Actions Have Consequences
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The media firestorm that kicked off on Friday night when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a Virginia restaurant has reached its logical conclusion: a message from the editorial board of the Washington Post that the Real Problem is mildly inconveniencing powerful people.
Photo: Getty
The editorial board took on not only the incident involving Sarah Huckabee Sanders, but also those involving Kirstjen Nielsen and Stephen Miller , two of the administration’s biggest advocates for the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policy, who were on separate occasions harassed at Mexican restaurants in D.C last week.
In an editorial called “ Let the Trump team eat in peace ,” the board wrote:
Most obviously, passions are running high. Those who defend the Red Hen staff, or Ms. Nielsen’s hecklers, say this is no ordinary policy dispute. Mr. Trump has ordered terrible violations of human rights at the border, he is demonizing immigrants by his actions and his rhetoric, and people need to speak up however they can.
They will get no argument from us regarding Mr. Trump’s border policy , and when it comes to coarsening the debate, he is the prime offender. The poisonous fruits could be seen, as it happens, Saturday morning in a vile tweet from Ms. Sanders’s father, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, that associated House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, with the vicious MS-13 gang.
We nonetheless would argue that Ms. Huckabee, and Ms. Nielsen and Mr. Miller, too, should be allowed to eat dinner in peace. Those who are insisting that we are in a special moment justifying incivility should think for a moment how many Americans might find their own special moment. How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?
Yeah, just try to imagine a world where abortion providers and advocates are constantly under attack —even when they’re at a restaurant . What a horror that would be.
By the Post editorial board’s own admission, the Trump administration’s policies and rhetoric about immigrants are “ repugnant ,” not just a minor policy disagreement as it’s so willing to characterize it now. And yet when someone confronts the architects and mouthpieces of the administration’s most horrific policies—remember, these are public employees—the Post believes that’s a bridge too far.
The idea that powerful people should face consequences for their abhorrent actions must be a truly radical one for a newspaper which employs as one of its columnists one of the top speechwriters of the Bush administration . But these protests do serve an actual purpose: letting the authoritarians who work for Trump know that identifying themselves with this administration makes them look enormously bad, and letting other people know that they’re not alone in feeling that these people should be ostracized.
The fact that the Post feels the need to publicly defend the administration’s right to finish their nachos shows just how deep-seated the undying devotion to manners really is. We’re already putting children in concentration camps , and Republican congressmen are openly identifying with neo-Nazis . So it’s worth raising the question: to what level of horror does this government have to arise in order for even the smallest act of resistance to be justified?
Tags
Who is online
34 visitors
As usual, you seem to be overplaying and exaggerating this issue. None of if it is as bad as you claim, and the issue moot by now. I was glad to see the following on MSN today and rest assured that turnabout is fair play, and that actions do have consequences. Society as a whole does indeed have some common sense and a healthy regard for reality.
Sweeping Generalizations [ph]
It's a judgment call.
I think the US is close to, or perhaps past, the tipping point to facism. If there is any chance of avoiding that dystopia, it will be through permanent and constant refusal of the destruction of democratic norms and standards.
So... No. I don't think I'm overplaying...
I'm concerned by the extreme left's behavior too, Bob, but saying we are at the tipping point is a little extreme. Yes, the type of people who deny service to Sanders are certainly of the fascist mindset, but they are not in power and the overwhelming majority of people are disgusted by their attempts to destroy civil society.
Optimist!
duplicate comment removed
I'll defer to Bob since it's his seed. Thanks!
And you're a fine one to talk.
I just don't see it, or hear it from other people, not even the liberals I volunteer with, who tend to be pretty outspoken. It's not the end of world as left wingers know it, just a new, no BS way of dealing with the reality of life as it is, not as we wish to be. It can tend to be blunt, harsh, disagreeable to listen to. It's a new "pair-of-dimes", if you will.
Don't.
I've given up trying to herd cats. I'll flag really bad manners, but otherwise, anyone may post anything.
So, if I'm a Doctor, and you need emergency surgery, but I find out you are Ex-pat that spends most of his time outside and talks trash about the U.S., do I have to do the surgery, though you might die if I don't? At what point do we say 'too much'? BTW, your story picture is a lie that has been debunked. along withthe crying Time magazine cover. At what point do you interract with reality instead of being steered?
If you were a doctor, your first duty is 'Do No Harm'.
What does that mean?
There's laws that state a medical professional must provide care during emergency situations. I don't know if that applies in a situation where somebody elected surgery
My grammar is atrocious. That should say "There are laws...."
Number contradictions are easily the most frequent error I make when I edit a comment. For some reason I don't see it before I submit the edit.
I also tend to write like I speak...in pure hillbilly
that's another thing I like about TG
Mr Giggles laughs at me
Not a good example, because of the Hippocratic Oath.
Some fux 'news' program was all over those protesting against these feckless cunts. Acting like they're putting these assholes in danger. How so?
Please don't use the c-word on my seeds.
Then I won't post at all on your threads. No problem!
Don't mind Bob, Tessylo. He just has some basic rules that he goes by and it's not personal. He's made similar requests to me on his seeds. I'm sure he welcomes your opinion and isn't asking you not to post.
PJ is right.
You're welcome to post... but the c-word is off-limits, as is the n-word, the k-word.......
You can do that, ban words from your seeds that are not banned by the site? If you can, I strongly oppose your right to do so.
One is expected to do so, OR WHAT? Is it a violation or not if you ignore the special words a particular seeder wants to ban that are not banned by the site?
I won't use that word again on your seeds Bob. Promise!
I strongly oppose seeders right to be the only one to call off topic and lock threads thread willy nilly to control the narrative but we can't all get everything we want now can we lenny?
