behaviors may help get more DEMs elected.
Politics in America is so fascinating.
I guess I am curious why it is okay for a private restaurant owner to shun Sanders because he disagrees with her life choices...
I would prefer that they didn't. I would prefer that gay people who are getting married have access to wedding cakes. I would prefer that we have a president who could go uneventfully to the Kennedy and who could welcome football teams to the White House. I would prefer that we have a president who had the basic respect to get my party's name right. But we have made the choice not to have a president who can do this. Instead we elected a man who sees an advantage in dividing us from ourselves, ourselves from our allies. We have a president indecent enough to separate children from his parents in order to secure a worthless bargaining chip. I don't know what we are getting for us, but those are the consequences of the choice we made.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Are you saying that it is Trump's fault that Sanders got the boot...
Not the intolerant restaurant owner's?
Does this mean you believe it is the LGBT persons fault if they get the boot...
Not the intolerant cake baker's?
"Do you think the Red Hen Owner has a greater right to association than the cake baker?"
White House official is not a protected class, so no. That's the difference, of course. Under many state and local laws, LGBT persons are a protected class that can't be denied service.
"As for SCOTUS, I am fine with Gorsuch replacing Scalia. SCOTUS would have been too Liberal if Garland had gotten in. I just hope all of the current Justices can out last Trump... I like a balanced SCOTUS."
In other words, you like the results, so who gives a crap about the process. We'll note that for the next time Democrats take control of Congress and the Presidency. No carping about process then will be tolerated.
"And whining about rulings after the LGBT marriage ruling seems disingenuous, sometimes the coin lands on heads and sometimes on tails..."
SCOTUS cases aren't decided on coin flips.
And at the Federal level the LGBT folks are not a protected class in large part because there is little science that shows them to be a "class" at all. Where as Religious freedom is entrenched in our Nation's Founding Documents. Same old arguments...
Apparently the GOP obstruction was legal since it never went to court. All is fair in love and politics?
Apparently SCOTUS rulings are somewhat like a coin flip if it matters so much who the Justices are. It certainly is not a science...
"And at the Federal level the LGBT folks are not a protected class in large part because there is little science that shows them to be a "class" at all. Where as Religious freedom is entrenched in our Nation's Founding Documents. Same old arguments..."
The cake shop case was not a federal law case, though.
"Apparently the GOP obstruction was legal since it never went to court. All is fair in love and politics?"
Legal, sure. A violation of our usual norms, yes. Again, you have now disqualified yourself from complaining about Democrats playing hardball in the future.
Are you saying that it is Trump's fault that Sanders got the boot...
What I am saying is that division is the natural consequence of the politician of division. And really, when someone campaigns against gay people and immigrants, such a person can't expect to be welcomed at a typical restaurant.
Republicans have a choice. They can stand up for decency and civility, and the American way of life. Or they can continue to support Trump.
--Hiram
Where as Religious freedom is entrenched in our Nation's Founding Documents. Same old arguments...
Lets get real here. There just isn't a religion that holds as one of it's precepts that gay people should be denied wedding cakes.
--Hiram
What happened to Merrick Garland was a whole lot more "uncivil" than what happened to Sarah Sanders.
Sean,
The cake case made it to SCOTUS, so yes it did make it to a Federal Court to be evaluated against Fed Law.
I am fine with DEMs and GOP folks playing hardball. What I find amusing is when "the pots call the kettles black"... Like when the DEMs okayed the Nuclear Option to get their way in 2013.
And it seems both the Right and Left take turns being the pot or the kettle.
Hiram,
So why exactly do you think some "religious folks" want to avoid associating with LGBT people? And how do you know what their religion dictates?
My point is that usually liberals say that businesses are a public entity, and that they should not be able to choose their clientele. Whereas in this case the Liberals are cheering the Red Hen Owner's shunning of those they found lacking... (Moose said that well)
"As a very wise person once said, we should be judged on "the content of our character." Well...she was judged on that basis, found wanting, and rightfully shunned."
"The cake case made it to SCOTUS, so yes it did make it to a Federal Court to be evaluated against Fed Law."
The cake shop case did not turn on whether or not LGBT citizens are part of a protected class at the federal level. It was decided on the basis of the court finding that the Colorado process to evaluate the cake shop's claim was biased.
"And it seems both the Right and Left take turns being the pot or the kettle."
The so-called "Biden Rule" was such a hard-and-fast rule that it was never used! You're going to have to find fresher bullcrap to peddle than that.
So why exactly do you think some "religious folks" want to avoid associating with LGBT people?
The wedding cake thing.
I am not cheering the Red Hen thing. I merely note that it is unsurprising that people who want to discriminate against people can't expect to be served in restaurants. That just isn't the way the world works. Sanders is hardly the only administration official who has had problems in this regard.
--Hiram
The so-called "Biden Rule" was such a hard-and-fast rule that it was never used! You're going to have to find fresher bullcrap to peddle than that.
I think the decision to deny Clarence Thomas a hearing was just as wrong as the decision to deny Garland a hearing. My positions on this are perfectly consistent.
But the funny thing about the Biden rule is what it tell us about how the Republican mind thinks. Republicans are very vulnerable to arguments from authority. It shapes their world view. So for them, the idea that someone they would see as an authority for Democrats, said something or other decades ago, should bind Democrats today makes perfect sense. He was an authority figure after all, and shouldn't we do what our leaders tell us. For Democrats, on the other hand, this argument is beyond laughable. We are an undisciplined party full of people who think for themselves. We aren't bound by what Biden said 20 years ago. We aren't bound by what he says today. And the notion that we are somehow is simply absurd. Unlike Republicans nobody has authority to tell us what to think.
--Hiram
I am not trying to blame or defend either parties actions...
