So I guess it's okay to kick people out of a restaurant because they work for Pres. Donald Trump?

:)

Lol, good one, dude :-)

As per the meme... the problem isn't with the denial of service per se... It's that when the backlash comes, They're going to Blame her/Trump for the results of Their actions....
(You are free to choose your actions, not the consequences to their actions)

you could use the same template (and someone probably did after the incident) with

"Is that a Gay Couple?"

"Refuse to Bake their cake."

*Boycott (over the crashed bike)

"F'k'n Gays ruined my Business"

and it'd carry the same meaning

and Lets not forget

1. The Baker was Willing to sell them a Cake, he simply refused to Customize it to their specifications
2. The Court Ruled as it did Specifically because it infringed on the Baker's RELIGIOUS Rights
3. For years Muslim Cabbies at the Minneapolis Airport (and one assumes others) have been allowed to Refuse Patrons in Possession of Alcohol (Sealed) for the same reason
4. Before the ruling was even handed down, NYC Courts Sided with a 'Leftist' Bar Owner in his 'Right to Refuse' when he ejected a patron wearing a MAGA Hat...

Any reason? Such as racism, for just one example?

Seriously - you are going to have to learn how to think one of these days. That, and stop lying.

The problem in this specific case is Lexington, Virginia has codified an anti-discrimination policy. That means it is law in that jurisdiction. That means EVERYONE in that city cannot discriminate for any reason codified in any law superior to Lexington's ordinances. I do quote the law, in part :

"All citizens of the City, individual and corporate, are requested and urged to use their power and influence to the end that this City shall be one of equal opportunity for ALL citizens."

End quote, all emphasis is mine.

The problem is all means all. There is no wiggle room here, and no exceptions have been crafted. The Red Hen, and the management thereof, are in violation of a strict anti-discrimination policy that Lexington - per the ordinance - MUST prosecute with all resources at their disposal. THAT is what is different about this case and the 'baker' case being bandied about.

THAT is how one does basic research, and how one provides full context in one's remarks. It's really sad and pathetic that you cannot, or will not, do the same.

Except - once again - you have stepped on a rake. I only quoted part of the ordinance, not it's entirety. You commented as if what I quoted were the entire ordinance. I should think the "in part" wording would have been a clue, but nope... you jumped with both feet on that rake. Once again you speak from a position of ignorance, and in the process you represent that what you say is the truth. Never started you say? In reality you never, ever stop.

Then you said : "If someone wants to turn away customers for racist reasons, they have that right as a business owner". This is hilariously wrong. Almost every jurisdiction in America has an anti-discrimination law of one stripe or another that makes this behavior illegal, so no - it is not a right. Add on top of that the Feds coming down on someone that would try, and... well... I might just stop laughing at you sometime in the next decade.

Again, why anyone here would hold you in the slightest esteem given how consistently wrong, deceitful and just plain dumb the things are you post... I am still aghast.

... except EVERY WORD of your comment was predicated on the belief I did quote the entire law, despite the disclaimer that YOU did not read. That's on YOU, not me.

You don't repeat yourself? ROFLMAO! Then what's with the repeating parrot pictures? I will tell you what - you are still pissed at being held to account for LYING and inserting words that didn't exist into a Bible passage. You NEVER admitted YOU were wrong, but did blame everything and everyone else for YOUR lies and errors. YOU also didn't admit I was not the only one that called you on YOUR bullshit.

You admit when you are wrong? The entire Bible passage fiasco gives lie to that, and the most beautiful part of that is YOUR own words condemn you. You couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, and you are proven a liar because YOU couldn't admit YOU were wrong.

You are not deceitful?!? That's deceitful right there, because you are incapable of telling the truth. Almost every post you make is riddled with deception, inaccuracies, falsehoods and sins of omission. Weep, wail and gnash your teeth all you wish, but NOTHING you can do will ever change that. It's who you are. It's what you do. You simply cannot tell the full truth ever.

So yes - I am aghast there are sycophants that hold you in esteem.

Privately owned businesses should be allowed to deny services for ANY reason, even race. Publicly owned entities absolutely must not discriminate for any reason. A private entity that receives any funding from the State (ie. some daycares and preschools for their meal programs), then they absolutely cannot discriminate.

Good job at detailing the hypocrisy tho.

"RELIGIOUS"... reading comprehension is your friend

The left has been embracing 'right to refuse' based on Politics, even without the supposed approval granted by the SCOTUS ruling... The Hypocrisy cuts both ways...

So the point wasn't lost on you? Good boy *pats head*

Watch the YouTube video "The Case of Cake," by Scholoryteller.

Why is it not okay for a baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but it is okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone because of who she works for? I don't have a problem with denial of service, and have no problem with this man refusing to serve Sanders. My issue is with the inconsistency and political parties not standing by their positions when it affects the other side.

Why is it okay for a baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but it is not okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone because of who she works for?
Goose/gander

For the record, I do have a problem with the backlash against Sarah Sanders. She does not set policy, does her job faithfully, hasn't done anything wrong, yet is met with the most peurile of insults.
That most of it is focused on her looks or other irrelevent nonsense as opposed to what the source of the ire is (her boss) speaks of the level of crass thoughtlessness people have come to accept in public discourse. Bunch of overgrown uncouth grade schoolers run amok.

She's his spokesperson. She stands up there on camera and shovels lies, deflects, defends his BS, acts all remorseless and disdainful... She's not just some unknown aide. She's the mouth of Donald Trump. She knew what she was signing up for. Just saying...

