Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of restaurant

[HurleyBird]

This is some particularly verbose nonsense. The question here is simple: what is the difference between weddings the baker was willing to bake cakes for and ones they were not? There is only one difference - if the couple were gay or not. Therefore it is discrimination based on their sexuality. This isn’t complicated.

Instead of circling back and repeating my argument that you failed to respond to -- where you instead decide to restate your previous assertion which my existing arguments counter just fine, I should point out that the original statement of contention, which is easily found by clicking the quote arrows, was when you stated:

"If baking a cake is participating in a gay wedding then serving this woman is participating in Trump’s garbage administration."

This an obvious false equivalency for reasons I've went already went into and will not repeat. Whether or not we're dealing discrimination, as you have now shifted to arguing, is irrelevant and off topic.

I'm actually somewhat impressed by this rhetorical slight of hand. You were just vague enough that I assumed good will on your part and tried to interpret your responses as being on topic. And to be honest, I should have caught it sooner. Thanks, I'll add this "obfuscate and then subtly change the subject" to my bag of tricks. I won't use it of course because I try to be intellectually honest, but I'll be able to look out for it better in the future.

The courts have ruled that discriminating against attributes and actions closely associated with a protected class, in this case marrying a member of the same sex, is the same as discriminating against that protected class. It is irrelevant if there happen to be straight men caught up in their objections to same-sex marriage, the purpose of their discrimination is still animus against gay people.

These arguments have long ago been considered and rejected. I mean the long ago struck down sodomy bans didn’t say anything about gay people, they just said men couldn’t engage in sodomy. That didn’t save them.

Sodomy laws were struck down because they were deemed to violate the 14th amendment. Specifically, five justices held that they violated due process, so under that reasoning even if gay people did not exist the law would still have been overturned. One justice argued that they violated equal protection. Certain people trying to hide their justification for sodomy laws, while both obvious and despicable, didn't really factor into the decision as far as I know (maybe they were a side note). It certainly could have, and that would speak once again to motivation, which tends to be important.

One other significant difference is that sodomy laws are essentially gagging speech, while a baker refusing to bake a cake on religious grounds is expressing speech. Overall, a bad example.

It has nothing to do with outcomes, it has to do with the fact that your argument is barely better than ‘Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarians are evil too’. It’s laugh out loud absurd.

Do vegetarians and Hitler share the dangerous, psychological core belief that the ends justify the means? How about some other seed of fascist ideology? No, they do not to any tangible degree.

It’s not at all more complicated. SCOTUS (in effect) ruled his freedom overrode the statute that prevented his discrimination against gay people, not that he did not discriminate. That part was basically accepted by all parties.

No, they didn't. They ruled that the lower court didn't follow proper procedure and displayed bias to the extent where they were unable to honestly weigh first amendment concerns. They effectively kicked the issue down the road for a future court to determine.

 

[umbrella39]

The baker has no right to know what was going to be done with his cake before, during, or after a customer cashed out. End of story. Don't ask. Don't tell. That's goes the same for a cookie, a milkshake, or any other thing you make at your bakery or shop.

These guys made the fatal mistake of thinking that just because this guy welcomed their gayness and money in the past that he would be happy to be involved in their big day. They were probably hurt more than they were angry.

As a straight person I have every right to go into that bakery and order a wedding cake and give the baker ZERO details about any aspect of my wedding other than how I want the cake made and iced and what day and time I need it by. End of story. Why shouldn't a gay person be afforded the same rights...

My wife wasn't even with me when I ordered our wedding cake. Baker didn't deliver it, write anything on it, or put any topper on it. I could have been ordering it to bring home, get naked and tuck, and tell myself how fond I am of myself....

The baker being "in the loop" isn't something that should be required in these transactions anyhow. Bake the fucking cake cake boy and STFU... I'll pick it up when it's ready.

You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a cake that is gay and which on is straight. Right?

Also, I am sure worse things have been done with the icing on one of his cakes than the indignity of it showing up at a gay wedding. But that's the beauty of sales. Once my product leaves my store I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do with it.

