We knew it was coming and as usual Liberals inflame hate. I hope someone on both sides is able to calm this feud, liberals need to come out and condemn Maxine in a hurry or who knows what this will escalate into.

With the extreme and growing paranoia, racial demagoguery and physical violence couched as supposed 'anti fascist protesting' of the left, there's a good chance non-leftists will indeed need to start firing back in self defense soon. Shoot straight and end the threat when it comes....stand your ground.

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

There's nothing in Golem's post indicting that he believes that laws banning blacks from restaurants is OK. He was pointing out that the law [sometimes, I would add] required segregation, but this case was a personal choice. His opinion of the restaurant owner are irrelevant to that point. That is where you seem to have missed the reading comprehension part.

When you have a member of Congress calling for mob action, that is setting the stage for violence.

When you have actual violence from ANTIFA "activists," as we have seen, that has gone beyond "setting the stage for violence."

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

The Obama's were treated well. McCain was also questioned about where he was born, as was Ted Cruz.

Jack and DP said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

The Obama's were treated well. McCain was also questioned about where he was born, as was Ted Cruz.

---

Katz, like cinque, JGTBH, bubba (Grace) and waco47, is just bat$#|t crazy. Don't bother.

GolemIII said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

The Obama's were treated well. McCain was also questioned about where he was born, as was Ted Cruz.

---

Katz, like cinque, JGTBH, bubba (Grace) and waco47, is just bat$#|t crazy. Don't bother.

---

That's an insult to bat$#|t

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

The Obama's were treated well. McCain was also questioned about where he was born, as was Ted Cruz.

---

Katz, like cinque, JGTBH, bubba (Grace) and waco47, is just bat$#|t crazy. Don't bother.

---

That's an insult to bat$#|t

---

Truth. My sincerest apologies to bat$#|t.

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

---

You're really reaching to draw a distinction between "where she works" (the Trump Whitehouse) and what she does (works at the Trump Whitehouse).

Back to the comparison between the baker and the restaurant owner, the baker was punished by force of law, and that law was not struck down, he just won on narrower grounds. If someone tries to bring the restaurant owner up before the Virginia Tribunal for the Civil Rights of Federal Employees and she is sanctioned for her actions, then the situations would become analogous.

---

If a person works in hospice and rather than making end of life care as compassionate as humanly possible, he/she harms people, what she does at work matters. As I have said many times, Sarah obfuscates and lies without dilemma and that matters.

---

As you have said many times? Is that supposed to be some kind of authoritative source?

GolemIII said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

---

Jim Crowe laws your thing?

Grew up in Mississippi. Restaurants used to serve white people in the front with either a room or takeout window for black people in the back. Gas stations had 3 bathrooms, men, ladies and colored. Black men and women had to use the same room. Seemed normal to me as a kid. Now I realize it was a way of showing that black people were second class citizens.

heres what I can't figure out about this thread. Why was it OK for people to treat the obamas like shlt and claim obama wasn't born here but its not OK to criticize anything Trump does. and how is bloody everything the fault of 'leftists'. seems to me the people who are setting the stage for violence are Trumpies. See golem's comment just above: we need to defend ourselves from....angry words. ***?

---

The Obama's were treated well. McCain was also questioned about where he was born, as was Ted Cruz.

---

Katz, like cinque, JGTBH, bubba (Grace) and waco47, is just bat$#|t crazy. Don't bother.

---

That's an insult to bat$#|t

---

Truth. My sincerest apologies to bat$#|t.

---

+ you left xiled off your list which is a disservice to lists

Gosh, I m flattered to be recognized by the KGB version of a John Birch Society orgy.
Whose paying for all of these great ideas?
It comes really down to money and the American people don't want to pay for some dumb wall that was a campaign promise and no one believes these Trump supporters can pay for border security out of their own pockets.

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

It's amazing the gymnastics some have taken to, justifying refusing to serve basic food to a human being.

It might be a right, but Sanders didn't ask her to cater a private Republican event or make some custom creation to celebrate Sanders belief system, she just wanted a meal, one they sell dozens of times a day, she didn't ask them to customize it for her particular ideology, just a meal.

It has zero in common with the baker's situation.

Not gonna make another comment on it, just that it's astounding the sane people who are justifying refusing basic service to someone who asked for nothing out of the ordinary.

---

I've had the benefit of more time to think about it than the restaurant owner did, but here's what I think I would have done in her situation.

She's at home on a Friday night and gets a call from the staff that Sarah Sanders is there and a lot of the staff don't want to serve her. She asks whether they're sure it's her. They say yes. She comes down to the restaurant to look into the situation. When she gets there, she recognizes Sanders and quickly convenes the staff to ask what they want to do. They want to ask her to leave.

