Poll of the Day > Do you think it was wrong for that restaurant to kick sarah huckabee sanders...

(+) Yeah! (+)

out? I think they legally could but do you think they were right to do it?

I don't hear about this, but that sounds dumb to do. She's a lying piece of shit, but her money's as good as anyone else's and she's gotta eat, too. Why not just serve her food?

Was it wrong, yep. Is this any different than the Starbucks one? Yeah I'd say it's even worse. She wasn't loitering around the place, she was going to actually eat there. So if Starbucks got destroyed for it they should too...but oh wait it's against someone in a Republican WH, so of course there won't be anything said or done about it. Not to mention she is a classy lady and won't make a giant stink about it unlike some democRAT would if it happened to them.
---

Kicking out a paying customer over their politics is a stupid, petty thing to do and only serves to exacerbate a toxic partisan divide. That said, business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anybody for any reason.

Mr Hangman posted...

No. Fascists should be harassed everywhere they go.

...he says without the slightest hint of irony or self-awareness.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

When you're making excuses for concentration camps on national television, you've crossed a line from reasonable disagreement into something else. This isn't petty politics anymore.

These "concentration camps" have been under the orders of the Obama administration.

Every video that surfaced online from those, that they accused Trump of doing, has been from 2013 and 2014.

Mr Hangman posted...

No. Fascists should be harassed everywhere they go.

Holy fuck the far left is fucking dumb

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.
---

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

^this.
---

no. the owner said they didn't want her there because the administration goes against their moral beliefs and they didn't want it associated with their business. a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class. if they don't want her money, they don't need to take it.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

When you're making excuses for concentration camps on national television, you've crossed a line from reasonable disagreement into something else. This isn't petty politics anymore.

---

Jen0125 posted...

as long as it's not against a protected class.

---

KnoxKorner posted...

Jen0125 posted...

as long as it's not against a protected class.

All or nothing. No half-assed welching.
---

Jen0125 posted...

a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

OhhhJa posted...

Jen0125 posted...

a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Jen0125 posted...

a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

i don't care about your neanderthal opinion
---

Jen0125 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Jen0125 posted...

a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

i don't care about your neanderthal opinion

How hypocritical you sound... the left continues to amaze me

Well, I mean, it's Jen, so....
---

Zeus posted...

Well, I mean, it's Jen, so....

For fucks sake, Zues. For once in your life, stop adding fuel to the fire and shut the fuck up.

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

doesn't make either refusal less stupid, but yeah this.
---

If conservative religious nuts can deny service to gays then I see no problem in denying scumbag politicians.
---

Wrong? If you're not a piece of shit. Yea.

But this is how Republicans want the world to be so it's within the rights of the restaurant. It's okay to not serve gays or blacks according to them.

TyVulpine posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Jen0125 posted...

a business owner is allowed to deny business for any reason as long as it's not against a protected class

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Ja called black people monkeys. So of course he's against things to protect people who are discriminated against.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zeus posted...

Well, I mean, it's Jen, so....

For fucks sake, Zeus. For once in your life, stop adding fuel to the fire and shut the fuck up.

But seriously, it's Jen.
---

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

out? I think they legally could but do you think they were right to do it?

Any establishment can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason they want.

Mr Hangman posted...

No. Fascists should be harassed everywhere they go.

Unless their fascism is for a good cause.
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

For fucks sake, Zeus. For once in your life, stop adding fuel to the fire and shut the fuck up.

This advice should apply to more than half the people posting in this topic, honestly.


---

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zeus posted...

Well, I mean, it's Jen, so....

For fucks sake, Zeus. For once in your life, stop adding fuel to the fire and shut the fuck up.

But seriously, it's Jen.

But seriously, youre being an ass.

I wouldn't have kicked her out, but that's because she seems to me to be more a dope who's in over her head than someone who actually agrees with all of Trump's policies. If the owner of that restaurant thought differently, I can see why she would've kicked Sarah Huckabee Sanders out.

Also, from what I've read, a company is legally allowed to refuse service to anyone, unless the company is doing it because of that person's race, sex, or one of a few other attributes.

Nope.

If they want to, fine. The difference between this and other things such as kicking out patrons who are of a race you dont like is...race isnt something you can choose. Sanders chooses to work each day for the trump admin and peddle lies, she isnt being forced to.