That one's got me as well, the only word I can think of is "kike" (no offence meant to anyone) which was an old timey slur for jewish people.
i have to agree - this is taking things way too far and out of line, if we keep banning words soon we'll just be silent on the website since anything anyone says can "offend" someone else and get deleted.
the website touts itself as "Speak your Mind!" ... not "Speak your Mind! (if your mind doesn't include the following 3,457 words that have been deemed completely offensive to someone else on the website and must not be allowed since we can't hurt anyone's sensitive feelings)"
if this is strictly enforced - then we may as well all be silent or only publish articles with cute baby animals.
I thought it was knockers.
It's either that or "kangaroo" and Bob has a thing against marsupials.
i had feared this slippery slope would happen when the COC was voted on earlier this year - i spoke up about it and got push back from it. Soon it will have to be "Speak your Mind! (only using the following 150 approved words and only using those approved words in the following 3 ways or your "mind" will be deleted from this website since it will offend someone else)"
good question. Would it help or be a waste of time ? (i honestly don't know and am not making a statement as to one way or the other)
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm not speaking specifically about you with my post, it's more generalized since COC was voted on by multiple members. I apologize if you thought it was directed personally towards you.
yes you did, right here:
in essence, you wish that word to be banned (at least) from your articles. if we did that with everyone's articles - how many words would be left ? of course, we'd have to set up new rules for every article as well, seems to be a nightmare from a mod perspective because they'd have to keep separate lists of "banned" words from articles with different seeders/authors since everyone would have their own idea/preference of what is "offensive" to them and should be "banned" on their articles, correct ?
I understand not wanting to be called one, and personal attacks aren't allowed. But not allowing the word anywhere on the comment section of an article ? way too far in my opinion.
Surely you realize she is quoting a controversial statement made by a talk-show host recently, right?
i get what you are saying, but unfortunately even your "polite jester and favor" means the word is banned as per:
so that means when you are politely asking a favor of people to not use the word - it's effectively banned from your article, correct ?
I didn't "ban". I politely requested...
Nazi is a historical word, with a definable meaning. It has value as a description.
The C word has only one purpose, and that is to be offensive.
That is the reason why.
Not so old timey. I just heard it recently and you have obviously never read "Stormfront" or "The Real Jew News". It is quite enlightening.
Excellent reply .
I am saying this as a member.. but this whole thread is meta.. and not nice to do on Bob's article.
I'm simply amazed how often seems to happen on articles by certain authors, which are simply mean to inflame and antagonize instead fostering an honest debate of the issues. It's one nutty idea, conspiracy theory, or end of the world hysterical lament after another.
No problem. It's usually like this.
I find it "amusing" to observe the number of posts about a picture which isn't referred to in the seed, as compared to the number of posts actually about the seed.
If I were just a teeny tiny bit cynical, I might suspect that some members feel a need to deflect...
Cool! The author is responsible for the misbehavior of the visitors. This is a meme I've seen several times, recently.
Who distributes your talking points?
LOL.....I'll have to check that one out.
When the day comes that people can not call a public figure what they believe he is then we have lost the 1st. The 1st only matters when it might offend. I have read plenty of things on this site equally offensive about Hillary, et al, but that was OK, because YOU agreed.
Hypocritical how? There is no value in the C word other than to be offensive. End of story.
Yet you are running a 4 year old poll that has no relevance and it stands. That is called irony.
You have got to be kidding. This site was labeled (falsely) for being a haven to people on the right. What you don't like is that both sides, not just one, have a voice here. That is what a discussion site is about.
You've obviously never worked in construction. That word is used conjunction with the word hair to describe a semi-finite measurement too small for a tape measure and shrouded in mystery to most millennials. Will there be a place created on NT that lets it's members know what words to avoid when conversing with other members, or on members seeds and articles? That would be helpful. This whole c*nt/c*lt comment ban is starting to get a little confusing.
a little tame to be banned, but maybe
Lol no I haven't nor do I believe I ever will
Honestly I had no idea it was still in use. I've been around for 55 yrs and have never heard anyone say it, ever.
Look, the C word is allowed, but not on members, but it's value as a word, is minimal, and frankly rather misogynistic.
I find that shocking. I'm 58, grew up on Long Island and heard so many times, I can't honestly tell you.. along with "Jew you down", and "No Jews Allowed" even in convents in villages.
I have "friends" who use that term "Jew you down". I have to grow a back bone and tell them to stop it
Good for you! I like a person with a backbone!
That one is a treasure.. Has quite a following.
pssstttt.....
I don't have it yet....I need to grow one
It's the "casual" way they use these words that disturbs me. Calmly reducing real people to... nothing.
Could you make a loan to Trout to get her going? Just be reasonable with your rates.
Free is a reasonable rate
Sorry for ya but it must be a cultural thing, I'm mostly Canadian and I've just never heard it up here.
I think that your referring to the skirting violation you received by calling my comment a bald faced lie. It's probably because calling my comment a lie was a lie in itself...
I also got a skirting violation in that exchange but hell I don't whine about it..
Carry on.
The contractor / home owner I bought my house from used that phrase when he was talking to one of his remodeling customers (a neighbor), bragging about how much money he had saved her by negotiating on the building materials. I don't know if he didn't realize she was Jewish or just didn't realize that it's a slur.
I grew up knowing it was a slur but never understanding what it meant.
I guess we'll have to ask Buzz. He's Canadian and Jewish so he would know.
Some dunce told me I was an Indian Giver...I was, I gave him a Nugie on the spot...
Mr. Giggles might have something to say about that.
(This one was for you, BF.)
LMAO!!
