Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave.

[betsy]

Sarah Sanders tweeted:

 

Sara Sanders tweeted:

 

Quote

"Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so."

 

 

The owner of the Red Hen, gave her side of the story:

 

Quote

 

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.

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.

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.’ ”

Wilkinson had no regrets about her decision.

“I would have done the same thing again,” she said  “We just felt there are moments in time when people need to live their convictions. This appeared to be one.”

 

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=.6d4a1ac052d4

 

 

There is a note on the board of that restaurant, which is meant for employees. 

 

Quote

“86 – Sara Huckabee Sanders,” read the note, below the reminder to buy more Pellegrino.

 

"86" is a code for "refuse service."

 

Isn't it funny how the same people who indignantly say, "well, if you're open for business to the public - you can't discriminate on anyone,"  would find nothing seriously wrong with this?  isn't that how they reason when they oppose bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for certain people? 

At least, religious owners who'd refused, have a ground to stand on - their right to freedom of religion! 

 

Trump has not been convicted of any crimes.  No one has the right to judge Sanders based simply on her doing what she was hired for, and the man she works for.   Does this mean people can now dictate if they don't like your employment?   It's either you leave your employment, or get 86-ed?

Is it okay then to turn away those who work as prostitutes and strippers in clubs, based on moral grounds?

If you find adultery as immoral - can we use that to justify 86-ing them?

 

 

The Red Hen discriminated on Sarah Sanders, based on her job, and the man she works for.  And, looks like it's treated lightly.

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule you can discriminate based on moral grounds because of religious freedom? Wouldn't discriminating against people who lock up children in a warehouse fall under that? Does it only count when discriminating against things you don't like, but not things you do?

Regardless, if Sanders feels discriminated against, she should take it up with the courts, as we all have to do in that situation. She shouldn't illegally use her government account to try to file up her minions against a private business. Too bad for it's backfiring and the business is doing better than ever.

[scribblet]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

The Red Hen discriminated on Sarah Sanders, based on her job, and the man she works for.  And, looks like it's treated lightly.

I guess they can discriminate against anyone unless they are black, gay or whatever, just not political affiliation. Trump supporters have the right to respond and paint them as bigots they are, if it cuts their business then he took that chance.    He's taking a lot of flak right now so who knows in the long run how it will affect his business, depends on how the locals swing I guess.  

The Dems seem to becoming more unhinged all the time, especially that Maxine Waters, my goodness she's a piece of work.  Regardless of how she phrased it, she is inciting people to violence.   None of this is really about kids, it's all about hating Trump and anything to do with him.  Gives a whole new meaning to the original 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' 

Surprised the WP is defending Sanders  saying the: “never-at-rest social media” has blurred the lined of public and private life, the newspaper’s board wrote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/393884-wapo-editorial-board-sarah-sanders-should-be-allowed-to-eat

The editorial came the day after Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called on her supporters to continue confronting Trump officials in public.

[BubberMiley]

 Maxine Waters is inciting people to violence by saying they should confront people in the Trump admin, but it's okay for Sanders to use her government account to target private individuals and businesses? That isn't inciting people to violence?

I don't know of the legality of denying service but as I understand, you aren't supposed to do so on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. I believe you still can for not wearing shoes or a shirt, so maybe you can for locking children in cells and for being a compulsive liar. If Sanders feels she has a human rights challenge, she should certainly pursue it. That would be better than using her government Twitter to attack private citizens.

But I think people are going out of their way to patronize the Red Hen. Confronting these people is the only moral thing to do in this situation.

Edited June 25, 2018 by BubberMiley

[kimmy]

I thought Trump supporters favored the "Suck it up, Snowflake!" attitude to interacting with people they don't like.  "F--k Your Feelings!" as the t-shirt says.  They take great pride in hurting other peoples' feelings and "triggering the snowflakes".  Why are they upset about this?  I thought they applaud this kind of thing.

Sarah's smarmy little Tweet about "respecting people, even when they disagree" is hilarious, considering the people she works with.  For her to expect respect when the whole of the Trump regime insults and ridicules and attacks anybody and everybody they consider an enemy, is hilarious.  Does she have no self-awareness at all?