I can't tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake for your birthday because you are black or gay...

I can't tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake for your wedding because you are black or day and my religion tells me I can use it as an excuse not to...

But I can tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake because I saw you on TV and I think you are an asshole and no amount of your money will change that...

Why is this so difficult for the conservative brain to grasp...

 

[Victorian Gray]

It’s no different from the Red Hen story, it is different from the CO baker story.

<whoosh>

 

[UglyCasanova]

The baker has no right to know what was going to be done with his cake before, during, or after a customer cashed out. End of story. Don't ask. Don't tell. That's goes the same for a cookie, a milkshake, or any other thing you make at your bakery or shop.

These guys made the fatal mistake of thinking that just because this guy welcomed their gayness and money in the past that he would be happy to be involved in their big day. They were probably hurt more than they were angry.

As a straight person I have every right to go into that bakery and order a wedding cake and give the baker ZERO details about any aspect of my wedding other than how I want the cake made and iced and what day and time I need it by. End of story. Why shouldn't a gay person be afforded the same rights...

My wife wasn't even with me when I ordered our wedding cake. Baker didn't deliver it, write anything on it, or put any topper on it. I could have been ordering it to bring home, get naked and tuck, and tell myself how fond I am of myself....

The baker being "in the loop" isn't something that should be required in these transactions anyhow. Bake the fucking cake cake boy and STFU... I'll pick it up when it's ready.

You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a cake that is gay and which on is straight. Right?

Also, I am sure worse things have been done with the icing on one of his cakes than the indignity of it showing up at a gay wedding. But that's the beauty of sales. Once my product leaves my store I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do with it.

I can't tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake for your birthday because you are black or gay...

I can't tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake for your wedding because you are black or day and my religion tells me I can use it as an excuse not to...

But I can tell you I'm not going to bake you a cake because I saw you on TV and I think you are an asshole and no amount of your money will change that...

Why is this so difficult for the conservative brain to grasp...

Baker doesn’t know he’s making a wedding cake. That’s those kind of arguements that win Supreme Court cases, you a lawyer?

 

[umbrella39]

Are you retarded...

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeah I guess so because I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one

The baker has no right to know what was going to be done with his cake before, during, or after a customer cashed out. End of story. Don't ask. Don't tell.

 

[Jaskalas]

No children in cages? Is that cool to take a stand against?

Calls for civility in the age of growing fascism are fucking absurd.

They could be in a "cage" with their parent(s), but you'd have join Trump in telling the courts to !@#$ off first. I assume you support the executive order if you are distressed by the situation at the border.

 

[Jaskalas]

However, she was speaking specifically about Trumps cabinet and administration members. Not about Republicans.

Right, some people want to make a point about that. That it's okay to target the head(s) of the party and/or political figures of the party. Well, when the voters have had enough they'll boycott Democrat locations that throw out or harassed Republican leaders. See, it's not just about your action(s) but the escalating responses both sides give in retaliation. It neither started or ends here, conflict always runs the risk of growth.

It's akin to lighting a match. Which would make Congresswoman Waters like an arsonist. Hearing Schumer condemn it was refreshing, finally someone not fanning the flames.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah I guess so because I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one

GYHOOYA

Clearly THIS baker knows what THESE customer were doing with THIS cake. If you read my whole post you clearly know it puts that line into context...

Sort of why I say A customer and not THESE customers...

Sentence should have started with an A instead of THE as well to make it more clear. So I know you at least read the first sentence, there's some good shit below that line you got hung up on if you are interested in how the law works...

 

[fskimospy]

Instead of circling back and repeating my argument that you failed to respond to -- where you instead decide to restate your previous assertion which my existing arguments counter just fine, I should point out that the original statement of contention, which is easily found by clicking the quote arrows, was when you stated:

"If baking a cake is participating in a gay wedding then serving this woman is participating in Trump’s garbage administration."

This an obvious false equivalency for reasons I've went already went into and will not repeat. Whether or not we're dealing discrimination, as you have now shifted to arguing, is irrelevant and off topic.