It means that Jews have the tendency to bargain everyone down in a deal, even when it isn't appropriate. It goes along with Jews being cheap.
I'm not surprised that "The Real Jew News" is based out of Idaho but I guess there are antisemites everywhere. That particular dude seems to have quite a few mental issues so I hope the cops and the feds really are keeping a close eye on him.....he reminds me of Frazier Glenn Miller who ended up killing some folks.
Skrekk,
That guy claims that he used to be Jewish and that is why he has the inside scoop. He is definatly a head case.
I changed my mind on posting a comment so I edited it. Um, Howdy! Awkward...
Voted up!!
LOL
OK, i would like to know what the "definable" meaning is, and how that meaning makes it OK to refer to Americans that have different thoughts as Nazi. The word, like racist, is being thrown around willy nilly and it seems liberals are trying to weaponize it to shut their opponent down. Tacist really does not hold the meaning it once did.
Meant "racist"
It was obvious that you didn't read the complete article or didn't understand what you read...Since it undercut your position...
But believe what ever you want. You've gone from whining about a violation to stomping your foot and calling my comment a lie, again...LOLOLOL. What's next, holding your breath.
Carry on.
Only if you feel that your capable of it.
Worked on a construction site a couple years ago where two chicks were working as carpenters. They kept using 'ball hair' instead! Funny as hell...
i understand that the word in question may have little value etc, my problem comes in when it's banned from a seed as in 3.1. How many words are we going to ban and does each seeder/author get their own list of "banned" words for each article they seed ? how does this rule work ? different words banned on different articles ? I don't mind playing by the rules but sometimes they seem ever changing and it makes some people (myself included) hesitant to even comment because i don't know which words are "allowed" on an article.
Phoenyx,
No word is banned. Not Nazi or the C word. This was just a discussion on the difference between the two words.
Perrie gives you the position of the CoC.
I personally do not approve of slurs, be they racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or whatever. I think it is profoundly wrong... morally reprehensible... to reduce a human being to a "thing", and that's what slurs do.
But... As author, I cannot "ban" anything. I cannot prevent a visitor from behaving like a low-life.
So I politely request that slurs not be used on my seeds. Then visitors decide...
i understand from a COC perspective - but with the rule enforced by SP (or any mod, not to single anyone out) about author requesting no one uses a certain "word" on their articles... does that not effectively ban the word ? (at least from the article - just a question, that's all)
you just did "ban" the word c*nt from your article by your "request" that no one use it on your article - do you not see that ? visitors cannot decide since Mods go through and will delete according to your "request" which is effectively "banning" the word, correct ? (it's happened throughout the article comments)
So now, could you give everyone a list of words we are not "allowed" to use on your articles ? it would be appreciated.
I'm not going to apologize for discouraging the use of slurs. On the contrary...
i don't remember asking you to apologize... let's look:
nope.. nowhere do i see the word "apologize", do you ? good, now that we have that settled - let's get on with your list of "slurs" that you are banning from your articles, shall we ? i would definitely like to see that list of words so i know to limit my speech on any of your articles and know which "slurs" you dislike.
No. So.... you are proving... ... what?
I have asked visitors not to use slurs.
But if you cannot communicate without them, then I hereby give you a special dispensation to use vile language on my seeds.
Be happy!
do you even remember what you wrote ? it's not hard to see either since it's in this chat thread ... let's follow events , shall we ?
you wrote:
so i replied:
and you agreed . So it proves that I am definitely not asking you to apologize so there's no need to state that you won't apologize since no one asked you to do so to begin with. if i went too fast - let me know, i'll slow down next time
ok, so what is the list of what you consider to be "slurs" ? i would like to see the list .
oh i can communicate without them , they don't bother me, i'm not that sensitive to words that i have to "ban" them from my sight on a website. are you ?
i usually am
thanks for checking ! 
Look...
I don't understand why you need slurs, but in truth... I don't care. If you feel a need to use vile language, go ahead.
Nor do I care that you don't understand a person not wanting filth polluting their work.
I agree 100%, especially about the "sweeping generalization" thing and the ban on calling out lies.
There is a double standard when it comes to most republicans. They feel they can exercise the most abhorant behavior but demand that no one respond in kind or criticize them otherwise they label you intolerable. They've been quite effective at this ploy for so long that they don't realize they are doing it. I am happy Mr. Trump is destroying any credibility or facade that they had have and exposing who they are under their masks. This is who most republicans are. They may win the battle but they are going to lose the war.
Conservatives are offended by karma particularly when it happens to them.
'They feel they can exercise the most abhorant behavior but demand that no one respond in kind or criticize them otherwise they label you intolerable.'
So true PJ, so true.
It's actually pretty funny. Trump can ridicule/insult/demean and it's all ok with his base. But some push back towards Huckabee can't be tolerated...Hypocritical to say the least.
Sweeping Generalizations [ph]
Trump's base is standing firm and is growing daily as the voters continue to learn that the Democrats can't govern or accept reality. You'll see I am right the morning after the midterms.
Ok, so you're the great Karnac, but what does your comment have to do with what was contained in my comment. If you're going to comment to me please try to stay on the subject presented.
I did....the subject of your post was Trump's base. DUH!
DUH, nice try but a fail as usual...It had nothing to do with Trumps supposed growing base or the fact that your the great Karnac, or the mid terms or the dems can't govern. But whatever floats your boat....
Sweeping Generalization [ph]
A baker has to make a cake that violates his staunchly held religious beliefs but a restaurateur doesn't have to serve some one else because they simply don't like or agree with them? Justified by comparison? I don't think so. Otherwise a lot of people wouldn't be eating in a lot of restaurants in this country.
Watch out for what you wish for. It might just bite YOU in the ass one day.
