ADVERTISEMENT

Diner owner refuses SHS service on moral grounds

FINALLY.
So stop defending it.
I never once defended it. I called out your stupidity for insisting that he got it from a Nazi website. You're just too dense to comprehend the distinction.

I've never used the ignore feature before, but you've degenerated into a worthless lying piece of shit troll. So now I have to figure out how this ignore function works.
 
I never once defended it.

Yes, you have. You keep implying it's not "racist", because he "probably didn't get it off the racist's site".

I expect political pundits to throw this kind of garbage around. Not so much out of people who were Presidential candidates, and spokespersons for their Party.**

**Unless it's the Nazi Party. Then, that makes total sense.
 
Yes, you have. You keep implying it's not "racist", because he "probably didn't get it off the racist's site".

I expect political pundits to throw this kind of garbage around. Not so much out of people who were Presidential candidates, and spokespersons for their Party.**

**Unless it's the Nazi Party. Then, that makes total sense.
You’re so adorable when you backpedal. You didn't just accuse Huckabee of getting the photo off a racist website. You very specifically accused him of getting it off a Nazi website.

You still can't find anything I actually wrote that backs up your false accusations deliberate lies, so now you resort to literally making up a quote and falsely attributing it to me.

This is an embarrassing new low even for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
From your link:

This is a reference to the law that stipulates government employees cannot use public office for private gain.

He added: “It’s the same as if an ATF agent pulled out his badge when a restaurant tried to throw him/her out."


I’m curious to know exactly how SHS benefitted or even potentially benefitted from her tweet. The incident had taken place the day before. It was over. It’s not at all like an ATF agent pulling out his badge to try to get special treatment.

I think you can maybe make a case that her tweet could potentially have cost the restaurant business. But I just don’t see how he thinks she stood to benefit from the tweet.
 
You’re so adorable when you backpedal. You didn't just accuse Huckabee of getting the photo off a racist website. You very specifically accused him of getting it off a Nazi website.

You still can't find anything I actually wrote that backs up your false accusations deliberate lies, so now you resort to literally making up a quote and falsely attributing it to me.

This is an embarrassing new low even for you.

Cuz sharing memes with Nazi websites is "all ok"....**

** When you're a bigot, racist and/or Nazi
 
I think you can maybe make a case that her tweet could potentially have cost the restaurant business. But I just don’t see how he thinks she stood to benefit from the tweet.

If this were a private-sector employee using their work Tweets to convey personal grievances, they'd be fired for it. No different here. SHS has every right to free speech; she simply must use her "work" account for "work", and not her personal grievances.
 
I've enjoyed the TJ and Ragle discussion, I see merits on both sides. I think I tend to side with TJ on this one, and it's aided by the fact that you can always find someone else to bake your custom cake.. Yes, I realize principles and all.

While I think Joe has considerable knowledge and usually agree with his posts, he sure has a way of being off putting.
 
I've enjoyed the TJ and Ragle discussion, I see merits on both sides. I think I tend to side with TJ on this one, and it's aided by the fact that you can always find someone else to bake your custom cake.. Yes, I realize principles and all.

While I think Joe has considerable knowledge and usually agree with his posts, he sure has a way of being off putting.
People can't find another place to get a burger? Brisket? Pepsi? A haircut? How is the ability to find a service somewhere else a reason to side with TJ and the baker?

Is that it, or is it also because it takes a lot of time and attention? I'm hoping there is a better reason that just hasn't been shared yet.
 
So you agree that a business owner can refuse to serve someone because of who they are? So theynguy who chose not to bake a cake?
Not sure I understand your last question but yes, as stated on page 1, I generally think private business owners should have leeway to decide who they want to serve. And I believe the market can decide whether they wish to avail themselves of those products or services. Those who object are free to “boycott” said business but I do not agree the offended folks should be able allowed to picket, vandalize or otherwise disrupt the business. This goes for the baker, photographer, restaurateur, etc.
 
If this were a private-sector employee using their work Tweets to convey personal grievances, they'd be fired for it. No different here. SHS has every right to free speech; she simply must use her "work" account for "work", and not her personal grievances.
I’m not disputing that but you didn’t answer my question. I asked how SHS benefitted from her tweet. Walter Shaub stated that her tweet was a clear violation of the federal law that prohibits government employees from using public office for private gain.

What did she gain? How did she benefit? He said it was the same as if an ATF agent flashed his badge to get special treatment. How so?
 
People can't find another place to get a burger? Brisket? Pepsi? A haircut? How is the ability to find a service somewhere else a reason to side with TJ and the baker?

Is that it, or is it also because it takes a lot of time and attention? I'm hoping there is a better reason that just hasn't been shared yet.