At that point, had it been my restaurant, I think I would have said something like: "She's already here, and they've already had part of their meal. I will go ahead and serve her personally so that I won't impose that on any staff who don't want to serve her."

Then, when they were all done, I would approach Sanders and ask to speak to her privately. I would introduce myself as the owner and explain that I had served her because nobody else wanted to. I would tell her the reasons why they (and I) did not want to serve someone who regularly lied to the public and who facilitated and supported lies by her boss on a daily basis. I would tell her the the meal was on the house, I hope they all enjoyed it, but please do not come back ever again.

---

That's the way decent people would do it.

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Glad you brought up Mike Huckabee. This is the guy who tried to depict MS-13 members as people on Nancy Pelosi's staff. I've witnessed the progression on the whole MS-13 charge by Trumpet Republicans. First it was that anyone who supported immigration reform was soft on MS-13. Then it evolved to the charge that they actually favored MS-13. And then it evolved to personal claims about people like Pelosi actually employing MS-13 members.

You would think a Baptist preacher would at least care that there is a specific commandment against false witness. Then again, there are some sorry people out there filling Baptist pulpits.

But Huckabee used to be moderate in his language if not his political positions. That was kind of the brand he ran on when he campaigned for president. Maybe he saw that being a nice person got you nowhere with angry, pitchfork-wielding Trumpets who wanted to take "their country" back from blacks and Mexicans, and so he adjusted his course. Or maybe his mind got poisoned along the way, as happened to his daughter and so many others.

Either way, Mike Huckabee's word on what happened at the restaurant that night is worth about as much as a bucket of warm piss.

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Glad you brought up Mike Huckabee. This is the guy who tried to depict MS-13 members as people on Nancy Pelosi's staff. I've witnessed the progression on the whole MS-13 charge by Trumpet Republicans. First it was that anyone who supported immigration reform was soft on MS-13. Then it evolved to the charge that they actually favored MS-13. And then it evolved to personal claims about people like Pelosi actually employing MS-13 members.

You would think a Baptist preacher would at least care that there is a specific commandment against false witness. Then again, there are some sorry people out there filling Baptist pulpits.

But Huckabee used to be moderate in his language if not his political positions. That was kind of the brand he ran on when he campaigned for president. Maybe he saw that being a nice person got you nowhere with angry, pitchfork-wielding Trumpets who wanted to take "their country" back from blacks and Mexicans, and so he adjusted his course. Or maybe his mind got poisoned along the way, as happened to his daughter and so many others.

Either way, Mike Huckabee's word on what happened at the restaurant that night is worth about as much as a bucket of warm piss.

---

Unless, of course, he had said something you agree with, in which case he would an authoritative source on what really happened!

I'll just leave this here:

5 Types of Narcissistic Blame Shifting
https://www.psychopathfree.com/articles/5-types-of-narcissistic-blame-shifting.388/

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Mike Huckabee's word so far.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

---

A second source from someone who was actually there at a minimum. I would also expect the owner to be willing to boast about it like she boasted about throwing Sanders out to her PR flak at the the Washington Post.

riflebear said:

---

Maybe I'm losing it as I get older but can someone try and explain the liberal logic in this debate? I know they are hypocritical and preach tolerance only if it works in their favor but this one confuses me.

Chic-Fil-A serves everyone who enters their restaurant but the many liberals call them bigoted and all kinds of names and boycott them.

Then a liberal restaurant actually boycotts (bigotry) someone because of their politics and asks them to leave and they cheer the restaurant owner?

Do as I say not as I do?

---

There's been a loss of civility on both sides. I don't think it's bigotry to boycott a business or an activity you don't agree with. It sends the message that you don't approve of the activity and want it to stop. Refusing to serve a person or trying to get them fired because of their political beliefs is bigotry. It sends the message that you don't want the person to be able to eat or to work. Liberals tend to be more guilty of this because many of them have a false definition of bigotry. They think it's a particular set of beliefs, when in fact it's the inability or refusal to deal with people of differing beliefs that marks one as a bigot.

Forest Bueller said:

---

But, it is my job to feed people, not to determine their unworthiness. Even if a known abortion Doctor came in for a meal, unless part of serving him included him asking me to affirm abortion, he would be served and treated as kindly as anybody in the Restaurant. I mean the man just needs a meal, and it would be my business to meet his needs.

---

If you feel strongly enough about the issue, then you have every right to ask the abortion doctor not to come back to your restaurant. First, it's not like he's homeless and hungry and depending on your Christian hospitality. Second, moral issues like this go deeper than traditional political disagreements over, say, budget deficits or infrastructure spending. Opponents of abortion have already done things like stake out clinics and picket the homes of abortion providers. Why, really, should restaurants be any different simply because they're a venue that hasn't been used in this way before.