I know I'm probably wasting my time but I going to try and appeal to you anyway.
A person who has moral convictions and standards does not wish their establishment tainted by those who do not. The restaurateur is excercising her religious beliefs by asking Ms. Sanders to leave.
you can't say public accommodation on a cake and not on a meal
I'm not going to bother going point to point with you. I doubt that would bear much fruit. Let concentrate on my main point. Here's your quote:
So, you really don't see the connection here with baker?
I actually supported the baker's point so........if he can decide that he can't abide by gays then the restaurateur can decide she can't abide by liars and morally corrupt people with whom she pays a salary to.
That was my point. People thinking one is okay and the other is not. As long as one is not discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin .... a business owner is free to act in that manner. That's what a lot of people don't get about public accommodation. Other than what is noted above, they tend to think its all about their own personal narrative only.
So I agree with you. Both were well within their rights to do what they did. I don't agree with why he kicked her out or with the decision the baker made but then again i don't have to. No problem. Those were their decisions to make not mine.
So to be clear PJ you are saying it is fine to discriminate against people you don't agree with. Thank you for unwittingly illustrating exactly what is wrong with today's self proclaimed "liberals".
Don't you just love having people tell you what you mean?
They're just being helpful, of course... in case your mouth emits sound without input from your brain.
Do you consider that list complete?
Didn't maybe forget a segment of the population?
Not my list. That's the wording of the original law but then again you know that don't you .....
Nice dodge. Irrelevant, though.
Not a dodge, just the facts ..... inconvenient as they may be for your narrative ....
One chooses one's political beliefs. One does not choose one's sexual orientation.
If the restaurant owner felt that Ms Sanders and company might create a disruptive atmosphere, the owner was well within his/her rights because the safety of the other customers are paramount
Irrelevant facts. Why produce a list that is out of date, unless you personally adhere to it? If you do not adhere to it, then why produce it? There's no logic, either way.
Have you found the demographic that you omitted?
Obviously both restaurants and bakeries are subject to public accommodations laws, but can you describe what law (if any) was violated by the restaurant owner when she denied service? Please describe exactly how you think it was violated and what protected class was impacted. Don't forget that businesses are generally free to deny service but not for a few reasons which are prohibited by law.
What amazes me here is that now it seems that even some people who don't per se claim to be conservative apparently have no idea how these laws work. Usually it's only conservatives who don't get it for some reason.
Spin Bobby, spin. The facts noted are as relevant and logical today as they were when the law was passed.
You omitted "women".
Well done!
If so that would void not just all public accommodations laws including the 1964 CRA, but also all employment and housing non-discrimination laws at the state and federal level. If the bigoted baker actually had a valid constitutional claim it would be a disaster for our society.
That's alright. In one post yesterday I typed Mary go round instead of merry go round.
hmmmm? Maybe I was thinking of an old friend?
As a mother of a gay son, I want to know where the bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business.
its not a popular position but as long as I can get my baked goods from another baker then I’d prefer to give them my business and my money.
since the Supreme Court is no longer an honorable court but another corrupt political entity then we can no longer count on them to do the right thing.
Its better knowing who to avoid then mixing with the racists and bigots.
We're coming from the same place. Of my 4 girls the gay one is the first one who has married. My only dispute with your comment was whether you actually support the baker's position (and I don't think you really do).
I personally wouldn't shop at any anti-LGBT business and I'd let everyone I know that the business is run by a bigot, regardless of whether they were forced to comply with the law.
.
Well......this one won't be remembered as one of Kennedy's better rulings despite the fact that it actually affirms public accommodations laws and their applicability to these circumstances (by 8-1). At best it's a muddy and confusing ruling, at worst it invites needless litigation by hate groups like the ADF.
Also note that SCOTUS vacated and remanded the Arlene's Flowers case in WA state due to the Masterpiece ruling, despite the fact that there was no apparent procedural error. Apparently this is pro forma and common in these circumstances, so the state court will just hear the case again and rule as they did before.
Nah, that would be gender, which was not included in the original verbiage of the law I was quoting, but then again you already knew that.
enjoying our little game here Bob?
Yes.
Why are you insisting on citing an obsolete law? I can only see two motives:
- You personally agree with the situation that obtained at that time - allowing gender discrimination,
- You've painted yourself into a corner, and don't want to simply say you fucked up.
Nah, no fuck up on my part as i clearly stated what i was quoting and what i was quoting clearly did not mention gender specifically. But then again, as previously mentioned, you already know that
Try your petty little mind fucks on someone else Bob. You should know by now that shit won't work on me.
You're no fun any more......
Well, i am hung over ..... one too many Monkey Shoulders last night .... so i got that going for me today
Here's my progressive left wing logic. The Supreme Court has ruled that bakers can tell gays to take a hike. Therefore, by extension, the restaurant owners can tell the deplorables to go eat a bug. I have a feeling this could get really ugly.
See there you go. Note 8.1.5 posted above before yours.
We agree ..... although i doubt for the same reasons
… or they could have just served her a bug. I like that idea better.
Yea you follow the logic just fine! I think it's great! The more of this stuff they pull combined with celebs screaming obscenities, the better it will be for the country in November. Let them keep showing the country their true colors! More people wake up daily!
The two situations are completely different. The baker was discriminating against a protected class of people who he didn't know personally, he just hates gays.
With Sarah, she wasn't denied service because she's a hefty closeted lesbian, she was denied service because the owner has watched her as an individual lie over and over again to protect a corrupt President and a lawless administration that is tearing down our constitutional republic. Being a bigoted liar isn't a protected class in any State regardless of how many Trump supporters wish it were. All Sarah has to do is stop lying and I'm sure the owner would be happy to serve her.