She's told what to say. She's not going to disagree with her boss, and what is a lie is subjective sort of art.

I'm not giving her a pass, but compare what she gets to what Sean Spicer got. Lampooned, yes, but none of this storm of digs concerning looks, weight.
Reminds of Bill Clinton, when Monica Lewinsky got more flack than he did, over the same reasons.
Yeah, Sanders's demeanor may be off putting, but people should focus on that and what she says instead of belittling her because of her physical features.

I honestly haven't seen people ridicule her looks as much as what she says and how she says it. Not that she doesn't get shamed for her appearance (I'm sure she does, I mean Hillary does as well) but she does represent someone who says things like a flat-chested woman can never be a 10.

But tying this back to the parallel people are drawing here, she's in our faces on the TV constantly. And she represents someone who is making very controversial changes to our government and our society that affects all of us and for many, it's not for the better. She's not just some anonymous member of the GOP she's the face and voice of it and she makes no apologies to the ones getting screwed over.

The gay couple who wanted the wedding cake weren't asking the guy to write "Homos Forever" or anything gay related on the cake. He was judging them by what they do in the privacy of their homes. That's where I think the two stories diverge.

Same point, from the opposite side.

Because one has to do with deeply held religious convictions and the other does not. It's so simple only Liberals can't understand it.

The Baker was willing to make other types of cake for the gay couple. He just refused to start making a new, specific product.
The restaurant, on the other hand, threw the woman out, just because of who she is.

So the Red Hen could've told Sanders "I know you want dinner, but because I disagree with your lifestyle, you can only get french fries?"

TRY to use logic here. Would you force a vegan restaurant to serve meat?

You are not getting this. The 1st and 13th amendments protect Americans from being forced to serve an ideology they don't believe in. They ensure we don't have to endorse lifestyles that are against our beliefs.

Yeah I get all that. SCOTUS sided with the baker...You argued that the baker said he'd give them something other than what they asked for because he didn't agree with their lifestyle. My question to you was, would it have been okay if the Red Hen refused to make Sanders dinner, but told her she could have a baked potato instead? You know, 1st amendment rights and all...?

The Baker was willing to Provide a 'Stock' Cake... he refused to Customize one with a gay wedding Theme,

a Better analogy would be that they were willing to serve a Baked Potato side, but NOT French Fries because 'reasons'

Did the restaraunt refuse to serve dinner to all its customers? No, it specifically refused Sanders. If the baker refused to sell the same type of cake it makes for traditional weddings to the gay couple, then it would have been discrimination.

It was discrimination. SCOTUS just gave him a pass because of the religion angle.

I just TRIED to use YOUR 'logic'

Birthday cake. Welcome home cake. Happy retirement cake. Halloween cake. Christmas cake. Etc.

Why would they want those other cakes for a wedding XD

My point is that he didn't deny them his services. Making a gay-endorsing cake wasn't one of his services in the first place. Scholoryteller's youtube video "The Case of Cake" explains this.

Okay, perhaps his website or window menu should list the products he WON'T make.

Arguing with blue ninja is a waste of time. I use to debate with a lot of people on here using a different account that I deleted a while back. I created a new account and try to resist debating the typical leftist trolls. They never concede their point when logic show's they're wrong. They only obfuscate the argument to the point of frustration. After they get to a certain level of stupidity, I stop responding.

No need to bring your Imgdlip baggage into this.

You deleted because you're a chicken shit dimwit whose arguments consist of ad hominems but the responses butthurt you too much. Go dip your head mother's milk.

Responding to your below comment. You're right, you were having a civil conversation. I shouldn't have been so harsh. I apologize.

I know I've had my moments but I am trying to be less aggressive around here ;)

Upvoted

It was a gay event. Don't force Christians to contribute to it. We won't force people to contribute to OUR events. Individuals can do what they want with their lives, but they can't force others to take part.

The Supreme Court agrees with you. Since they have the last word on things like this no one is going to force him to bake cakes for gay couples. Although I don't know why he would want to martyr himself over it. That couple isn't hurting anyone.

So now explain why Muslims get to refuse to transport alcohol, but Christian bakers do not get to follow their religion and refuse to bake a cake.

We'll wait... and wait... and wait... and wait...

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker. So I guess it's okay for the Muslims, too?

Muslims have REFUSED to bake cakes for gay couples and NOBODY says a single word about that. That's not right and it's not fair. I think using religion to discriminate is WRONG. Jesus never turned away a sinner, we are all sinners.

I'm with you on that. I don't think anyone should use religion as an excuse to discriminate on any level, whether it be turning away people seeking asylum or someone just trying to buy a wedding cake.

Make sure that he doesn't. add. words. this time.

Walgreens is defending one of its pharmacists who refused for religious reasons to dispense medication to a woman who was miscarrying. Now I really think that one was wrong.

Doctors gave her a choice to get a DNC or use meds because she was miscarrying and there was no viable fetus. She chose the less invasive method. The doctor, not sure which religion but I've heard Walgreens is owned by Mormons, refused to fill it. Walgreens said they reserve their pharmacists' right to step away and allow someone else to fill a script only this guy didn't do that. He just turned her away.

"Should both business owners be legally allowed to do what they did? I believe so. Does that make what they did "okay"? Not necessarily."

Maybe while you're waiting you can try your hand at reading what he already said.

In case this is confusing within the jumble of various replies, that one was to JohnDynamo. I was pointing out that he was asking Octavia_Melody something he had already answered prior with the quote I provided.