Sarah used to run a super-PAC whose core mission was fighting against rights for gay people.  Which was also a main cause of her dad Mike's political career. For these two knuckleheads to cry "bigotry" about what happened to Sarah at the restaurant is richly ironic.

And a while back there was the comedian who said mean things about Sarah at the correspondents dinner.  How terrible!  Trump supporters cheer on their hero as he insults and demeans everyone, yet someone says a few mean things about Sarah and they're crying about how mean and unfair it is.  Boo-hoo!

I find it impossible to feel sorry for Mrs Huckabee-Sanders.  "F--- her feelings," as the saying goes.  I think she should, as Trump supporters like to say, "suck it up, snowflake!"

Or, as Melania's jacket said, "I don't really care, do U?"

Or as Corey Lewandowski succinctly put it, "womp womp."

 -k

[betsy]

9 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Didn't the Supreme Court rule you can discriminate based on moral grounds because of religious freedom?

Wouldn't discriminating against people who lock up children in a warehouse fall under that? Does it only count when discriminating against things you don't like, but not things you do?

 

There.   Read it!   And explain how you connect the two!

 

Furthermore, did you also misunderstand the issue of the bakers?    The bakers have not told gay people to leave their establishment.   Gay people have been welcomed to purchase anything in the store, like everyone else.   What they can't do is to have a baker create a custom-made cake for a particular occasion - gay wedding.

Either you're confused/ignorant of the ruling issue......or you're deliberately spreading dis-information?

 

 

 

Quote

Regardless, if Sanders feels discriminated against, she should take it up with the courts, as we all have to do in that situation. She shouldn't illegally use her government account to try to file up her minions against a private business. Too bad for it's backfiring and the business is doing better than ever.

Why can't she tweet?   Is that another discriminatory tool ALT-LEFT would use now????   get people who don't share their causes get banned from twitting? 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

I thought Trump supporters favored the "Suck it up, Snowflake!" attitude to interacting with people they don't like.  "F--k Your Feelings!" as the t-shirt says.  They take great pride in hurting other peoples' feelings and "triggering the snowflakes".  Why are they upset about this?  I thought they applaud this kind of thing.

Sarah's smarmy little Tweet about "respecting people, even when they disagree" is hilarious, considering the people she works with.  For her to expect respect when the whole of the Trump regime insults and ridicules and attacks anybody and everybody they consider an enemy, is hilarious.  Does she have no self-awareness at all?

Sarah used to run a super-PAC whose core mission was fighting against rights for gay people.  Which was also a main cause of her dad Mike's political career. For these two knuckleheads to cry "bigotry" about what happened to Sarah at the restaurant is richly ironic.

And a while back there was the comedian who said mean things about Sarah at the correspondents dinner.  How terrible!  Trump supporters cheer on their hero as he insults and demeans everyone, yet someone says a few mean things about Sarah and they're crying about how mean and unfair it is.  Boo-hoo!

I find it impossible to feel sorry for Mrs Huckabee-Sanders.  "F--- her feelings," as the saying goes.  I think she should, as Trump supporters like to say, "suck it up, snowflake!"

Or, as Melania's jacket said, "I don't really care, do U?"

Or as Corey Lewandowski succinctly put it, "womp womp."

 -k

 

Whoa!  Holy petunia!

Welcome back Kimmy!

 

Anyway.....you seem to be upset.   You're spouting off irrelevant things like saying something to people.  You ought to take a deep breathe.    This isn't about saying insulting things to people.  

 

This is about A BUSINESS THAT REFUSES SERVICE ...........based on nothing at all other than the fact that the person works for someone the owner/employees don't agree with!  And, maybe Sanders' ideology doesn't agree with theirs either, but so what?

 

Businesses can refuse service now,  based on people's ideology?  

 

This is serious stuff!   Some people cry Trump is a danger to democracy.....hello?    The danger comes from people who cheer, support and protect the Red Hen employer. 

There will be those who'll say and do stupid things (like this employer).......but sensible people ought to recognize the stupidity........ and the danger that comes with such stupidity!

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

6 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

 Maxine Waters is inciting people to violence by saying they should confront people in the Trump admin, but it's okay for Sanders to use her government account to target private individuals and businesses? That isn't inciting people to violence?