Nope, exactly the same concepts involved here. Exactly. It's only your left wing bias and hatred that clouds your judgement in this regard.
Protected class of people? When it comes to public accommodation we are all a protected class of people in one way of another. Your understanding of such things appears to be sophomoric at best so i suggest you read up on it. He doesn't hate gays, he just doesn't agree with their lifestyle on religious grounds. But then again you know all this and continue with the same, tired old hateful rhetoric.
SOSDD for you.
I disagree. If you owned a restaurant and the bully who used to beat the crap out of you after school every day came in, you have every right to ask him to leave, there is NO public accommodation for bigots, bullies or idiots. You just have to make sure you're not kicking them out just because they are of a specific race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, age or disability because those are protected classes under most States accommodation laws. The businesses, as their signs often say, "reserves the right to refuse service" on any grounds OTHER than those specifically protected under State law. Sarah is just a lying hack not worth the couch material she made her dress from, and she wasn't even being kicked out for being a Republican, she was kicked out for being the verbal diarrhea funnel for a feckless lying President.
These are the protected traits under DC law:
You can keep typing until you are blue in the face it doesn't change a thing. You are way to stuck on your own opinion and your opinion ain't all that and a bag of chips.
One persons bigot is another persons moderate, one person idiot is another persons genius, etc, etc
I know you'll never get that because ..... see above ....
So which protected class did the restaurant owner infringe? Is "girth" a protected class in Virginia?
Or perhaps "eye makeup" is a protected class and the owner doesn't like people with "perfect smokey eye made from the ash of lies"?
Is being a lying bitch cow a protected class in Virginia?
I wasn't posting my opinion, I posted the law. It's your opinion that apparently the law shouldn't matter and only Trumpites opinions matter where gay isn't a protected class and being a lying sack of poorly dressed feces like Sarah is protected.
"One of the best things that we have in this country is the fact that everybody wants to be here, and to give that away randomly, to have no vetting system, to have no way to determine who comes, why they are here and if they want to contribute to society is a problem." - SHS
Sorry Sarah, that's a blatant lie. Diversity visa applicants are and have been thoroughly vetted.
"The president in no way, form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence." - SHS
Another lie Sarah. "if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell .... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise." DJT
The objective fact that Sarah is a liar supports my rational argument that being a liar and a shill for a corrupt administration doesn't provide you any protections as the law defines what protected traits businesses aren't legally allowed to discriminate against. We, the American people and business owners across the nation, can choose to ban Sarah and her feckless boss from our businesses all we want, there is nothing wrong with us standing up for truth and rejecting a worthless lying President and his harpy defenders.
What protected class did the baker infringe on?
I don’t know, (Skirting removed) Telo, you tell me.
Not the law, just your opinion. Poor thing, the law is nowhere close to the shit you have in your mind.
Poor thing!
" Conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability shall be an "unlawful discriminatory practice" for the purposes of this chapter."
I don't see lying sack of manure in those traits that are protected, do you?
Looks like you need to read the ruling so that you'll have even the most basic knowledge of the case. Until then you should stop wasting other people's time.
Typical, no answers, only divisiveness but i must say. You are good at divisiveness .... so you got that going for you.
It's a fascinating phenomenon... Sweeping Generalization [ph] from Fox, Breitbart, or Trump himself... that it doesn't occur to you that there are no symmetric Order-Givers on the left.
Each or us listens to the options available from multiple sources, and makes a choice. There are lots of subjects where there's no concensus, like health-care.
So when you say something like "the progressive left wing logic" you are fantasizing... and then talking to yourself.
I don't take orders, I listen to and read opinions, including left wing ones. The consensus is that the left's values and logic are faulty, that's why informed people are rejecting them in droves.
Only if one is completely hiding ones head in the sand. Are you Bob?
Evidently not.
If you're happy... wonderful.
Being right is so much less important.
Thx Bob ..... i'm happy i'm right as well.
Cheers!
That’s all they got. Totally fake shit.
It’s pretty apparent. Just watch for the number of up votes on left wing drivel vs up votes on right wing drivel. Pretty much splains the bias on this site Lucy ...... oh yeah.
So true - that's all the 'conservatives' have.
Sparty , It has happened before , and it will happen again.
remember the story a few years back about jane fonda , when she was married to ted turner , going to a place in Missoula mont , when she couldn't be seated right away , she asked if the people in charge knew who she was , and pretty much thought she should be seated immediately irregardless.
the hostess/host , said she would get the owner because s they said no they did not know who she was ( ouch), the owner comes out , Jane askes if HE knew who she was and he responded that he did indeed know who she was , and he informed her that he was a 2 tour Vietnam veteran and that HE owned the establishment and that she was to leave his establishment .
Now the validity of the story can be questioned , but the situation as compared to SHS is entirely different , in one, one took the high road and left without causing a scene , in the other , well I see some thought that the individual was somehow privileged in their own view.
wait long enough and it all comes around again , nothing new under the sun , just different actors.
This is just too funny. The left eating the left because one isn't as extreme as the other. I guess it's safe to say the anti Trump movement is officially falling to pieces.
My religion would prevent me from serving any member of the Trump administration.
mine too! hehehehehe
Why is anyone on either side all worked up over this?
Exactly
I am just shit talking those who support the recent SCOTUS decision but are mad about this. (Sweeping generalizations removed) Telo
It seems that The Red Hen's owner is quite a hypocrite. This is a sign in the restaurant's front window:
Same with Sanders and conservatives who praised the recent SCOTUS decision but don't like this. ( deleted, CoC {SP} )
------------------
I have seen studies that indicate that those who swear are actually more honest than those who do not. Love or hate me, one thing everyone who knows me can agree on is that I do not sugar coat my feelings or opinions. I say what I mean and am very upfront about it, one problem I do not have is holding in my feelings or repressing my anger lol.
