Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right wing is always telling people that business owners should be able to do whatever they want.
This business owner is fed up with the vulgarity, crudity, bigotry, and sexism of the Trump Administration. She exercised her discretion to ask the ultimate Trump sycophant--Sarah Huckabee Sanders--to leave her restaurant.
A restaurant can't refuse service based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. The owner can refuse service based on other reasons including the politics of a guest. I would analogize this to refusing service to David Duke or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Its up to the owner to decide something like that.
I'm no fan of Trump Administration, but the owner has the final say. The last thing Sarah needs is something like fried chicken anyway. She probably did her--and her diet--a favor.
This is my understanding of the law. And why I am confused as to the outrage here. It's not like Sarah couldn't easily find another establishment willing to serve her dining party.
All this said, her tweeting about it from her OFFICIAL account is illegal.
But, nothing ever seems to happen to anyone in this admin for doing things that are illegal, so I doubt she'll get any heat from it.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
btw - the utter lack of both intellectual honesty and logical consistency in this thread is funny.
Some of you folks are twisting yourself into pretzels trying to make this different than the baker not baking a cake, and it's funny to watch. Denial of service based on personal belief of seller. Same exact action in both cases, but it's remarkable how fast you agree with that denial when the person denied is someone you don't like.
The lengths people go to avoid cognitive dissonance. Man, is entertaining.
try again there my friend. the denial for the bakeries was based on the religious beliefs of the owners, and if you read the scotus ruling, it was narrow in scope, though broadened a bit to allow the bakers to not put vulgarity or other offensive writing on their cakes.
in this instance it wasnt about anything but pure hatred for someone and who they work for. the owner let the employees decide to serve them or not, and the employees made the decision and the owner went along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile
Most health inspections are unscheduled. What are you thinking will happen with their health inspection? You think they'll be shut down? For what exactly? And for how long? You guys need to know what you're actually talking about before posting.
you dont work in the restaurant industry do you? health inspections ARE scheduled a week in advance generally. its rare when a health inspection is unscheduled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
I still think they should’ve taken the order and never brought any food.
Every time Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked what about their food, they should’ve said they’d get back to her on that.
Then finally present them with a bill. When she complained, be snotty about it.
“Asked and answered, Sarah. Asked and answered.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4dognight
Claaaaaaaaaaasssy.
not to mention fraudulent and criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnOurWayHome
Egging and death threats to the wrong restaurant. Another example of the brilliance of trump voters.
Liberals tend to be poor tippers so while they may flock to The Red Hen to support it, the servers probably will still see their pay take a hit. I like the idea of going there to eat and then leaving nothing for a tip. The servers will be at each others throats inside of a week.
Worst tip I ever got waiting tables was from a minister... a very conservative minister. The tip for a party of 4 at lunch on a ticket that was over 75 dollars was a mealy dollar and change. And, they were my only table because they came in early on a weekday, so it wasn't service and it was not food. Oh... he left me a prayer card and told me I should stop by his church.
Whatever, cheapo.
I'm what you'd think of as liberal, though I am really more a moderate, and I tip at LEAST 20% on all meals, usually more like 25 or 30 if the service is really good.
So, there goes your theory because all the liberals I've ever met were good tippers.
Most having waited tables at some point.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Ahh.... but the manager of this restaurant is not kicking out all Republicans. This manager is kicking out someone who lies to the American public every day.
That sounds personal, but has nothing to do with beliefs.
More twisting to excuse the exact same thing - refusal of service based on personal, subjective criteria.
That is what you are doing, but don't worry, utter lack of logical consistency is the starting point for about 99% of the population, especially within the political arena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
If you owned a place of business, and someone walked in who kicked your neighbor's dog every day, would you honestly serve that person, or would you tell them to find another place to eat because you do not think that kicking your neighbor's dog every day is okay?
I would be denying them service based on my personal, subjective criteria, regardless of what that criteria happens to be. Same as denying a specific service based on my religious criteria, or my political criteria, or whatever. That you cannot see your glaring inconsistency of logic is just you avoiding all that ugly cognitive dissonance, but we are taking about the EXACT SAME ACTION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
How about a rapist? Think it's bad to refuse to serve one of those if you like?