For the second time, are you fucking kidding me. My first statement was clearly not serious, it was simply mocking arguments frequently put up by conservatives about the cake shop case. I mean did you actually think I believed owning a restaurant where administration members might dine meant they were part of it?

I can’t believe this even needs to be explained.

I'm actually somewhat impressed by this rhetorical slight of hand. You were just vague enough that I assumed good will on your part and tried to interpret your responses as being on topic. And to be honest, I should have caught it sooner. Thanks, I'll add this "obfuscate and then subtly change the subject" to my bag of tricks. I won't use it of course because I try to be intellectually honest, but I'll be able to look out for it better in the future.

You should not be impressed in the slightest, if anything you should feel bad for me as I assumed you were intelligent enough to recognize a joke and instead wanted to debate the issue on the merits.

Like I said your instincts were right to begin with, you shouldn’t have engaged with this conversation because you’re embarrassing yourself.

Sodomy laws were struck down because they were deemed to violate the 14th amendment. Specifically, five justices held that they violated due process, so under that reasoning even if gay people did not exist the law would still have been overturned. One justice argued that they violated equal protection. Certain people trying to hide their justification for sodomy laws, while both obvious and despicable, didn't really factor into the decision as far as I know (maybe they were a side note). It certainly could have, and that would speak once again to motivation, which tends to be important.

One other significant difference is that sodomy laws are essentially gagging speech, while a baker refusing to bake a cake on religious grounds is expressing speech. Overall, a bad example.

It’s amusing to me that after accusing me of obfuscating instead of engaging your argument and declaring yourself above such underhanded tactics you then do exactly that, haha.

Whoops.

Do vegetarians and Hitler share the dangerous, psychological core belief that the ends justify the means? How about some other seed of fascist ideology? No, they do not to any tangible degree.

You’re just babbling now. First, you have no idea what core beliefs those people yelling at the Florida AG hold. Second, yet again you hypocritically ignored the substance of my statement, that making opponents personally uncomfortable is such a common attribute in the world that using such a superficial similarity to equate them to Nazis is absurd on its face.

You said something dumb and we both know it. Just admit it and move on. You should again be ashamed of yourself.

No, they didn't. They ruled that the lower court didn't follow proper procedure and displayed bias to the extent where they were unable to honestly weigh first amendment concerns. They effectively kicked the issue down the road for a future court to determine.

They (incoherently) ruled that the commission displayed impermissible animus even though a higher court which also ruled against the cake shop entirely and independently on the merits did not. That’s why I said ‘effectively’ as they achieved the same result of throwing out the higher courts’ decision on the merits.

A piece of advice: your arguments are all over the place. You’re probably better off generally with picking one very narrow one and going with it from there.

 

[HurleyBird]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but is it possible that you ordered your responses incorrectly in your reply to my original post? It would explain a lot.

 

[TStep]

Was the restaurant owner a registered member of the diversity and inclusion party?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Was the restaurant owner a registered member of the diversity and inclusion party?

If you care to go look, the owner states that a few of the servers are part of the LGBT community, and since Sanders is part of an admin that is hurting the community, her party was asked to leave. Probably for the best.

Just another bullshit-artist-in-chief promise broken

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-lgbt-rights-discrimination-353774

 

[boomerang]

Probably for the best.

For who?

The owner has resigned her position as director of Main Street Lexington. Lexington voted for Trump 78% - 22%. The surrounding counties voted for Trump 75% - 25%. Her restaurant will be out of business probably within six months. Her help (the gay employee's included) will be looking for new jobs.

Thankfully, in the Trump economy they will not have any trouble finding one.

But the Wilkinson family will not fare so well. I see a move in their future. They can hold their heads high knowing that they've fought the good fight and the value in that is immeasurable. Maybe not enough to cover the moving expenses but the battle she fought is the battle she picked.

 

[ch33zw1z]

For who?