So many people have problems with those of us who don't sugar coat our words.
I'm here to say that if my words make you wince....I've done my job
Butt, in that case, better expect others to speak their own unvarnished truths to you, and yours...
There is still a double standard on social media regarding the sex of the commentators, and yes NT is social media, The thing is that men are generally expected to be respectful of the ladies' tender sensibilities butt not all the ladies /s are so respectful when they tell everyone else just how the cow ate the cabbage completely un-self uncensored. It does not work that way in real life anymore so it should not be so on social media anymore either. It the ladies want to get in there and dish it out with the big dogs then they are expected to be able to take it like the big dogs do regardless of what is between their legs. One thing I will give all of NT and to Perrie is that the personal shaming that was normal on NV is not much evidenced here and that is a good thing in my opine...
I don't use the c word. It's just too harsh sounding or something. Just never latched onto it. I like the eff word a lot and I like making it very colorful by adding a deity or two to it when I'm trying to make a point
Have you ever known me to curl up into the fetal position when some body throws an eff bomb my way or even the c word?
I'm a feminist and expect the males to sling it back just as hard as I do. And the next motherfucker on there who gives me grief about my language is going to be extremely happy that I got a 2 day time out
Then there is the George Carlin take on the "eff" word.
I think most of us are more defensive for our friends than we are for ourselves...
Call me a cunt? I do not care. I just laugh. Call Mom a cunt? Better expect havoc.
I am by no means a cream puff, nor do I have thin skin. However, I do feel that there is a time and place for cursing. Using profanity nearly every other word or endlessly, detracts from whatever message one is trying to make. Coming from a military family, I am familiar with just about every kind of curse word out there, but, I myself don't chose to use them unless the situation or circumstances calls for them. But, that by no means makes me a 'snowflake' or thin skinned. I just don't appreciate them being used when addressing me or my Friends or family.
Exactly how I prefer it, that way we are both on the same page and know exactly where the other person is coming from.
Lol, I didn't get the memo. I have called multiple women on here bitches, cunts, assholes etc depending on how stupid they are being and how much I dislike them. I have done that same many times when it comes to men as well. I don't discriminate
To be honest I am not sure how I have not been banned yet.
That has always been my position, ever since I can remember. The first memory I have of treating women exactly as I treat men is when I was 10 years old. There was this girl Katie at school who would always kick people for little to no reason, and one day she came up behind me on the playground and kicked me. Me being who I am and very quick to anger (I got in A LOT of fights when I was younger) turned around, called her a bitch, and shoved her on her ass. Had to go to the principle and all that, but at least since then I have always talked to and treated women the same as I do men.
You know fuck is the most versatile word in the english language? You can literally make almost an entire sentence just using variations of it and make perfect sense. It can be used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb etc. Honestly it really is impressive when you think about it, and this is a neat little video talking about the versatility of the word.
Do you remember aljizzeror from Newsvine? That guy had a way to putting fuck together. One day he only used about 4 fucks in a 20 word paragraph and I asked him if he was ok.
Okay seriously, what the fuck? How have you been suspended but I haven't? I have flat out, directly insulted the shit out of specific users here and the most I got was my comment deleted. What did you do to get a suspension? I am legitimately curious.
I haven't been suspended yet, but there's a certain commenter or two who constantly rag on my language. I'm saying that the next time the motherfucker rags on my language, I'm going all newsvine on him AND will get a suspension.
But it will be all worth it.
Ahhh got ya. Yeah, I had more than a few suspensions on NV. Had a couple accounts banned as well. What I really liked is that while I was keeping it real the entire time, once the moderators were gone then all of a sudden a lot of users on Newsvine got brave and started throwing insults left and right and let their true selves come out. I cannot tell you how much that lowered my opinion of them, only being brave when they know it is safe. IDK, maybe that is the vet in me.
Are you sure? I can elaborate a tad bit more
I am glad! As I said, I don't hide who I am
I think everyone does. Honestly the most hated people are those who try to hide their transgressions or who they are, because they always let their supporters down. At least with me you start at the very bottom and go higher if you can, but at least you can't go any lower. I am a hard drinking, physically fit, cussing, easily angered(except for my family) 5'11" 190lb white male who loves his family more than anything and will do his best for them no matter what, everything else be damned.
Keeping it real by being myself, expressing my opinions and not giving a fuck who did or didn't like it. Unlike the mother fucking cowards who only did the same thing when the moderators were gone, (CoC violation removed) Telo
I bet you were cozy with quite a few re-regs. I only know of one re-reg that I'm cozy with now. Didn't know it then.
Now I wanna know. Heh heh
It's not my place to tell even tho I have a big mouth
Fake outrage From this Store owner (Red "HERRING"
) that advertises LOVE in her window, yet does something totally different.
We don't know the truth about anything going on in this "ILLEGAL" immigration whine fest. But folks are sure gonna make themselves look like fools anyway.
Take Maxine.......PLEASE !
What makes her even more hypocritical is that the sign is an MLK, Jr quotation.
Waters is a real W e in er for sure. S HE'LL say she never said it though.
Those on both the right and left seem to forget that freedom of speech takes many forms. Freedom.
1. Right wing hysteria failed to realize that this is not the chain of restaurants in DC but a small operation in Lexington VA.
2. The owner was approached by staff who did not want to serve Huckabee because of their views on immigration and LGBT issues.