 

 

Only twisted mentality, and lunatics  will read or mistake her tweet as, " a call for violence,".......or, "inciting violence."

 

Lol.  You're saying people shouldn't be posting complaints, or saying anything at all!  Now, you're attacking freedom of speech! 

 

You sure you're not on...........Putin's side?

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

I agree with this Betsy. I may not approve of your (anyone's) particular beliefs. But it is hypocritical to stand as though you are universally accepting as unbiased to religion but then act (specifically/uniquely) religious by discriminating against the people who are.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

 But I think people are going out of their way to patronize the Red Hen. Confronting these people is the only moral thing to do in this situation.

Patronizing in what way?  They ought to patronize with money.    Talk means squat.  Fill 'er up.   Red Hen is a business.  

Sure....there are those who'd spend money to eat there......but there are those who are now messing it up.   Last time I heard, Red Hen had to close its door due to so many "fake reservations" being made!   One genuine customer who's made a previous reservation wasn't so happy to find it closed.

 

 

Quote

 

Restaurant That Booted Sanders Closes the Next Night

Virginia's Red Hen is besieged by those outraged, supportive of ejecting press secretary

 

http://www.newser.com/story/261025/restaurant-explains-why-sanders-got-the-boot.html

 

 

We shouldn't be surprised with this reaction.  Alt-Left, of all people, should expect this kind of reaction.....after all, isn't this the kind of modus operandi alt-left people do to establishments they don't like?   Like, the Chick Fillet?

 

Oh boy, the reaction is intense.  

 

 

Quote

Red Hen eateries feel the heat after Sarah Sanders booted from Virginia restaurant with same name

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/24/after-sarah-sanders-booted-from-virginia-restaurant-eateries-with-same-name-feel-heat.html

 

 

 

The irony on her closed door sign:   Democracy requires a principled government.

 

DEMOCRACY REQUIRES WE RESPECT AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS WE HAVE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

The Red Hen employer is a .........moron.  

She endangered her own employees  by revealing the information her decision was based on what the employees had decided.

 

Quote

 

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.’ ”

 

 

 

This employer wanted to be seen as the champion of gays...............and yet at the same time, she doesn't want to take full responsibility for her decision.          "I did it because that's what they wanted me to do."   She's like effing Pontious Pilate. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

LESSON? Religious/cultural tolerance within government can only exist if one removes ANY power to make laws of, for, against, or about religion or culture. The U.S. already had their 1st Amendment that tried to do this but the religious people everywhere ruin it for all, whether you are a monocultural religion or the multicultural ones. [The apparent people against the mono-cultural forms but for the multi-cultural ones shoot themselves in the foot for BEING religious still.]

Solution: Reassert or clearly express government as being biased if it favors culture or any religion, whether it be of one unique type or to all, because religion/culture is itself biased to a belief that nature somehow favors some people over others according to some 'natural' beauty of their artistic interpretations. 

[betsy]

13 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

LESSON? Religious/cultural tolerance within government can only exist if one removes ANY power to make laws of, for, against, or about religion or culture. The U.S. already had their 1st Amendment that tried to do this but the religious people everywhere ruin it for all, whether you are a monocultural religion or the multicultural ones. [The apparent people against the mono-cultural forms but for the multi-cultural ones shoot themselves in the foot for BEING religious still.]

Solution: Reassert or clearly express government as being biased if it favors culture or any religion, whether it be of one unique type or to all, because religion/culture is itself biased to a belief that nature somehow favors some people over others according to some 'natural' beauty of their artistic interpretations. 

Although religion is a part of it........

 

.............this issue is about rights in a democracy.

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

8 minutes ago, betsy said:

Although religion is a part of it........

 

.............this issue is about rights in a democracy.

I have to add this because while I agree with you from your perspective logically, I also do not think even your own particular belief should be imposed in some law. "Democracy" cannot be maintained valid where it is run by any majority of idiots any more than to those all happening to agree. "Republicanism" was a result of intellectual insight about this factor. But even the "Republicans" who hold a religious majority of being mostly Protestant Christians, is only arbitrary. Your position is only fair if the unwelcomed guest was strictly a Muslim extreme religion. That's why I see any government that makes laws regarding religion is itself a limit to 'freedom of speech' and democracy itself.

