Sarah Huckabee Sanders Thrown Out Of Restaurant -former Federal Ethics Head says...

Originally posted by darthgoober
I know and can totally understand your reasoning. But to be fair, the Right is the side that's against big government getting involved in private businesses, not the Left. It makes sense that the Left would fight tooth and nail all the way up to the Supreme Court. Fighting FOR government intervention didn't violate their core principals, seeking government intervention DOES violate the core principals of the Right.

But here's the thing, now that Dems have acknowledged the importance of precedent many of their positions are more vulnerable than ever. You know the way people mockingly say "But Obama" as a way to dismiss arguments defending Trump? Well that's not a real option anymore because if Obama and democrats set a precedent then by the same principle they can't criticize Trump and Republicans for using that precedent to their advantage.

They are vulnerable, it's why they are lashing out.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are vulnerable, it's why they are lashing out.

A 51-year-old man, Reginald Scott Lee, was arrested after throwing "chicken poop" in the general direction of the Red Hen restaurant (the place that kicked Sarah Sanders out). He was arrested and charged with "littering and disorderly conduct."

So much wrong with that action. And it's disgusting. Come on. Peaceful protests are fine. Throwing chicken crap is not. I'd expect an angsty 14-year-old trying to be an edgelord to do something like this. Not a grown 51-year-old man. Pathetic.

Is only the Cult of Trump had the same "peaceful protest are fine" approach...

Originally posted by Robtard
Is only the Cult of Trump had the same "peaceful protest are fine" approach...

There's that kindergarten sloganeering.

Because "der Leftist!" remarks isn't slogan inducing, right? Anyhow.

I'm not wrong. eg Kaepernick and other players kneel both quietly and peacefully in protest; Trump uses the office of the POTUS to label them "sons of bitches" and state that they shouldn't be allowed in this country. His followers followed suite.

Worth pointing out:

Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of the restaurant, said she asked Sanders and her family to leave because of previous comments she had made defending the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military members.

The restaurant employs several LGBT employees, some of whom voiced concerns over having to serve Sanders, Wilkinson told The Washington Post.

“I’m not a huge fan of confrontation,” Wilkinson added. “I have a business, and I want the business to thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

It's perfectly possible the ethics boy is playing political games, but pretty pathetic from huckabee as well.

Looking at the legal side of things:

1. She did not use her public office for private gain.

Sanders used her official govt account to condemn a private business for personal reasons. Seeks to coerce business by using her office to get public to pressure it. Violates endorsements ban too, which has an obvious corollary for discouraging patronage. Misuse reg covers both.

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) June 23, 2018

But the dipshit DID say it was like an atf agent pulling out their badge. So...

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Huckabee privately benifitting was never mentioned int he tweet. You're welcome to test whether his claim aligns with the law, but he didn't say what you said he did.

Her official govt account? You mean her Twitter account??

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Worth pointing out:

It's perfectly possible the ethics boy is playing political games, but pretty pathetic from huckabee as well.

Should also be worth pointing out that the baker refused service to the gay couple because he's a bigot, while the restaurant owner refused service because Huckabee's a bigot. More of a moral thing, than legal at this point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should also be worth pointing out that the baker refused service to the gay couple because he's a bigot.

That's fresh seeing as Kennedy was in favor of the baker due to how the local govt treated the baker.

The baker: Sorry due to my beliefs I cannot make you a cake for a gay wedding or cakes with alcohol or Halloween cakes. Feel free to make any other purchase.

The community: Zomg Nazi, bigot, hater

I guess a little self-control would have tipped the favor towards the gay couple, it just wasn't seen here.

Doesn't mean the baker isn't bigoted though, now does it. Just makes it legal. He denied them a cake which he would have made for a straight wedding.

How do we know that the Gay People aren't "Bigoted" as well?

But then that kind of BIGOTRY Robbie supports.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't mean the baker isn't bigoted though, now does it. Just makes it legal. He denied them a cake which he would have made for a straight wedding.

Yeah and bigotry is intolerance and hatred, he didn't display that. It doesn't matter, the supreme court didn't see bigotry, you didn't like the outcome so here comes the race, bigotry slander cards for those that oppose.

On Monday, a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy listed the reasons why this case turned out to be a lemon. First, is what the couple asked for—a cake for a private celebration—really “speech” or “free exercise of religion” at all? Second, the record was unclear whether Phillips refused only to bake a cake with a “wedding” message or refused to provide any cake at all for Craig and Mullins’s celebration. Third, the events occurred before the Court’s decision, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Thus, Phillips in part based his denial on the fact that, at the time, Colorado did not permit same-sex marriage—that “the potential customers ‘were doing something illegal.’” Fourth, as Justice Kennedy pointed out at oral argument, the record was muddled by anti-religious statements made by state officials who considered the case below.

Just like the restaurant owner didn't ask people she agreed with to leave.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah and bigotry is intolerance and hatred, he didn't display that. It doesn't matter, the supreme court didn't see bigotry, you didn't like the outcome so here comes the race, bigotry slander cards for those that oppose.

Sorry, what he did was a display of bigotry, it just happens to be legal [now].

Another baker: 'Sorry due to my beliefs I cannot make you a cake for an interracial wedding or cakes with alcohol or Halloween cakes. Feel free to make any other purchase.'

^ That's another form of bigotry and the only thing we changed was sexual orientation for race.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, what he did was a display of bigotry, it just happens to be legal [now].

Another baker: 'Sorry due to my beliefs I cannot make you a cake for an interracial wedding or cakes with alcohol or Halloween cakes. Feel free to make any other purchase.'

^ That's another form of bigotry and the only thing we changed was sexual orientation for race.

Right, except it wasn't about race was it? So in a vacuum, you would be correct, in the real world, you were left reaching for excuses and the Supreme Court said.......that wasn't the case.

But I'm sure you know the guy so you know more about him than us.

Another restaurant owner: Sorry, due to my beliefs I cannot allow someone with your political leanings to stay.

^ I wonder if there is a term for that.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Right, except it wasn't about race was it? So in a vacuum, you would be correct, in the real world, you were left reaching for excuses and the Supreme Court said.......that wasn't the case.

But I'm sure you know the guy so you know more about him than us.

So you're saying it's okay to deny service on sexual orientation but not race? Sorry, both are similar acts of bigotry. Just legal now.

I know what you know, he denied a service he would have done for a straight couple, because the couple was gay (sexual orientation). No different than denying a couple due to their race.