For opponents of Trump who come from backgrounds in both the Republican and Democratic parties, aiding and abetting Trump is a moral issue, just as aiding and abetting abortion is a moral issue for pro-life folks. I have heard many Trump supporters from rural America (which is where I came from and my values were formed, as you and I have discussed via PMs) and from the Rust Belt say that they felt forgotten by the "coastal elites," that their voices were not being listened to and their needs were being ignored. Their world was crumbling under their feet as jobs were moving out and drugs and crime moved in, and nobody was seriously doing anything.

The problems are real, and the complaint rings true. The forces of globalization may be irreversible, but they also have taken a disproportionate toll on people in rural America and the Rust Belt. Nobody in either party has been able to figure out how to respond to something that's bigger than any government, but worse, nobody acts like they really even care. Instead of talking about how we respond to the toll of globalization, the elites of both parties act like globalization as an unalloyed victory. They point out how it's raising standards of living in the Third World, which is little comfort to people in our own country whose own living standards have fallen and whose futures look dim. That's the void Trumpism fills, and the elites in both parties (but especially the Democrats, which used to be the party of the working man) need to listen more and judge a little less.

But the listening works both ways. People who would go so far as risk their businesses to make a statement against what Sarah Sanders does and represents are not on some mindless lark and are not crazy. If she was serious enough about her beliefs to do this, then she ought to be taken as seriously as social conservatives wanted everyone to take the baker who sincerely believed that making a cake meant he was actively participating in a gay wedding. Just as people from rural America and the Rust Belt have legitimate complaints about how they've been treated, people like the restaurant owner have legitimate concerns about what they believe Trump is doing to American democracy and traditional American values. If Trump supporters want their concerns to be heard and taken seriously, then they also need to recognize that Trump opponents need to be taken seriously, too.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

---

A second source from someone who was actually there at a minimum. I would also expect the owner to be willing to boast about it like she boasted about throwing Sanders out to her PR flak at the the Washington Post.

---

I thought the restaurant owner was being quiet about it until one of her employees posted something on social media (including the chalkboard with "86 Sarah Sanders") and then it went viral. Is that not accurate?

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

But, it is my job to feed people, not to determine their unworthiness. Even if a known abortion Doctor came in for a meal, unless part of serving him included him asking me to affirm abortion, he would be served and treated as kindly as anybody in the Restaurant. I mean the man just needs a meal, and it would be my business to meet his needs.

---

If you feel strongly enough about the issue, then you have every right to ask the abortion doctor not to come back to your restaurant. First, it's not like he's homeless and hungry and depending on your Christian hospitality. Second, moral issues like this go deeper than traditional political disagreements over, say, budget deficits or infrastructure spending. Opponents of abortion have already done things like stake out clinics and picket the homes of abortion providers. Why, really, should restaurants be any different simply because they're a venue that hasn't been used in this way before.

For opponents of Trump who come from backgrounds in both the Republican and Democratic parties, aiding and abetting Trump is a moral issue, just as aiding and abetting abortion is a moral issue for pro-life folks. I have heard many Trump supporters from rural America (which is where I came from and my values were formed, as you and I have discussed via PMs) and from the Rust Belt say that they felt forgotten by the "coastal elites," that their voices were not being listened to and their needs were being ignored. Their world was crumbling under their feet as jobs were moving out and drugs and crime moved in, and nobody was seriously doing anything.

The problems are real, and the complaint rings true. The forces of globalization may be irreversible, but they also have taken a disproportionate toll on people in rural America and the Rust Belt. Nobody in either party has been able to figure out how to respond to something that's bigger than any government, but worse, nobody acts like they really even care. Instead of talking about how we respond to the toll of globalization, the elites of both parties act like globalization as an unalloyed victory. They point out how it's raising standards of living in the Third World, which is little comfort to people in our own country whose own living standards have fallen and whose futures look dim. That's the void Trumpism fills, and the elites in both parties (but especially the Democrats, which used to be the party of the working man) need to listen more and judge a little less.

But the listening works both ways. People who would go so far as risk their businesses to make a statement against what Sarah Sanders does and represents are not on some mindless lark and are not crazy. If she was serious enough about her beliefs to do this, then she ought to be taken as seriously as social conservatives wanted everyone to take the baker who sincerely believed that making a cake meant he was actively participating in a gay wedding. Just as people from rural America and the Rust Belt have legitimate complaints about how they've been treated, people like the restaurant owner have legitimate concerns about what they believe Trump is doing to American democracy and traditional American values. If Trump supporters want their concerns to be heard and taken seriously, then they also need to recognize that Trump opponents need to be taken seriously, too.