[betsy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I have to add this because while I agree with you from your perspective logically, I also do not think even your own particular belief should be imposed in some law. "Democracy" cannot be maintained valid where it is run by any majority of idiots any more than to those all happening to agree. "Republicanism" was a result of intellectual insight about this factor. But even the "Republicans" who hold a religious majority of being mostly Protestant Christians, is only arbitrary. Your position is only fair if the unwelcomed guest was strictly a Muslim extreme religion. That's why I see any government that makes laws regarding religion is itself a limit to 'freedom of speech' and democracy itself.

Whatever.

 

Now, let's get back on this topic.

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, betsy said:

Whatever.

 

Now, let's get back on topic.

I was on topic. You just prefer others not to notice ALL the details. Don't you also want NOT to be hypocritical? 

The restaurant is not itself 'government' and so has every right to ACT religiously biased against the guest. The reasoning they acted this way is because they disliked her position IN GOVERNMENT. I see them being hypocritical simply because they imply that their act WAS 'politically' valid when it was only a religiously valid. 

Do you agree with the First Amendment of the U.S.?....regarding the separation of religion and politics (...church and state)?

[Scott Mayers]

I.E.  I see them being hypocritical simply because they imply that their act was appealing to a LEGAL validity when it was only their MORAL stance against her. They are LEGALLY only able to kick her out because of the religious MORAL belief they too had but simply one that differed against the guest's unpopular one.

[betsy]

39 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I.E.  I see them being hypocritical simply because they imply that their act was appealing to a LEGAL validity when it was only their MORAL stance against her. They are LEGALLY only able to kick her out because of the religious MORAL belief they too had but simply one that differed against the guest's unpopular one.

How do you know they're referring to their religious morals?   Did the owner  claim it's due to her religious belief?   For all we know, she could be an atheist.   Even Sarah Sanders - is she religious?

Anyone can claim to "moral values" these days, without having to be religious at all.

 

Thus I'm saying, even though freedom of religion is among the Constitutional rights............this is more about freedom of speech/expression.   The owners doesn't like what Sanders  says at press briefings. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

Quote

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.

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=.c5ed187a8b50

 

You should've stuck with that policy - keep politics off the menu!

Your employees - especially your chef - should concentrate on their job!  Oh boy, I wonder how many messed up orders happened that night!

 

 

 

The irony on her closed door sign:   Democracy requires a principled government.

http://www.newser.com/story/261025/restaurant-explains-why-sanders-got-the-boot.html

 

 

Quote

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.

This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

You may not agree with the President's policies, but you have to keep in mind that he's been elected by the people!  Yoo-hoo?

  Elections mean anything to you at all?

In a democracy, Ms Smarty Pants......you don't get to dictate what could and could not stand!   Deal with it in the next election!

 

 

Quote

It was important to Wilkinson, she said, that Sanders had already been served — that her staff had not simply refused her on sight.

You're babbling!

 

 

Quote

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.

She was just a regular customer that night.   She didn't come to your restaurant as a public official.   She came as a regular client.

 

It's alarming what this employer want to promote - intimidating and coerscing public servants to do things her own way!

I wish someone would take this establishment to court.  Too bad, Sarah won't.

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

7 minutes ago, betsy said:

How do you know they're referring to their religious morals?   Did the owner  claim it's due to her religious belief?   For all we know, she could be an atheist.   Even Sarah Sanders - is she religious?

Anyone can claim to "moral values" these days, without having to be religious at all.

 

Thus I'm saying, even though freedom of religion is among the Constitutional rights............this is more about freedom of speech/expression.   The owners doesn't like what Sander is saying at press briefings. 

No one tends to be willing to openly refer to their moral actions as due to their SPECIFIC religious affiliation because it openly proves they have biases that cannot be changed. The staff opted to excuse Sanders because the Republican 'moral' religious supporters are intolerant to multiple religions but prefer specific ones instead. Their moral repugnance against the LEGAL representation of Sander's 'side' made the USE  a "LEGAL" means to throw the book at her legitimacy because they cannot do so on moral grounds.