3. The business owner took a vote democratically among her employees and the vote was against serving Sanders.
4. The business owner approached Sanders, told her their feelings and comped their meal for free.
Some on the left try to compare this "exactly" to the cake baker but it isn't totally exact. The left also missed the difference frequently between the chain in DC and the smaller separate operation in VA. Even so, if a restaurant refused to serve Pelosi or Schumer or Waters or any Democrat, the same right wing hysterics would be CHEERING.
So ultimately no sympathy for right wing hysteria when they accept a President who lies and an employee who is openly complicit in those lies being presented regularly to the American people.
If the right wing wants to use religion as the guide as they did in the cake baker case or in the pharmacy policies where people can refuse cakes or medicine based on religion, then a restaurant and it's employees whose religious and moral convictions are against lying, then on that basis, this can be seen the same.
Bravo - I was not able to articulate it as well as you did and was lazy when I compared the "baker" analogy.
This is not actually similar to the baker case. The baker didn’t ban gays from his store or refuse service. He considers himself an artist and his cakes are expensive. What he said was I’ll sell you pre-baked goods but I don’t want to create designs to celebrate a homosexual marriage that is a biblical abomination. The Colorado commission had previously said that people can’t force gay bakers to make anti-gay imagery on cakes so that, coupled with other problems, resulted in a victory for the baker. I don’t believe people should be denied service but there’s a limit to what you can force someone to do as a public accommodation and the court is still struggling with where to draw the line.
If the issue is the unrestricted right to deny service because you don’t like another person’s political beliefs, then I would support removing gays from the protection of anti-discrimination laws so that people are free to fully express their disapproval of homosexual beliefs and behavior. There is no reason that white Sarah Sanders should have less rights than she would have if she were a lesbian or, conversely, that a white lesbian’s rights should be greater than hers.
He also told the couple that he'd design and bake them a wedding cake as long as it didn't have homosexual references and referred them to other bakers in the area. It was obvious that the couple specifically targeted THAT baker for a lawsuit, because they knew his views.
The Red Hen's owner refused ALL service to Sanders and her party.
Big difference!
Y'all already do that (the bolded part)
Can we remove all religious groups as well|?
That's irrelevant. What matters there is that the baker refused full and equal service and he did so based on a protected class.
However you're correct that the two cases are not similar since no protected class was involved when Huckabee was denied service.
.
Sorry but you'll need to convince Virginia to protect "political affiliation" like California does.
Otherwise you're just being a hypocrite since you don't want sexual orientation to be protected but you'd whine very loudly if you were denied service because you're a Christian extremist and would be most upset if the protected class of religion were impacted. It seems Christian extremists want protections AND they want the special right to discriminate against the people they hate even when doing so would otherwise be illegal.
Exactly. Hence why all those people can go fuck themselves.
Why? You don't
Based on your comments I seriously doubt that you understand any of the legal issues here at all. It's also clear that you share Huckabee's twisted morality.
Actually it was their drinks and a cheese plate. They hadn't gotten the main course yet. Maybe twenty bucks worth ?
2. The owner was approached by staff who did not want to serve Huckabee because of their views on immigration and LGBT issues.
It wasn't her idea ?
Whose the "boss" at that place anyway ?
Bet there are plenty of folks that will fill those servers jobs.
The media "facts" are sketchy on this. One left- wing site said that the owner wasn't even there and that when an employee found out that Sanders was there, he called the owner and she hurried over, asked the employees what they wanted her to do, etc.
Most sites state that she was there and that she approached her employees and took a vote.
Whatever shakes the cages of the " Constantly Depressed and Distressed" I guess.
so tell me what religion says that working for the president is a sin.
I'm not in market for wedding cakes, but don't hold up the beer
The 9th commandment
I'm sad to hear that there's a left/right divide on a subject like this... And equally sad to see all the comparisons to the anti-gay bakery.
The bakery case was "discrimination". The customers were refused for what they are, not for anything they had done.
The Sanders case was not "discrimination". She was not refused for being a woman, or for her religion, or... She was refused for deeds she had done.
The two cases are only very superficially similar.
Not a valid reason to discriminate.
You need to renew your understanding of the word "discrimination".
She consistently breaks one of the 10 commandments every time she opens her mouth. I wouldn't serve a liar, either, especially if I were a Christian
Sure it is. You obviously know nothing about the law.
A lot of Trump supporters own gas stations and towing companies. Maybe the restaurant owner needs to push her car home to realize that refusing service based on politics is a bad idea.
Yeah... it is a fucking bad idea. I assume you are upset with the recent SCOTUS decision.
If you’re referring to the baker case, I think it was correctly decided but the court didn’t reach the question of what, if any, services can be denied.
So you are upset with the decision?
Actually the ruling repeatedly stated that goods and services CANNOT be denied when the the public accommodations law prohibits it. You obviously didn't read the ruling.
It may or may not be a bad business decision where the Red Hen is but I suspect it was very popular in the DC area. Where I live everyone cheered when Huckabee got a taste of karma.
Red Hen will no doubt embrace the same karma when a civil suit is filed.
LOL. Please cite the basis for that hypothetical lawsuit and name which protected class was impacted.
From what I can tell there's no conservative in existence who understands how public accommodations laws work.
Oh yeah, since she is white, any reason flies.
As I said there's no conservative in existence who understands how public accommodations laws work.
Perhaps you can explain how Huckabee's race was a factor in the decision to deny her service?
And Conservatives will cheer when she pushes her car home and gets a taste of karma herself. We can just become a society of morons where one side cheers when the other side trips and falls.
Good thing most gas stations take bank cards, eh?
Also note that most of the anti-gay businesses have ended up closing due to the majority of the public shunning them. While that could happen with the Red Hen I suspect the really clueless Trump supporters are just too small a minority to matter.
