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.

---

I agree. I see too many people arguing and protesting instead of voting with their wallets.

Personally, I don't get bad service from the same person over and over.

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Absolutely. In the same way that a cake can be Aggie.

Not surprising if true.

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Red velvet cakes. Definitely gay.

bubbadog said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Red velvet cakes. Definitely gay.

---

Are sheet cakes Klan

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

bubbadog said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Red velvet cakes. Definitely gay.

---

they are delicious though

cms186 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Red velvet cakes. Definitely gay.

---

they are delicious though

---

Yes they are.

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

---

When the State of Virginia legally assaults the restaurant and forces the owner to spend 100k + to stay open, only then is a comparable situation. Otherwise, to each their own as non sanctioned entity.

DaveyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

---

When the State of Virginia legally assaults the restaurant and forces the owner to spend 100k + to stay open, only then is a comparable situation. Otherwise, to each their own as non sanctioned entity.

---

If you're stuck on the situation of the baker before the Supreme Court ruling, then as your comparison use a hypothetical baker who now, thanks to the ruling, could not be subjected to some legal penalty, nor would be required to defend himself in court.

bubbadog said:

---

DaveyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

---

When the State of Virginia legally assaults the restaurant and forces the owner to spend 100k + to stay open, only then is a comparable situation. Otherwise, to each their own as non sanctioned entity.

---

If you're stuck on the situation of the baker before the Supreme Court ruling, then as your comparison use a hypothetical baker who now, thanks to the ruling, could not be subjected to some legal penalty, nor would be required to defend himself in court.

---

You are mistaken about the scope of the ruling. It is quite narrow. From CNN: "The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty." So, another hypothetical baker is basically still under the same threat from government as Mr. Phillips.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

DaveyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

---

When the State of Virginia legally assaults the restaurant and forces the owner to spend 100k + to stay open, only then is a comparable situation. Otherwise, to each their own as non sanctioned entity.

---

If you're stuck on the situation of the baker before the Supreme Court ruling, then as your comparison use a hypothetical baker who now, thanks to the ruling, could not be subjected to some legal penalty, nor would be required to defend himself in court.

---

You are mistaken about the scope of the ruling. It is quite narrow. From CNN: "The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty." So, another hypothetical baker is basically still under the same threat from government as Mr. Phillips.

---

I know their INTENTION was for a narrow ruling. I believe that what they delivered will have much broader implications. But that is just my opinion.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

DaveyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sure, there are differences. The fact that there are difference shouldn't obscure the fact that there are also similarities. Both business owners, in their respective ways, turned away would-be customers, and they claimed that they did so out of moral principle.

What's evident in this thread is that most people don't like the restaurant owner's principle (just as critics of the baker didn't like his particular principle), so the critics of the restaurant owner are trying to establish a categorical difference between the two cases. But the underlying dynamic is pretty similar between the two.

Baylor Okie seems to get it.

Whether people agree with the restaurant owner's views seems to determine how they apply the principle of refusal to serve someone on moral grounds. And once you establish the principle that businesses can refuse to serve (which the Supreme Court did no matter how narrowly they claim their ruling applies), then it's just a matter of carrying out the logic to whatever extreme people are determined to carry it.

Restaurants have always maintained the right to turn away people based on their behavior (no shirt, no shoes, etc.) In this case, the owner turned away someone based on her behavior in a totally different setting from the restaurant. Should she be allowed to do that? Before you reflexively say no, ask yourself whether your restaurant should be able to turn away a black-clad Antifa group who has just come in after a protest, or Dallas rich boy Richard Spencer with a group of his neo-Nazis?

The real issue here, as Baylor Okie implies, probably has more to do with tears in the traditional social fabric that held Americans together than with an abstract principle.

I tend to take a more libertarian view of cases like the baker and the restaurant owner. Let the market decide.

The restaurant owner knew that asking Sanders to leave carried risks, especially in a small town that's mostly blue in a county that's mostly red. She was willing to take those risks. She'll lose some customers and probably gain some others. Maybe her restaurant will go out of business.

Same thing with the Colorado baker. And what the gay couple probably should have done was simply put the word out that this bakery refused to make a cake for their wedding and leave it at that. If enough people are angry that they stop patronizing the bakery and it goes out of business, so be it.

---

My friend, in the case of the Colorado baker, the government punished him. In the case of the restaurant owner, until the government tries to fine her or take away her right to sell food, there is no meaningful comparison.

---

Yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that punishment, establishing the principle that has been the basis for this discussion. I'm comparing the restaurant to the baker post-Supreme Court ruling, not before. I'm taking it as a given now that the baker has this right and cannot be punished as a matter of law for his stand. The question then becomes how this principle should apply to people like the restaurant owner, who cited moral grounds but not grounds that were specifically religious.

---

When the State of Virginia legally assaults the restaurant and forces the owner to spend 100k + to stay open, only then is a comparable situation. Otherwise, to each their own as non sanctioned entity.

---

If you're stuck on the situation of the baker before the Supreme Court ruling, then as your comparison use a hypothetical baker who now, thanks to the ruling, could not be subjected to some legal penalty, nor would be required to defend himself in court.

---

You are mistaken about the scope of the ruling. It is quite narrow. From CNN: "The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty." So, another hypothetical baker is basically still under the same threat from government as Mr. Phillips.

---

I know their INTENTION was for a narrow ruling. I believe that what they delivered will have much broader implications. But that is just my opinion.

---

Unfortunately, your opinion is not binding, so that hypothetical baker would most certainly have to defend himself in court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/23/why-a-small-town-restaurant-owner-asked-sarah-huckabee-sanders-to-leave-and-would-do-it-again/?utm_term=.511bf74d91af

The owner of the Red Hen explains why she asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave

LEXINGTON, Va. Stephanie Wilkinson was at home Friday evening nearly 200 miles from the White House when the choice presented itself.