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

This 100%

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

Nobody has said that the restaurant doesn't have the right to do this, they certainly do.
I just think it's rather immature to do this. Why risk alienating your customers?
But, if the owner's conviction about not having her in her restaurant is that strong, then that's her right to take that business risk.

BeerOnTap posted...

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

Nobody has said that the restaurant doesn't have the right to do this, they certainly do.
I just think it's rather immature to do this. Why risk alienating your customers?
But, if the owner's conviction about not having her in her restaurant is that strong, then that's her right to take that business risk.

The Religious Right do it all the time with blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. But when they have the same done to them, its suddenly rather immature?
---

I don't think it was appropriate but, on the other hand, this is a woman who supports the idea of businesses being able to refuse service to whomever they please.

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.
---

BeerOnTap posted...

faramir77 posted...

If a bakery can refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, a restaurant can refuse to serve a shitty politician.

If you supported the cake ruling but are against this, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

Nobody has said that the restaurant doesn't have the right to do this, they certainly do.
I just think it's rather immature to do this. Why risk alienating your customers?
But, if the owner's conviction about not having her in her restaurant is that strong, then that's her right to take that business risk.

I question whether or not it should be allowed in the first place. But in the US, that was the ruling, so it's a reality that they need to accept.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to serve others, but I really don't like the idea of allowing people to openly discriminate against people for just being who they are. Regardless, we can't have it both ways. I'm not cool with the decision of either the bakery owner nor the restaurant owner. But if the courts decided that's their right, I have to respect that right. One thing that really grinds my gears is people that tolerate one event but not the other. Be consistent.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.

I dont think the far left will ever see the obvious irony

Depends.

I don't like the idea of seeing people get refused service over their political beliefs, even people (like Sanders) who I disagree with strongly. That said, the issues with Sanders - and, indeed, with this administration - go beyond the political. Sanders is willingly aiding and abetting someone who lies to the public at a shocking rate and serves as the mouthpiece for many of those lies. That's not politics. By the same token, the administration's clusterfuck on the southern border (and the fact that they couldn't seem to get their message straight on whether the policy was terrible and caused by Democrats, fantastic and caused by Jeff Sessions, terrible but a good negotiating chip, or flat-out non-existent) has elements beyond the political. Whether you believe increased border security is a good thing or not is a political matter; but whether you believe children should be torn away from their parents (some of whom were asylum seekers at legal ports of entry), with no clear pathway to reunification, is not a political quandary, it's a moral one. And refusing service has long been a tool in resolving moral disagreements.

I still haven't quite decided where I sit on this, but honestly the idea of seeing Sanders get tossed out of a restaurant doesn't really make me lose any sleep.

I do, however, get a kick out of watching the same conservatives who were cheering the gay wedding cake guy losing their minds over this.

zebatov posted...

Any establishment can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason they want.

Not quite true - you're not allowed to refuse service based on protected classes (race, religion, gender, etc.), but otherwise are in the clear.

Decoy77 posted...

Was it wrong, yep. Is this any different than the Starbucks one? Yeah I'd say it's even worse. She wasn't loitering around the place, she was going to actually eat there. So if Starbucks got destroyed for it they should too...

Not really analogous situations. The Starbucks guys were in Starbucks for a purpose that the chain itself advertises ("community hub") and were refused access to the restrooms for not buying anything, then told to leave despite that enforcement not being made against anyone else (and it's hard not to see the racial aspect of that incident either).

Sanders was tossed not because of her skin colour, but because of her politics and because her presence was a) Potentially bad for business given that the restaurant was located in a liberal town and b) Making several members of the staff, who were gay and/or Hispanic, uncomfortable.

The Starbucks guys were tossed out because of who they were; Sanders was tossed out because of what she had done. There's an important distinction there.

OhhhJa posted...

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

Crime stats prove you wrong, but don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.

OhhhJa posted...

How hypocritical you sound... the left continues to amaze me

He says while conveniently ignoring that it was conservatives who were arguing that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to customers simply because they were gay a few weeks ago.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.

Assuming that everyone begins on equal footing.

Which, y'know, they don't.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.

No, it ensures the protected class has the same rights as everyone else. How many times in our countrys history has a class been reduced to second-class? Women, blacks, Jews, Italians, Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, gays, etc.
---

darkknight109 posted...

He says while conveniently ignoring that it was conservatives who were arguing that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to customers simply because they were gay a few weeks ago.

