Not sure how this will play to the VMI and W&L crowd. Good luck.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/393760-reviewers-pounce-on-online-report-virginia-restaurant-refused-to-serve

That ain't right. Poor woman has the worst job in the world; no need to pile on.

The report comes just days after two other members of the Trump administration Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House senior adviser Stephen Miller were forced to leave restaurants due to protests of the administration's immigration policies.



Well there you go.

Stephen Miller is one of the reasons Sarah Sanders has the worst job in the world, so no sympathy for him.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Uh no, hate filled, liberally biased, bigoted, so called "journalists" pushing an agenda as opposed to objectively uncovering and reporting the news is the reason she has one of the worst jobs in the world.

---

You make time to post on here everyday about how dumb and/or evil the libs are. But you are worried that someone says the reverse out loud? Little odd.

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

I'm fine with a respectful expression of outrage going both ways. Sanders appears to have handled it with grace.

I'm not fine with a human rights commission levying a fine on the restaurant.

Out of curiosity, what, exactly, was the moral outrage? Are you ok if other restaurants are morally outraged by the employment decisions patrons have made? For example, I hate war; therefore I won't serve any military. I thing government is bloated; therefore I won't serve any government employees.

The manager's decision just seems random.

IMO they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Just like Starbucks.

Wonder if another round of sensitivity training will be mandated ?

bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

Selective morality is a heckuva thing.

I believe in the right of both business owners to refuse service, but I would have baked the cake and I would have served the Sanders family.

It's an angry world we live in, and that's too bad. Everyone wants to get mad about something, it seems. But I have decided I'm not going to be involved in all the anger and boycotting. If I start boycotting a business because ownership/mgmt believes differently than me, I see that as both ridiculous and a slippery slope. And I hope people that believe differently than me will still consider my business.

If you can't serve coffee or chicken to, or build a house for anyone to benefit them as HUMAN BEINGS, we have big problems.

BaylorOkie said:

---

It's an angry world we live in, and that's too bad. Everyone wants to get mad about something, it seems. But I have decided I'm not going to be involved in all the anger and boycotting. If I start boycotting a business because ownership/mgmt believes differently than me, I see that as both ridiculous and a slippery slope. And I hope people that believe differently than me will still consider my business.

If you can't serve coffee or chicken to, or build a house for anyone to benefit them as HUMAN BEINGS, we have big problems.

---

Hear, hear.

Anyone who would try and tie this political disagreement to a religious objection to catering a particular kind of biblically morally objectionable wedding is an idiot. Full stop. This is a case of not liking the person and refusing the person because of who the person is. The baker objected to the event and refused a specialized cake for the event, but offered a generic cake to the people.

As has been said, it's the owner's right to do this. Centrists, Classical Liberals and those on the Right don't disagree with a freedom to associate with and serve who and when you choose (the opposite is a leftist totalitarian demand). The owner was well within his/her rights to refuse service. At the same time, non-leftists are well within their rights to refuse to associate with the owner and to advocate others do likewise.

Here is hoping the business fails miserably and the owner eventually needs food stamps that aren't available to him/her.

It's their choice and they can do it.

That being said, probably not a great business decision.

Time will tell.

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

Yes, it is fundamentally different. The baker didn't want to participate in an event. The restaurant owner didn't want to serve a customer because of her politics. If the restaurant owner declined to cater a political fundraiser for Mrs. Sanders' campaign, you would have a better analogy. As it is, the situations are not comparable.

As far as I have seen, for the most part people who don't like it are not calling for the restaurant owner to be sanctioned by the government.

Give me Mickey Simpson and Rock Hudson duking it out in Sarge's Place with "The Yellow Rose Of Texas" playing on the jukebox, over politely walking out of a restaurant.

At the very least yell "Food Fight" before exiting.

Booray said:

---

That ain't right. Poor woman has the worst job in the world; no need to pile on.

---

I agree. Being horrible at your terrible job is no reason to deny service to her. Owner should se ashamed.

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

Selective morality is a heckuva thing.

I believe in the right of both business owners to refuse service, but I would have baked the cake and I would have served the Sanders family.

It's an angry world we live in, and that's too bad. Everyone wants to get mad about something, it seems. But I have decided I'm not going to be involved in all the anger and boycotting. If I start boycotting a business because ownership/mgmt believes differently than me, I see that as both ridiculous and a slippery slope. And I hope people that believe differently than me will still consider my business.

If you can't serve coffee or chicken to, or build a house for anyone to benefit them as HUMAN BEINGS, we have big problems.

---

I boycott a local honey seller at our farmers market. He ran for a state office several years ago on an extremely racist platform. Our whole neighborhood quit going to a great local restaurant because the owner continually made anti-Semitic remarks. He's now out of business. There are some people that I'm not going to do business with.

Did they take her kids?

Supposedly the owner

T.M.Katz said:

---

Did they take her kids?

---

You are at least as smart as one of their main courses...I'm almost sure of it.

GolemIII said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Did they take her kids?

---

You are at least as smart as one of their main courses...I'm almost sure of it.

---

Womp, womp.

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Did they take her kids?

---

You are at least as smart as one of their main courses...I'm almost sure of it.

---

Womp, womp.

---

So that's a no, then. Shame.

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of the facts of the cake case. The cake baker didn't refuse service, just refused to make a "gay cake". They were free to purchase any cake off the shelf and "decorate" it however they wanted. In this case, someone was denied service. Do you not see the difference?

I don't have a problem refusing service though some groups demand it.

I do find it interesting some groups believe refusing service is illegal unless it's refused to conservatives. Then it's honorable.

The manner you refuse service needs to be considered. You can do it discreetly. You can even offer to buy their meal elsewhere. But in today's world of social media you have to expect potential backlash.

In a matter of hours, Red Hen went from a 4.5 star rating to 2.5 stars. Plus, they getting a bunch of reservations who apparently are intentionally no-showing.

What is a defense of line?

Jack and DP said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

Selective morality is a heckuva thing.

I believe in the right of both business owners to refuse service, but I would have baked the cake and I would have served the Sanders family.

It's an angry world we live in, and that's too bad. Everyone wants to get mad about something, it seems. But I have decided I'm not going to be involved in all the anger and boycotting. If I start boycotting a business because ownership/mgmt believes differently than me, I see that as both ridiculous and a slippery slope. And I hope people that believe differently than me will still consider my business.

If you can't serve coffee or chicken to, or build a house for anyone to benefit them as HUMAN BEINGS, we have big problems.

---

I boycott a local honey seller at our farmers market. He ran for a state office several years ago on an extremely racist platform. Our whole neighborhood quit going to a great local restaurant because the owner continually made anti-Semitic remarks. He's now out of business. There are some people that I'm not going to do business with.

---

Good points. I think I probably should not be so absolute in what I said. I would also refuse to shop at a small business run by a racist.

I probably should make my points more in terms of large corporations. We continued to shop at Target and Starbucks during those boycott fads that lasted about 2 weeks. When you're dealing with large national companies, you're going to have a lot of social warrior nutjobs employed. If you boycott one, you're going to have to boycott several and suddenly you're not going to be able to buy toilet paper anywhere. My wife has an iPhone and I have a Google phone and have loved the Samsungs I've previously had. All three of those companies openly promote values that I don't agree with. But what am I going to do, use a land line?

While I can appreciate what all the soccer mom's were trying to say when they boycotted Target during the bathroom fiasco, 99% of them were back shopping there within 3 weeks. So what did they really accomplish other than look petty.