People can find another place to get a burger, brisket, Pepsi and a haircut. There are enough places looking to make money that it's not an issue, not really the case for blacks in the civil rights era. That's why I acknowledge it's not a principled stand.

It sides with the producer rather than the consumer, I think that's a pragmatic outcome. If there wasn't willing bakers, maybe the government should have a role to enforce cake availability.

I can see both sides.
 
I’m not disputing that but you didn’t answer my question. I asked how SHS benefitted from her tweet. Walter Shaub stated that her tweet was a clear violation of the federal law that prohibits government employees from using public office for private gain.

....that now any OTHER place she walks into can now EXPECT she'll freely Tweet from her WH position about her experience there...???

It is ILLEGAL. For a REASON.

No one is claiming she cannot speak freely, nor tweet about it from any personal accounts. Nothing is stopping her from doing so. ANY company that had you making vendettas on private restaurants thru your COMPANY account would be fired. Or at the very least, severely disciplined.
 
People can find another place to get a burger, brisket, Pepsi and a haircut. There are enough places looking to make money that it's not an issue, not really the case for blacks in the civil rights era. That's why I acknowledge it's not a principled stand.

It sides with the producer rather than the consumer, I think that's a pragmatic outcome. If there wasn't willing bakers, maybe the government should have a role to enforce cake availability.

I can see both sides.
Wait... so you think ANY business should be able to refuse service to homosexuals? Sorry, I misunderstood. Now I can see why you sided with TJ. At least he thinks there is something unique about the magic cake baking process that differentiates it from boring old burgers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
I never once defended it.
Yes, you have.
I pointed out that it didn't really MATTER where it came from, they're using the SAME propaganda as a Nazi site. You seem ok with that.

Wear your Bigot/Racist/Nazi badge with pride, A-hole.
 
Wait... so you think ANY business should be able to refuse service to homosexuals? Sorry, I misunderstood. Now I can see why you sided with TJ. At least he thinks there is something unique about the magic cake baking process that differentiates it from boring old burgers.

No, I don't think that any business should be able to do that, but I don't get worked up over some types doing so, because there are many that couldn't careless.

At the same time I don't think it's crazy to think someone who's in the customized creation business to be able to refuse a project for their own reasons.

Especially when someone else would gladly do it.
 
I suppose it would have been unrealistic for me to expect you to understand nuanced thought.
There was nothing "nuanced" in what the baker did. He refused to bake a cake for them because they were gay...period. They never even got to the point where he might have objected to the message they wanted on the cake...they never picked out a cake. So this restaurant owner refused to serve SHS because of who SHE is. Exactly the same thing...and wrong in both cases.
 
....that now any OTHER place she walks into can now EXPECT she'll freely Tweet from her WH position about her experience there...???

It is ILLEGAL. For a REASON.

No one is claiming she cannot speak freely, nor tweet about it from any personal accounts. Nothing is stopping her from doing so. ANY company that had you making vendettas on private restaurants thru your COMPANY account would be fired. Or at the very least, severely disciplined.

Dude, she's the spokesperson for the administration. She was discriminated against because of her official position as a spokesperson for the administration. She didn't say anything publicly until it went viral. At that point, it was a news story about the administration and she has every right to use her official position to comment on it.

You're such a freaking toolbag that you don't even understand when you're digging yourself into a hole.
 
....that now any OTHER place she walks into can now EXPECT she'll freely Tweet from her WH position about her experience there...???

It is ILLEGAL. For a REASON.

No one is claiming she cannot speak freely, nor tweet about it from any personal accounts. Nothing is stopping her from doing so. ANY company that had you making vendettas on private restaurants thru your COMPANY account would be fired. Or at the very least, severely disciplined.
Lol. Her private gain from using her public position is that in the future every restaurant she walks into is going to kowtow to her every whim because they know that otherwise they will suffer her Twitter wrath.

I have to admit, that was fairly imaginative. I award you points for creativity on that one.
 
No, I don't think that any business should be able to do that, but I don't get worked up over some types doing so, because there are many that couldn't careless.

At the same time I don't think it's crazy to think someone who's in the customized creation business to be able to refuse a project for their own reasons.

Especially when someone else would gladly do it.
And if it’s Podunk, Iowa with only one cake-maker? That’s why discrimination is such a slippery slope issue. You make it legal to discriminate based on something as fundamental as race, religion, sexuality then huge problems arise.

This is why I posted twice I think about finding middle ground in the gay wedding cake example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
I've enjoyed the TJ and Ragle discussion, I see merits on both sides. I think I tend to side with TJ on this one, and it's aided by the fact that you can always find someone else to bake your custom cake.. Yes, I realize principles and all.
Why would "custom" make a difference? A restaurateur can refuse service if the customer asks for their steak made to order? You either order a steak out of the case or GTFO? Find someone else to cook your steak medium well and smothered in onions and mushrooms?? Burger King says you can have it your way...unless you're gay?