Her phone rang about 8 p.m. It was the chef at the Red Hen, the tiny farm-to-table restaurant that she co-owned just off Main Street in this small city in the western part of the state.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders had just walked in and sat down, the chef informed her.

"He said the staff is a little concerned. What should we do?" Wilkinson told The Washington Post. "I said I'd be down to see if it's true."

It seemed unlikely to her that President Trump's press secretary should be dining at a 26-seat restaurant in rural Virginia. But then, it was unlikely that her entire staff would have misidentified Sanders, who had arrived last to a table of eight booked under her husband's name.

As she made the short drive to the Red Hen, Wilkinson knew only this:


She knew Lexington, population 7,000, had voted overwhelmingly against Trump in a county that voted overwhelmingly for him. She knew the community was deeply divided over such issues as Confederate flags. She knew, she said, that her restaurant and its half-dozen servers and cooks had managed to stay in business for 10 years by keeping politics off the menu.

And she knew she believed that Sarah Huckabee Sanders worked in the service of an "inhumane and unethical" administration. That she publicly defended the president's cruelest policies, and that that could not stand.

"I'm not a huge fan of confrontation," Wilkinson said. "I have a business, and I want the business to thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals."

When she walked into the restaurant, Wilkinson saw that there had been no mistake. The Red Hen is no bigger than some apartments, and the group table was impossible to miss: Sanders in a black dress, her husband, three or four men and women of roughly similar ages, and an older couple.


"They had cheese boards in front of them," Wilkinson said. Like any other family. The kitchen was already preparing the party's main course. Wilkinson interrupted to huddle with her workers.

Several Red Hen employees are gay, she said. They knew Sanders had defended Trump's desire to bar transgender people from the military. This month, they had all watched her evade questions and defend a Trump policy that caused migrant children to be separated from their parents.

"Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," Wilkinson told her staff, she said. "They said 'yes.' "

It was important to Wilkinson, she said, that Sanders had already been served that her staff had not simply refused her on sight. And it was important to her that Sanders was a public official, not just a customer with whom she disagreed, many of whom were included in her regular clientele.

All the same, she was tense as she walked up to the press secretary's chair.

"I said, 'I'm the owner,' " she recalled, " 'I'd like you to come out to the patio with me for a word.' "

They stepped outside, into another small enclosure, but at least out of the crowded restaurant.

"I was babbling a little, but I got my point across in a polite and direct fashion," Wilkinson said. "I explained that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.

"I said, 'I'd like to ask you to leave.' "

They should put up a sign that says "Dems only". Or maybe become a private club.

Wilkinson didn't know how Sanders would react, or whether Trump's chief spokeswoman had been called out in a restaurant before as the president's homeland security secretary had been days earlier.

Sanders's response was immediate, Wilkinson said: " ' That's fine. I'll go.' "

[With 'Moscow Muellers' and other promos, D.C. businesses bank on Trump themes]

Sanders went back to the table, picked up her things and walked out. The others at her table had been welcome to stay, Wilkinson said. But they didn't, so the servers cleared away the cheese plates and glasses.

"They offered to pay," Wilkinson said. "I said, 'No. It's on the house.' "

At the end of the shift, Wilkinson said, staff members left the usual overnight note in the kitchen for the morning manager: a problem with the credit card machine. Restock vodka and tequila.

If you've ever heard the term "to 86 someone," it comes from the restaurant industry code to refuse service, or alternatively to take an item off the menu.

86 Sara Huckabee Sanders," read the note, below the reminder to buy more Pellegrino

One of the servers photographed the whiteboard before going home Friday. He had posted it to his public Facebook wall by the time Wilkinson woke up Saturday. For all the angst that evening, Wilkinson said, everything had taken place with decorum. She had been polite; Sanders had been polite; the press secretary's family had been polite as they followed her out the door.

Not so much the rest of the world, as it discovered Red Hen waiter Jaike Foley-Schultz's Facebook post: "I just served Sarah huckabee sanders for a total of 2 minutes before my owner asked her to leave."

A fountain of alternately celebratory and outraged comments gushed from Foley-Schultz's Facebook wall into the Red Hen's social media accounts, then its Yelp review page.

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

Jack and DP said:

---

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

---

I am sure that Mr. Shannon has great insight when it comes to football, but not so much when it comes to Constitutional Law.

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.

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.

This is great. Politician who supports the legalized murder of babies says, "God is on our side...the side of the children" and calls for more intolerance and harassment of people within the administration.

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.

---

Forgive me for not seeing the analogy. People who look like Shannon Sharpe were denied accommodations because of the color their skin. Ms. Sanders was asked to leave because of the content of her character.

But maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about the thinking of a poster who used to routinely refer to Jackson, MS as "Jafrica" and the colored folk there as Jafricans.

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Cakes can be gay? So no more sheet cakes at the pot luck.

---

Absolutely. In the same way that a cake can be Aggie.

---

Salmonella

What's next? Are they going to start making conservative water fountains and restrooms?

Unhinged.

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

contrario 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.

---

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?

---

Sooner or later some mouth-breather is going to hang a "no gays" sign in front of his shop and say the Supreme Court gave him the right to do it. I'm guessing somewhere around that time people will start noticing the difference.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Unhinged.

---

Well, ***** I guess now our R&D people are going to have to redefine what a Doc-Holliday-strength Iron-o-Meter means.

Oh well, every setback is a fresh opportunity for success.

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.

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.

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?

---

That denial would not have neen based on an immutable characteristic.