She does very well in my opinion. Especially with an unhinged and agenda driven press corp.
Diner owner refuses SHS service on moral grounds
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
She does very well in my opinion. Especially with an unhinged and agenda driven press corp.
Everything that I’m saying in this thread is perfectly consistent with everything that I said long before SHS tried to get a table at the Red Hen.
At least try not to look like a moron with your “what works in your favor” bullshit.
That's your distinction? Wow, um, okay.
In both circumstances, you are making somebody do something contrary to their principles, which you claimed is the standard.
So now your new standard is you can't make someone do something against their principles if it takes longer than it takes to make a burger? Good luck with that argument. Yes, Justice Roberts, we all know that it's fine to make somebody do something against their principles if it only takes a couple minutes.
Good grief. Do you not see how ridiculous that distinction is? The lengths some people will go to justify discrimination against gay people is staggering.
I’m not going to any lengths at all and I’m not justifying discrimination against gay people. The fact that you and SB continue to deliberately distort my statements reflects on you and you alone.
Remember when this was a huge issue in Indiana about 3 years ago? Remember the pizza parlor owners who said they would never deny service to a gay couple who wanted to sit down in their restaurant and eat a meal, but they would not be willing to cater a same-sex wedding? They were attacked from every corner of America. People who had never been to Indiana and probably couldn’t point out Indiana on a map wrote scathing online reviews trying to sabotage their business.
But now it’s okay to deny a table to someone simply because you don’t like her or her political views.
That’s some solid logic there.
Last edited:
Logic? If you take the position, as you do apparently, that a baker can refuse service to persons with whom they have a dispute based on principles, a gay couple, you also have to take the position that a restaurant can refuse service to a person with whom they have a dispute based on principles, either their politics or lack of character or because they work for and lie for someone whose principles they disagree with. This isn't hard. The fact that you apparently believe the baker is okay, but the restaurant is not, and base that distinction upon how long it takes to make a cheeseburger, is ridiculous.
I think both should be served - the gay couple and SHS -- because if you want to open up a business to the public, you have to take all persons equally. You don't apparently.
If you are a business of public accommodation then you have to serve everyone. That includes restaurants, hotels, public transportation, and retail stores, to name a few.
Spending hours designing and creating a custom cake for a specific event is not a public accommodation. As I have explained in past threads, if a group of pro-lifers went into a print shop and asked the owner to make a bunch of banners and signs declaring that “Abortion Is Murder!”, I would support the owner’s right to decline their request if he supports abortion rights and is uncomfortable making their signs. But I would expect him to let them buy supplies off his shelves.
This is not rocket surgery.
This is why I don't like the owner's move. It allows Sanders, and Trump supporters to feel besieged and oppressed.
Own a business that has an open door to the pubic then you need to serve to all. You can call something logic in describing how one group is denied service, but that doesn't make it logical. It's a justification. That's why I don't like what the owner of the restaurant did, even though Sanders is a deplorable woman who lacks Christian values.
No, you don't. You simply cannot discriminate on the basis of protected classes.
If you don't want Democrats or Republicans in your shop, you are free to deny service to them, as a private owner. You are also free to accept the consequences of your actions through whatever boycotts or public outcry arises from them.
There are a some devoutly religious folks who would object to serving a cheeseburger.
Well, I haven't locked up any three year old kids today, so I do feel superior. I don't know about the lie of moral superiority assertion.
The RFRA prohibits employers from forcing an employee from doing something that violates their religious beliefs. For example, if the manager has a Hindu employee then he cannot force him to cook a cheeseburger. But if cheeseburgers are on the menu and a customer orders one, the manager can have a different employee make it.
I like to imagine a country where the Equal Protection Clause protects everyone and not just people who are part of a designated group.
I’m weird that way.
I guess I am not so wrapped up in the discrimination as I am in the business decision some people are making. You eliminate half your customer base.
That law doesn't apply to employers in the manner you think it does.
The law that requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
RFRA mostly applies to government actions, not the actions of private employers.
So, a restaurant couldn't exclude people based on the way they're dressed? That's a form of discrimination.
I don’t think they should deny service to anyone, but I can enjoy the humor of the situation. Both of someone like SHS suffering the discrimination that she regularly has to defend as well as the hypocrites on the right here who are outraged by it after defending the right of other assholes to do this for years now when it was their same prejudices that were being represented.
Didn’t read entire thread. Just wanted to chime in that I think it’s hilarious.
A restaurant can certainly enforce a dress code as long as the dress code is enforced equally for every customer.
I for one have never defended any restaurant forcing a gay customer to leave and I never would unless the customer was doing something that violated a restaurant policy that applies to all customers.
So, imagine the restaurant has a rule against headwear.
Doesn't that discriminate against devoutly-religious people who must wear something on their heads?
Do you think a black restaurant owner should have to serve a group of KKK members?
I tend to think business owners should be able to deny service to people that aren't part of a protected class. I don't know if sexual orientation is a protected class, but I think it should be.
For the gay wedding cake, I don't think a baker should be forced to make a special one, but if they came in and wanted to buy one from the display case he should have to sell it. Or if a gay couple comes in and wants to get a cake for a going away party for a coworker, the owner shouldn't be able to deny service because they're gay.
For me it's complicated because it's a balance between two people's rights. Unfortunately we still have people like the baker around. Hopefully soon this won't be an issue.
While a part of me says "good for them", and maybe its good to raise the issue, but I usually take the high road. I would have told Sarah and her entourage how her support for discrimination personally effects some of my employees and then tell her we were going to serve her anyway. Any of you that think its okay for the baker but not this restaurant owner are just being hypocritical and finding excuses to support your hypocrisy.
If this restaurant outing was a "wedding reception" you might have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't.
SHS is married, so I don’t see any weddings in her near future. But if a member of the Trump administration was getting married and a florist or baker or caterer or photographer declined to provide their services as part of the wedding I would support their decision.
You’re clearly letting your emotions supercede logic and reasoning. I’ll try not to hold that against you.
Ah, so you still support the concept but you’re finding a way to be indignant in this case. Disappointing.
WTF are you even talking about? You keep trying to conflate two situations that absolutely are not the same and expect people to apply the same standards to each situation.
I’m telling you exactly what I think the standard should be in each situation and how it should be applied regardless of who is involved.
That depends on the circumstances. How does the owner know they are KKK members? If it’s because they are wearing hoods and robes then he can boot them out for violating the dress code. If their presence is bothering other patrons then he can boot them for disrupting business. If they are appropriately dressed and minding their manners and not bothering anyone then I don’t see why he can’t let them eat.
It does seem like an odd hypothetical. I’m not sure why KKK members would eat at a black-owned restaurant.
As I have stated many times here and in the past, the gay couple has every right to buy anything that’s for sale in his display case. And he did in fact offer to sell them anything they wanted out of the display case. In fact, if I’m not mistaken he had actually sold products to them in the past and has created custom cakes for gay customers for birthdays and other special events. He simply declined to create a cake specifically for their wedding.
But can they eat cake?
You sure have a wierd way at looking at things. You’re ok with not serving two gay people but are ok with serving the KKK.