You're open to serve the public...you can not deny service to a protected class because you don't like them. Period

(ftr -anyone who orders their steak more than medium rare should be kicked out :))
 
And if it’s Podunk, Iowa with only one cake-maker? That’s why discrimination is such a slippery slope issue. You make it legal to discriminate based on something as fundamental as race, religion, sexuality then huge problems arise.

This is why I posted twice I think about finding middle ground in the gay wedding cake example.

I agree it is a slippery slope. I can see both sides. If an artist does painting contracts, should they have to accept a swastika contract? If not, that seems like discrimination. Can they charge more for someone else, that's price discrimination.

I think the LGBTQ should be a protected class but I can understand the other side.
 
The market has a way of working this stuff out. I personally think if religion, sexuality, and gender are protected (and all can be choices) then politics probably should be protected too. But if not, fine... as long as the business is consistent the market will work.
 
Lol. Her private gain from using her public position is that in the future every restaurant she walks into is going to kowtow to her every whim because they know that otherwise they will suffer her Twitter wrath.

I have to admit, that was fairly imaginative. I award you points for creativity on that one.
Translation: "Oops!"
 
Lol. I wonder if every cop in America was terrified to arrest a black man after Barack Obama personally called out Sgt Crowley.

Was that the result of a "personal experience" of his?
Nope.

Whataboutism.....nice work tho, Komrade!
 
Was that the result of a "personal experience" of his?
Nope.

Whataboutism.....nice work tho, Komrade!
So if one of Sarah’s personal friends was kicked out of a restaurant instead of Sarah getting kicked out, you would be okay with Sarah tweeting about it. That’s very enlightened of you.
 
Haven't read through all 7 pages but I'll summarize my thought succinctly into the following:
1. This is the pandora's box the cons opened and so turn about is fair play.
2. However, #1 really doesn't pay me any satisfaction. I wish the restaurant owners took the high road. Its better not to slop in the mud with the pigs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
The owner of the cafe was a fool for refusing to serve SH.
When you are in business to serve the public, you serve the public. I would never eat at an establishment that treated the public like that.
This is no different than the Odegaard's from this area who refused to serve a gay wedding reception "based on their religious beliefs." When you open up a shop, you open up a shop and serve all. This is what American's do.
Neither side has moral high ground when it comes to discrimination of others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
I can see both sides.
There is no scenario that puts the baker in the right here. You can't deny service to a protected class based on them being a protected class - Period. The idea is nonsensical. The restaurant owner has a better case because he wasn't denying service to a protected class - but he's still wrong.
 
There is no scenario that puts the baker in the right here. You can't deny service to a protected class based on them being a protected class - Period. The idea is nonsensical. The restaurant owner has a better case because he wasn't denying service to a protected class - but he's still wrong.
The protected class argument applies only if we consider the act of baking a custom wedding cake to be a business of public accommodation. You think it is, I think it is not.

This whole argument boils down to that singular point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
Translation: Despite them using the same photo, to convey the same bigoted/racist meme, "It's still all OK by me". "Cuz, Hey! I'm a racist, too!!!"

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Same with bigots and racists.
This.
 
So if one of Sarah’s personal friends was kicked out of a restaurant instead of Sarah getting kicked out, you would be okay with Sarah tweeting about it. That’s very enlightened of you.

Narrator: "But the little Trumpanzee was apparently unaware that "Sarah's friends" were asked if they wanted to remain for dinner, and SHS was indeed the ONLY individual asked to leave"

We can make shit up all day; is that what you've stooped to, to defend your racists and bigots?
 
The protected class argument applies only if we consider the act of baking a custom wedding cake to be a business of public accommodation. You think it is, I think it is not.

This whole argument boils down to that singular point.
That sounds sensible until you factor in that none of the recent court rulings on this topic are based in either the concept of protected class or public accommodation. Presumption of religious beliefs now rules the day.
 
Narrator: "But the little Trumpanzee was apparently unaware that "Sarah's friends" were asked if they wanted to remain for dinner, and SHS was indeed the ONLY individual asked to leave"

We can make shit up all day; is that what you've stooped to, to defend your racists and bigots?
You said you were okay with Obama using his position as President to trash a cop because it wasn’t a “personal experience of his.” It was Obama’s friend and not Obama himself who was arrested. So your obvious implication is that it is an ethics violation to publicly discuss something that happens to yourself but it’s a-okay to discuss things that happen to your friends.

Therefore it stands to reason that, while it’s illegal for Sarah to talk about what happened to her, you would be fine with Sarah using Twitter to criticize a restaurant that had denied service to one of her friends.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT