They denied sanders because she's a proven liar not because she's a Republican. These idiots will never see it that way because it's not a narative they can complain about.
The restaurant owner has every right to deny I suppose...but whats the benefit? She loses financially and is this suppose to bring the country closer together?
Refusing a single service but offering all other service verses refusing ANY and ALL service? That is false equivalency. The baker did so based on religious beliefs while the other on political beliefs. The baker was vindicated by the SCOTUS. The issues with Sanders will never go that far. Besides, Sanders did not try to force the restaurant owner to provide her service, she simply left. The gay couple felt compelled to force the baker to make the cake and took it to court only to lose at the SCOTUS. As I state earlier, neither case upsets me because I think the market will correct the situation but anyone saying they are the same thing is dead wrong.
I don't believe they are the same thing at all. I think one was an exercise in one's right to refuse service and the other was an illegal act of discrimination against a protected class. I don't see a difference between refusing one specific service for discriminatory reasons and refusing all services. That's like saying the bus wasn't refusing all services to Rosa Parks, just the service of sitting in the front. She wasn't discriminated against because the bus driver was happy to accommodate her in the back. It's a distinction without a difference. In Sanders case, she was refused service altogether not because of her race or gender or religion or anything else but because the owner and staff had an animosity for her specifically. I've heard often enough from conservatives how sacrosanct it is that businesses can choose who to do business with. The discrimination law is the only exception -- much to conservative's chagrin, but there it is.
I find it interesting that the responsibility to "bring people together" has been placed on a small restaurant owner and not on the president of the country... or the public voice of that same president... who both have gone to great lengths to be divisive.
I think its pretty obvious the Dotard has no interest in doing so nor is he capable of bringing anybody together.
Yes, Sanders is a liar, but I also don't think that should keep someone from being able to eat at a restaurant. I don't really feel bad for Sanders at all. But I think the more we can do to unify and the less we can do to divide, the better.
[Premium Post] Eric Holder's Justice Department would no doubt be launching a civil rights investigation had this been a person of color who was denied service. What this issue exposes is just how much hate is in liberals' hearts right now. It's very ugly. Just because someone doesn't agree with you politically doesn't mean that you should wish them ill, harass them, or resort to violence, which is now being rationalized and even promoted by the left. Politically, this issue is a huge loser for the Dems. Cory Booker, whose sexual orientation is none of my business, even disagrees with how Sarah Sanders was treated. The lunatic fringe rationalizes the Red Hen's low brow behavior, but independents reject it. And independents decide elections. GOOD DAY
I agree. In the end, the staff of the Red Hen didn't accomplish anything with their "stand" beyond stroking their own egos and those of some friends. What they practically accomplished was just feeding the well-oiled hate machine. Consider this (just thinking out loud): the owner offers to pay for Sanders' dinner but requests then a frank dinner conversation with her about how her staff feel, why their worries are serious, and what Sanders could possibly do about it. Then listen to Sanders and promise her its off the record. Maybe that accomplishes nothing either, but it gives Sanders a different view of a liberal and at least it doesn't further divide people.
Yes, the only thing I would think is that even if Sanders would recognize the liberals weren't being vindictive or mean, she wouldn't say so or be allowed to say so. Even still, I believe what you described is a better way to handle the situation.
As an individual I'm not the one to chase money or dance around my morals. But a business (especially a restaurant) primary objective should be to turn a profit and not alienate half your customer base. What did this accomplish for her as a restaurant owner? B-Bobs advice would have been perfect. If she walked into my restaurant she would not be bothered, but for whatever reason if she wanted to take a pic with me and post somewhere I would have politely refused.
I am no Trump fan or Sanders fan, but I don't agree with the owner's action.... If Sahara was not causing a scene or being disorderly then the owner was wrong. This now sets up a stance where you can be asked to leave because of your culture or any other stupid reason. This was just plain wrong.... T_Man
She wont get in trouble because there is nothing to get in trouble about. The restaurant burned themselves by posting it on facebook first. She only confirmed the incident. Should she have tweeted it? Probably not. Im not going to speak for other people, but I stated private business should have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This includes the Baker and the Red Hen. The problem I have with the Baker issue is that the couple tried to litigate the Baker out of business, not because they couldn't go to a dozen other places, gotten a better cake the way they wanted at a better price, but because they felt the need to impose the ways on someone else who disagreed with their lifestyle. Do you really think its ok for one group to legally force their beliefs on another group? That sir, is insane. This isn't about the gay couple protesting the baker. They have every right to do that. Nobody has the right to go to the supreme court and demand another person to believe a certain way. I believe everyone should be tolerant towards anyone, regardless of belief, provided they are not breaking civil or criminal laws. You on the other hand,are signaling that we should only be tolerant to those who we agree with, to hell with the rest. Again, fortunately its only the extremist on both sides who are displaying their intolerance to the other side.
Thinking about this. If she was asked about it in the press room and she confirmed it, no problem. If she volunteered the info using private twitter, no problem. If she used official twitter to respond directly to another tweet to confirm, okay. To start a tweet because of scuttlebutt out there on Facebook, a bit more gray. She grabbed her biggest megaphone because why? To use her office to defame a business maybe. To be as clear as possible in explaining about something alleged, maybe. I suppose I'd say: debatable. I think it is totally okay to force companies to comply with our anti-discrimination laws. I think they had a credible case that they were discriminated against, so no problem at all with taking it to court.
Bondi is right here, these "nonviolent" "protesters" love to play the game where they scream at you and block your way and crowd you and scare you until you respond physically, and then they can claim they are the victims of violence.