Uhm, go through my archive on this subject. You'll find me squarely behind ALL ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY, which means any business selling/providing anything should be able to accept or deny customers (form associations) according to whatever criteria they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
Lying politicians and rapists and dog kickers do not belong to a protected class of citizens.
Gay people, do.
And this is the heart of the inconsistency, creating unequal classifications for "people" and then forcing others to operate according to those unequal and inconsistent classifications. You do realize this is institutionalized inconsistency, right?
I am for a consistent society where everyone is simply "person" and all persons are free to form any and all associations voluntarily and according to whatever criteria they choose. I defend it in the case of someone telling Trump admin folks to go pound sand, same as someone saying find another baker to celebrate your homosexual wedding. I absolutely oppose forcing people to make associations, of any kind for any reason.
My position is logically consistent. Yours is not. You can throw up another wall of appeal to XYZ fallacies, but it will never change the fact that I am logically consistent on this matter and you aren't.
This is my understanding of the law. And why I am confused as to the outrage here. It's not like Sarah couldn't easily find another establishment willing to serve her dining party.
All this said, her tweeting about it from her OFFICIAL account is illegal.
But, nothing ever seems to happen to anyone in this admin for doing things that are illegal, so I doubt she'll get any heat from it.
they had already STARTED serving her, and decided in the middle that they didnt want to. big difference between someone walking into a shop to order something and being refused BEFORE the order is placed.
But then she made one on her official WH twitter account.
The restaurant owner brought that on herself for making Sander's job an issue with her ability to stay and eat dinner. If you make a job, and politics an issue of patronizing your establishment, then live with the consequences.
More twisting to excuse the exact same thing - refusal of service based on personal, subjective criteria.
That is what you are doing, but don't worry, utter lack of logical consistency is the starting point for about 99% of the population, especially within the political arena.
I would be denying them service based on my personal, subjective criteria, regardless of what that criteria happens to be. Same as denying a specific service based on my religious criteria, or my political criteria, or whatever. That you cannot see your glaring inconsistency of logic is just you avoiding all that ugly cognitive dissonance, but we are taking about the EXACT SAME ACTION.
Uhm, go through my archive on this subject. You'll find me squarely behind ALL ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY, which means any business selling/providing anything should be able to accept or deny customers (form associations) according to whatever criteria they choose.
And this is the heart of the inconsistency, creating unequal classifications for "people" and then forcing others to operate according to those unequal and inconsistent classifications. You do realize this is institutionalized inconsistency, right?
I am for a consistent society where everyone is simply "person" and all persons are free to form any and all associations voluntarily and according to whatever criteria they choose. I defend it in the case of someone telling Trump admin folks to go pound sand, same as someone saying find another baker to celebrate your homosexual wedding. I absolutely oppose forcing people to make associations, of any kind for any reason.
My position is logically consistent. Yours is not. You can throw up another wall of appeal to XYZ fallacies, but it will never change the fact that I am logically consistent on this matter and you aren't.
And in a Utopian society, things would work that way, but we don't live there.
Which is why you are seeing my real-world examples as not being logical. I do see what you mean about all associations being voluntary, but it's pretty easy to say that when you are not living in the world where people discriminate to the point that some people have NO nearby access to services they require.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The restaurant owner brought that on herself for making Sander's job an issue with her ability to stay and eat dinner. If you make a job, and politics an issue of patronizing your establishment, then live with the consequences.
That's not what the law says on the subject of using official channels to talk smack about a private business, but whatever.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
they had already STARTED serving her, and decided in the middle that they didnt want to. big difference between someone walking into a shop to order something and being refused BEFORE the order is placed.
I'm not seeing the issue here. You can also stop serving a person if they start behaving inappropriately for your establishment or you realize they're the guy from channel 5 who stole your neighbors prized petunias, can you not?
There is no "the appetizer arrived, so you're stuck with me" clause in retail or food service.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
That's not what the law says on the subject of using official channels to talk smack about a private business, but whatever.
I disagree. I think you are interpreting the laws incorrectly, or too broadly. If there is a question of illegal action our incredibly biased media, and their Dem handlers would have forced the start the legal process days ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