Fantasy. The Baker tripled his business. Chick fil A is the fastest growing fast food restaurant in the country. Don't make stuff up...
Sweet Cakes By Melissa......out of business.
Arlene's Flowers........almost out of business and soon to close, the owner recently claimed that she's going to go bankrupt.
A dressmaker in NJ......out of business.
A pizzeria in Indiana just outside Chicago.....out of business merely for claiming that they'd hypothetically deny service to any gay couple so classless as to want a take-out pizzeria to cater their wedding.
That's generally what happens to dumb bigots today and it's very unlikely that the Masterpiece bakery will survive much longer......for the last several years its hours have been significantly cut back. Bigoted businesses like that can really only survive in the most benighted of red states, typically the very same states which had Jim Crow laws.
Don’t forget Hobby Lobby, still kicking ass and taking names.
The haters will keep pointing out dinky little companies that fail to support their narrative while the big boys keep growing regardless of the lefts misplaced outrage.
Its sad they try to compare it like that but they have to. It’s all they got.
Hey you dumb bitch, you yourself support businesses being able to discriminate based on personal beliefs, so fuck off. Discrimination is always fun until it happens to you.
The other side will hurl the same insult back when they deny the restaurant owner service.
Discrimination is fun isn't it?
So is hurling insults
Especially misogynistic ones. Bigots love those.
Hey, the SCOTUS said its all good.
What we are seeing is little pussy assed liberal "males" confronting the women of the Trump Administration. Why don't they grow a pair and confront Mattis, Pompeo, or Kelley.
Actually, we know the answer to this. That is why they are called liberal "males".
CoC Violation "BF"
That type of comment is not acceptable here.
CoC Violation "BF"
At this point Kelley doesn't deserve your respect either. He's a Trump enabler and has largely been AWOL in his current role.
CoC Violation "BF"
Removed for context
Your hatred of Liberal men has been noted.
Never said I hated them. I just feel sorry for them.
So condescension is the game. Gotcha.
Nope...just feel sorry for them.
Then pray tell, why is that?
Sigh.....real men don't pluck eye brows. Real men don't wax. Real men don't lotion. Most real men don't spend more time on fashion trends than they do improving their family and their lot in life. These are all traits of the liberal "male".
Real men don't verbally assault women in public places simply because they work for someone they don't like.
Hope that helps.
This liberal female isn't afraid to take those face huggers on.
Probably not, since many liberal females are more masculine than their "male" counterparts.
That's not generalizing at all....no...nuh-uh....../s
And if I'm not mistaken I think you just called me mannish when you've never met me.
Nice projection. I said many, not all. I don't know you, don't know what you look like, so I have no right to comment on it.
but you did
don't try and backtrack now
I posted this message today from my ministry as a challenge for Christians in response to the recent hate and hostility towards anyone who works for or supportsTrump. I’d like those here who call themselves Christians to consider it also
This post is directed at my fellow Christians. I’m calling on believers to respond to the hate of people like Maxine Waters and others on the left who are being led by the devil and his destructions. Rather than getting angry, we need a rising up of Christians in prayer for them and demonstrations of love as Jesus commanded us. This is our victory. Christ in us, the hope of glory (Colossians 1:28)
Let us not obey our carnal emotions but be led by the Spirit of God
“You have been taught to love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you this: love your enemies. Pray for those who torment you and persecute you— in so doing, you become children of your Father in heaven. He, after all, loves each of us—good and evil, kind and cruel. He causes the sun to rise and shine on evil and good alike. He causes the rain to water the fields of the righteous and the fields of the sinner. It is easy to love those who love you—even a tax collector can love those who love him. And it is easy to greet your friends—even outsiders do that! But you are called to something higher: “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:43-48 (voice translation)
Jesus Christ, you have a ministry?! Awful...
= tax dodge
Pretty much. Pretty good racket though, if only I had been born 2800 years ago and thought of it.
Funny you do not address the hate that spews out of trumps mouth.
Trumpians (I refuse to call them "Christians" any more, regardless of how often they usurp that name) have very little in common with actual Christians.
Christ said "love one another", and gave us no loopholes. No fine print. No escape clause. Hating an individual who has done something inexcusable is a violation of Christ's Commandment... but hating an entire group of people one has never even met, just for the color of their skin, is so very much worse.
So... when a self-styled "minister" comes on to spew hatred while giving lessons about love... You're safe in assuming that his ministry has nothing to do with Christ.
Very true. There are a few here who claim to be such pious Christians, but, their very own words prove otherwise. They think they are fooling everyone with their righteous Bible verses to try to prove their devout piety, but, their own words and reactions when caught off guard are a give away of their charade.
The 'pastor' is all for the hate.
Or his own
What hate?
Most Christians I know don't share your twisted views, Larry.
After all the whining by Trump supporters that Trump's propaganda minister was kicked out of a restaurant, and their subsequent calls for "civility" despite their bigoted and xenophobic assholery, someone found a very misguided editorial from 1934 which advised Jews to be "civil" to the Nazis who were persecuting and deporting them:
Oh.....and this is what the Trump morons are doing today to the Red Hen:
Ah, protests!
Don't you just LOVE them now?
LMFAO!
Not that I considered you to have much before, but with Nazi references, you have lost every SHRED of credibility.
Sieg Heil! Sounds like the Brownshirts are out in force.
Doubling down on ridiculousness and hyperbole now?
SMDH
Not a good look.
I heard that donald rump has hitler's speeches by his bed and masturbates to them nightly.
wonder if she is paying her employees since the place has been closed Sun , mon , and now tues.
actions of a vote actually do have consequences, just sometimes not the desired ones.