I am just providing proof that both sides "play hardball".
And unfortunately it is only getting worse as the "tribes" grow further apart and the "tribe members" demand more extreme actions from their representatives.
"I am just providing proof that both sides "play hardball"."
No, you're peddling false equivalency nonsense. There's a difference between "playing hardball" and busting up the norms that have held this country together for decades. Only one side is doing that.
You mean like the DEMs in 2013
Now I personally think that was a pretty HUGE norm breaking.
"Now I personally think that was a pretty HUGE norm breaking."
Democrats invoked the nuclear option in 2013 because Republicans refused to live up to the terms of the bipartisan 2005 deal on presidential nominations. Obama got 27 fewer judges confirmed than Bush in his first term because of Republican obstruction.
Even thieves and murderers can rationalize their choices...
I am sure Trump thought separating families was a rational act to get the DEMs back to the immigration negotiating table.
I won't deny that the GOP politicians may be a little worse, but the difference certainly is not significant from my seat in the theater.
Both tribes are entrenched and fighting tooth and nail.
"I won't deny that the GOP politicians may be a little worse, but the difference certainly is not significant from my seat in the theater."
Which party is engaged in an organized fight to disenfranchise certain voters and which party is consistently working to make it easier for people to vote? That, alone, in and of itself, is a remarkable difference with profound implications.
I am sure Trump thought separating families was a rational act to get the DEMs back to the immigration negotiating table.
I don't think Trump acts rationally in terms of consequences. He doesn't think beyond the next step. That's why it was so easy for him to fire Comey. In terms of the travel ban, all Trump wants is a win. The actual policy makes no sense in terms of making Americans safer, it's ostensible purpose.
This morning he says he wants to punish Harley Davidson for manufacturing abroad. Yet presumably he has no problem with BMW manufacturing here. Except he doesn't seem to be aware that BMW does manufacture here. In fact, he has no idea at all how trade works. He really does believe that if you buy something from abroad, your money was stolen from you.
--Hiram
Sean,
I understand that you see making it easier for "off the grid" no ID folks to vote as a good thing. Sorry, I can not quite get there...
If folks are not responsible and engaged in our society enough to get a maintain a legal photo ID and get themselves registered correctly, I am not sure I am in hurry to have them voting.
I was at the BMW Spartanburg Plant a couple of years ago. It is beautiful and apparently they are the worldwide production facility for BMW SUVs.
"If folks are not responsible and engaged in our society enough to get a maintain a legal photo ID and get themselves registered correctly, I am not sure I am in hurry to have them voting."
What other rights shall we make subject to your virtue tests, pal?
For all your complaining about President Trump, you're just as much an authoritarian as he is.
In ways I likely am... Especially when it comes to protecting and supporting kids.
Unfortunately many citizens put adult freedoms above the needs of children...
Which is good and which is evil???
Or your desire to ensure that delusional street folks who can not hold a job are able to walk in and vote for the leadership of our country...
Which is good and which is evil???
How does one know... I sure don't know for sure...
"Unfortunately many citizens put adult freedoms above the needs of children."
Do guns next.
"Or your desire to ensure that delusional street folks who can not hold a job are able to walk in and vote for the leadership of our country."
Hey, guess what, they still have rights! At least for now, but you guys seem to be working pretty hard to make sure that isn't the case...
Already did GUNS... I am getting pretty authoritarian there also. At least that is what the Conservatives seem to think.
Personally I live in MN and as far as I know we have no voter ID... So I am not sure which "you guys" you are talking about.
I guess I did vote for Erik Paulsen and helped him to win... Has he voted for some voter suppression bill that I missed?
The Red Hen saga continues.
This was the quote I found amazing coming from Trump supporters...
"Tuesday afternoon, Trump supporters and advocates protested outside of the Red Hen asking for tolerance and civility."
Kind of hypocritical coming from some of the least tolerant and/or civil people in our country.
Erik Paulsen has a limited role in election administration. You know that, or you should. One thing he hasn't done is support the bipartisan bill to amend the Voting Rights Act in the wake of the SCOTUS decision in Shelby County v. Holder (introduced by Republican Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin).
You voted for Donald Trump, who made Jeff Sessions his AG and put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
You voted for George W. Bush, who put Sam Alito and John Roberts on the Court.
So don't throw up your hands and say "who me?"
Please remember though that my vote for President is immaterial... I live in MN...
My Presidential vote is like a tree falling in the forest... It really does not matter if it makes noise or not... :-)
No, your vote is not immaterial. That's just you trying to excuse yourself of responsibility.
But, for the sake of argument, even if it were immaterial, it's certainly a statement of your values.
"Please remember though that my vote for President is immaterial... I live in MN..."
It's laughable for you to imply that you would have voted any differently any where else.
Moose
Sean,
Yes... Given the 2 choices below... I do lean towards #2
1. Support the USA in becoming a Social Democracy like Northern Europe
2. Support the USA staying highly Capitalistic
Moose,
I would have voted the same no matter where I live. (I think...)
I am just acknowledging reality. DEMs win MN and my vote has been immaterial in determining who is or was President for as long as I have been voting. I am okay with that.
"my vote has been immaterial in determining who is or was President for as long as I have been voting"
That's just ridiculous. If everyone's vote is "immaterial", why should anyone vote?
Well usually I am there voting on local or state offices any way... So it does not take much to fill in one more circle even though I know it is pointless.
Also, it is part of our civic duty...
"I would have voted the same no matter where I live."
Therefore, you support Trump's election, but refuse to take any responsibility for anything.
Moose
I do support Trump's election... Over Hillary Clintons...
But my vote had nothing to do with it... So how could I be responsible for it?
Hillary won MN and all of our electoral votes went to her.
Post a Comment