The owner has resigned her position as director of Main Street Lexington. Lexington voted for Trump 78% - 22%. The surrounding counties voted for Trump 75% - 25%. Her restaurant will be out of business probably within six months. Her help (the gay employee's included) will be looking for new jobs.

Thankfully, in the Trump economy they will not have any trouble finding one.

But the Wilkinson family will not fare so well. I see a move in their future. They can hold their heads high knowing that they've fought the good fight and the value in that is immeasurable. Maybe not enough to cover the moving expenses but the battle she fought is the battle she picked.

For the party of 8, are you unfamiliar with how restaurants operate?

 

[zinfamous]

yup pretty much this.

The exact same thing....It sounds like "the Western Journal" is peopled by morons.

 

[zinfamous]

Sure the responses from the presidents are radically different but the act of the business refusing to serve some one because of their politics is the same.

no. no. no, not at all, not in any logical way, not a chance.

was Huckabee born a loathsome, inhuman, lying sack of shit? was she born the unapologetic voice of the most monstrous piece of flesh that has so far lead a democratic nation?

Was she? Or was it a self-serving choice that she made to intentionally incite anger in the majority of people in this country?

 

[ch33zw1z]

no. no. no, not at all, not in any logical way, not a chance.

was Huckabee born a loathsome, inhuman, lying sack of shit? was she born the unapologetic voice of the most monstrous piece of flesh that has so far lead a democratic nation?

Was she? Or was it a self-serving choice that she made to intentionally incite anger in the majority of people in this country?

Regardless of how many times the difference is explained, Cons like goatboy just can't seem to get it

 

[Sunburn74]

I hope people realize that likely half the people in that restaurant at the time were registered republicans. They weren't being thrown out. And it's not hard these days to figure out who's a republican or not. Heck it's basically a science at this point determining party of support based on a few simple tools.

She was thrown out because she's a bad person. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

 

[HomerJS]

I hope people realize that likely half the people in that restaurant at the time were registered republicans. They weren't being thrown out. And it's not hard these days to figure out who's a republican or not. Heck it's basically a science at this point determining party of support based on a few simple tools.

She was thrown out because she's a bad person. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

They don't want to understand. Twisting themselves in to pretzels to find moral equivilances

 

[kage69]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-biden-baker-sarah-huckabee-red-hen-20180626-story.html

Owned.

One more time for the social conservatives: you make a choice to be political and religious, you don't make a choice to be born gay. If a holy roller can refuse service for being made to feel uncomfortable over their own elective emotional sensitivities, then gay people are perfectly entitled to feel uncomfortable serving those that actively support an agenda that disenfranchises and often persecutes them as people. No amount of snowflakism and/or christian persecution complex is going to change this.

Please, study this. It's getting tiresome watching you throw egg in your own faces while also trying to get those shoelaces past your lips.

 

[senseamp]

For who?

The owner has resigned her position as director of Main Street Lexington. Lexington voted for Trump 78% - 22%. The surrounding counties voted for Trump 75% - 25%. Her restaurant will be out of business probably within six months. Her help (the gay employee's included) will be looking for new jobs.

Thankfully, in the Trump economy they will not have any trouble finding one.

But the Wilkinson family will not fare so well. I see a move in their future. They can hold their heads high knowing that they've fought the good fight and the value in that is immeasurable. Maybe not enough to cover the moving expenses but the battle she fought is the battle she picked.

Worth it.
Lexington city voted for Clinton 62%.
https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/virginia/

 

[momeNt]

I fully support private businesses being able to choose who they serve by whatever criteria they so choose. It's their money and risk for any business decision they make.

Everybody is constantly butthurt and divisive over such simple things. So what if a baker doesn't want to serve a gay couple or a diner doesn't want to serve a pre-op transgender. WHO CARES!

 

[jackstar7]

To whom were you speaking?

That would have been Hurley.

 

[jackstar7]

They could be in a "cage" with their parent(s), but you'd have join Trump in telling the courts to !@#$ off first. I assume you support the executive order if you are distressed by the situation at the border.

Are you drunk?