Sanders might say she was 'illegitimately' being discriminated against for what the Republican's majority religious affiliation represents. But because her political 'side' is actively against the set of religious moral views on the left, the interpretation of her being there is like inviting a guest into your house who you know is openly intending to destroy you outside by principle. 

To me, both are 'religious' and would prefer having laws that COULD discriminate against the extremes AMONG THEM! The use of the PRIVATE restaurant to act is the LEGITIMATE way to them to display a counter-hate LEGALLY throwing the very thing back to those who represent wanting to LEGITIMIZE hatred against their own religious beliefs.

 

The "Freedom of Religion" in context to that Amendment was NOT about a right of GOVERNMENT to 'freely' use laws to favor whatever religious ideals of governments elected in power at present but to avoid ANY government in the future from creating laws ABOUT religion that will tend towards an "Imperialistic" mono-religious system that biases the people. That 'freedom' isn't a law about favoring religion or it would be itself contradictory because it would BE a religious law. They expanded the clarity by putting it in the 'Freedom of Expression' law because it means that people could VOLUNTEER religious ideals (expression/art/culture) but not impose them by using laws to favor nor disfavor particular ones nor any set of them.

Our own Multicultural laws here was purposely in defiance of that just as a Mono-cultural one would be. But 'multi-cultural' is still actually just 'mono-cultural' collectivists in a counter-position to the PRESENT monopoly of the ones in power. This tendency by religions is hypocritical of ANY side who is religious but expects the other to accommodate them. But they also both use LEGAL reasons to justify their own actions while accusing the other as acting with MORAL defiance. Both are 'illegitimate' because they both want some form of religious laws put in place to protect specific culturally-defined groups. 

 

So I agree with you. They are simply excusing the act of kicking out Sanders for some 'right' (legality) they excuse themselves for when they are actually acting with moral indignation but cannot say so or risk exposing their own religious counter-bias. But you can't defend Sanders as being 'legitimate' to stay when she stands for a government that believes in a 'moral' stance against the other collective religions in principle. They aren't making a stance against Sanders specifically but to who she represents as her LEGAL political persona.

[BubberMiley]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Whoa!  Holy petunia!

Welcome back Kimmy!

 

Anyway.....you seem to be upset.   You're spouting off irrelevant things like saying something to people.  You ought to take a deep breathe.    This isn't about saying insulting things to people.  

 

This is about A BUSINESS THAT REFUSES SERVICE ...........based on nothing at all other than the fact that the person works for someone the owner/employees don't agree with!  And, maybe Sanders' ideology doesn't agree with theirs either, but so what?

 

Businesses can refuse service now,  based on people's ideology?  

 

This is serious stuff!   Some people cry Trump is a danger to democracy.....hello?    The danger comes from people who cheer, support and protect the Red Hen employer. 

There will be those who'll say and do stupid things (like this employer).......but sensible people ought to recognize the stupidity........ and the danger that comes with such stupidity!

I should try large fonts too, but I would feel stupid. They didn't refuse service. They asked her to leave. If she had refused to leave, they would have served her. Get it?

[betsy]

6 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

They didn't refuse service. They asked her to leave. If she had refused to leave, they would have served her. Get it?

making up stories again?

Where does it says that?   The others in Sanders party were welcome to stay, but not Sarah.

 

Quote

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.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Obviously they didn't want to serve her, but politely asking someone to leave does not technically mean they refused service. If she had refused to leave, they might have served her or they might not have. We don't know because she left. And I don't think there's any law anywhere against politely asking someone to leave a place.

[scribblet]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

making up stories again?

Where does it says that?   The others in Sanders party were welcome to stay, but not Sarah.

 I guess the owner didn't think about the consequence of her actions.   I can only imagine the reactions if the restaurant was  Chick-Fil-A asking someone from the Obama admin. to leave.  Many people believe the dish being served here is hypocrisy.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-message-86-ing-sarah-sanders-sent-to-conservatives/

ETA:  looks like they will have to watch their backs

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-memo-today-increased-threats-2018-06-23/

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

I think the only consequence so far has been an increase in sales, just like at Chick-fil-a.