---

I didn't want people who disagree with him to take the baker seriously, I wanted him to have basic First Amendment rights.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

---

A second source from someone who was actually there at a minimum. I would also expect the owner to be willing to boast about it like she boasted about throwing Sanders out to her PR flak at the the Washington Post.

---

I thought the restaurant owner was being quiet about it until one of her employees posted something on social media (including the chalkboard with "86 Sarah Sanders") and then it went viral. Is that not accurate?

---

Accurate, but not particularly important. She was boasting about her action to a sympathetic reporter once it was public. I would expect she'd continue to do speak publicly, particularly if she had not harassed some liberals because of whom their son married.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

---

A second source from someone who was actually there at a minimum. I would also expect the owner to be willing to boast about it like she boasted about throwing Sanders out to her PR flak at the the Washington Post.

---

I thought the restaurant owner was being quiet about it until one of her employees posted something on social media (including the chalkboard with "86 Sarah Sanders") and then it went viral. Is that not accurate?

---

Accurate, but not particularly important. She was boasting about her action to a sympathetic reporter once it was public. I would expect she'd continue to do speak publicly.

---

Important for accuracy. "Boasting" implies that she went out of her way to call attention proactively to what she had done. That does not appear to have been the case.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

But, it is my job to feed people, not to determine their unworthiness. Even if a known abortion Doctor came in for a meal, unless part of serving him included him asking me to affirm abortion, he would be served and treated as kindly as anybody in the Restaurant. I mean the man just needs a meal, and it would be my business to meet his needs.

---

If you feel strongly enough about the issue, then you have every right to ask the abortion doctor not to come back to your restaurant. First, it's not like he's homeless and hungry and depending on your Christian hospitality. Second, moral issues like this go deeper than traditional political disagreements over, say, budget deficits or infrastructure spending. Opponents of abortion have already done things like stake out clinics and picket the homes of abortion providers. Why, really, should restaurants be any different simply because they're a venue that hasn't been used in this way before.

For opponents of Trump who come from backgrounds in both the Republican and Democratic parties, aiding and abetting Trump is a moral issue, just as aiding and abetting abortion is a moral issue for pro-life folks. I have heard many Trump supporters from rural America (which is where I came from and my values were formed, as you and I have discussed via PMs) and from the Rust Belt say that they felt forgotten by the "coastal elites," that their voices were not being listened to and their needs were being ignored. Their world was crumbling under their feet as jobs were moving out and drugs and crime moved in, and nobody was seriously doing anything.

The problems are real, and the complaint rings true. The forces of globalization may be irreversible, but they also have taken a disproportionate toll on people in rural America and the Rust Belt. Nobody in either party has been able to figure out how to respond to something that's bigger than any government, but worse, nobody acts like they really even care. Instead of talking about how we respond to the toll of globalization, the elites of both parties act like globalization as an unalloyed victory. They point out how it's raising standards of living in the Third World, which is little comfort to people in our own country whose own living standards have fallen and whose futures look dim. That's the void Trumpism fills, and the elites in both parties (but especially the Democrats, which used to be the party of the working man) need to listen more and judge a little less.

But the listening works both ways. People who would go so far as risk their businesses to make a statement against what Sarah Sanders does and represents are not on some mindless lark and are not crazy. If she was serious enough about her beliefs to do this, then she ought to be taken as seriously as social conservatives wanted everyone to take the baker who sincerely believed that making a cake meant he was actively participating in a gay wedding. Just as people from rural America and the Rust Belt have legitimate complaints about how they've been treated, people like the restaurant owner have legitimate concerns about what they believe Trump is doing to American democracy and traditional American values. If Trump supporters want their concerns to be heard and taken seriously, then they also need to recognize that Trump opponents need to be taken seriously, too.

---

I didn't want people who disagree with him to take the baker seriously, I wanted him to have basic First Amendment rights.

---

At the very least, I'd say you wanted the courts to take seriously the claim that baking a cake was an matter of freedom of speech and expression -- a claim that had not seriously been considered before.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Any evidence this actually happened?

---

Doc read it on the internet. What more evidence would you require?

---

A second source from someone who was actually there at a minimum. I would also expect the owner to be willing to boast about it like she boasted about throwing Sanders out to her PR flak at the the Washington Post.

---

I thought the restaurant owner was being quiet about it until one of her employees posted something on social media (including the chalkboard with "86 Sarah Sanders") and then it went viral. Is that not accurate?

---

Accurate, but not particularly important. She was boasting about her action to a sympathetic reporter once it was public. I would expect she'd continue to do speak publicly.

---

Important for accuracy. "Boasting" implies that she went out of her way to call attention to what she had done. That does not appear to have been the case.

---

Take a look at the Washington Post story. When you give a lengthy interview in which you explain your own moral superiority to a sympathetic reporter, you are basically boasting, and you have gone out of your way to call attention to what you have done.