And I still agree with businesses having this right. But you shouldn't pick and choose who it's ok to refuse service to and who it's not. At this point were getting close to the point of making Republicans second class citizens as many cases as we've seen of this happening

OhhhJa posted...

But you shouldn't pick and choose who it's ok to refuse service to and who it's not.

It seems pretty simple to me - you can refuse service to someone only for things that they are able to change.

For instance, someone does not have a choice on whether or not they are black. Or Asian. Or a woman. Or gay. Or Irish. So you can't refuse service based on those grounds.

Someone absolutely has a choice of whether or not they want to lie in service to a political party. Or help implement strategies that separate children from their parents. Seems OK to me to refuse service on those grounds.

If I go into a bar and act like an asshole, insulting the staff and everyone else in the restaurant, they have (and should have) the right to kick me out, because I am responsible for my behaviour.

OhhhJa posted...

At this point were getting close to the point of making Republicans second class citizens as many cases as we've seen of this happening

--> Controls every branch of government
--> "Second-class citizens"

Pick one.

Sanders wasn't tossed out of the restaurant for being Republican (given that the rest of her table was also very likely Republicans and they were allowed to stay, though they left anyways), she was tossed out of the restaurant for the things she had said and done.

For the record, I would not have a problem with a restaurant in a heavily Republican area refusing service to a Democrat (I would think it was dumb, unless it was objecting to a specific policy that Democrat had implemented or supported that cause measurable harm, but they're well within their rights to do so regardless).
---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

The Religious Right do it all the time with blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. But when they have the same done to them, its suddenly rather immature?

Name ten examples.

I just named three and you demand more. Even if I named ten, I have a feeling you would either demand more or handwave them away.
---

TyVulpine posted...

PyroBlade1985 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

The Religious Right do it all the time with blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. But when they have the same done to them, its suddenly rather immature?

Name ten examples.

I just named three and you demand more. Even if I named ten, I have a feeling you would either demand more or handwave them away.

Name 25 examples
---

This is exactly the same as Jim Crow laws. This as bad as slavery. It's like Sarah Huckabee is being literally crucified like Jesus Christ. She is probably suffering more than him. These metaphoric nails probably hurt way more than literal nails in hands and feet.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.

No, it ensures the protected class has the same rights as everyone else. How many times in our countrys history has a class been reduced to second-class? Women, blacks, Jews, Italians, Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, gays, etc.

The fact that they are referred to as a protected class shows they get treatment and rights beyond the rest of us filthy serfs. The issue is that you think putting them on a pedestal lifts them to them same level, when in reality it justifies the ire of bigots and puts a dirty, great wall between us and them bringing about more divide between the people.

If someone is attacking another, it is preferable to convince the attacker to stop than to pelt them with stones too and put everybody down.
---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

The Religious Right do it all the time with blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. But when they have the same done to them, its suddenly rather immature?

Name ten examples.

Baker refuses to make a wedding cake after discovering it was for a gay couple
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html

Latino family of five refused service at restaurant with no explanation
https://uptownalmanac.com/2013/05/locals-corner-accused-refusing-seat-latino-family

Muslim woman refused service at McDonalds while wearing hijab
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mcdonalds-apologises-hjiab_uk_5a216b9ce4b03350e0b6473b

Kentucky clerk refuses to issue marriage license to gay couple
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/03/526615385/gay-couples-lawsuit-against-kentucky-clerk-is-back-on-after-appeals-court-ruling

California waiter refused to serve four Latina customers, demanded to see proof of residency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/19/a-california-waiter-refused-to-serve-4-latina-women-until-he-saw-proof-of-residency/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8eee182802bc

Transgender man refused service at barbershop for "religious" reasons
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/transgender-man-to-sue-california-barbershop-refused-service

Hispanic customers refused service at gas station for speaking Spanish to each other
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/hispanic-customers-accuse-gas-station-cashier-of-refusing-service-for-speaking-spanish/75-520726388

Black party of 25 friends and family refused service at South Carolina restaurant because a white woman felt "threatened" by their group
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401990/25-African-Americans-thrown-South-Carolina-restaurant-white-woman-complained-feeling-threatened.html

Oklahoma restaurant owner says he won't serve disabled, gay or black customers, or those on welfare
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/comment-page-1/

Nashville IHOP denies service to transgender activists
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgbt/2018/05/21/transgender-activists-say-gawkedat-denied-service-nashville-ihop

Game set match?
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Religiously offensive post.

Dude, too far.
---