Sarah Sanders asked to leave restaurant last night cuz she works for Trump

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

The manager didn’t ask them to leave, she simply called the cops after they declined to order.

Are we going to litigate this one AGAIN? Are you sure about this?

I would have to think when she called the cops, the first thing the cops would have asked her was "Have you asked them to leave?"

And if she said "NO," they would have told her to go ask them to leave.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Even if it is discrimination it is apparently allowed in privately owned businesses.

Not philosophically that different than the cake guy who wouldn't bake for the gay couple.

If I owned the restaurant I would have served her and not made a big deal about it. Only if the situation became dangerous or uncontrollable would I intervene.

It's very different, sir. Different as night is from the day.

The Christian baker was acting out of conviction about all that the bible teaches about how Christians are to hate all that is evil (same sex sex being one of those evils), and to rejoice and love all that is righteous.

The baker was also acting according to the mandate that when the world's laws conflict with God's, the Christian is to forsake the former and cling to the latter. Ultimately, Christians are to act out their faith by obeying God, rather than men in that kind of situation.

And thirdly, Christians are obligated to guard their Christian testimony by abstaining even from the mere appearance of evil, such as the baker sending a tacit signal to the homosexual couple that he was onboard with their sinful lifestyle, which his artistic hand-made cake would have sent if he had consented to design and make the cake.

Conversely, it is begging to be asked of the restauranteur: Which of God's laws or which U.S. law do people, of different political persuasion from yours, violate that makes them worthy of your discrimination?

Moreover, I believe a good case could be made that the restauranteur's refusal to serve constitutes a form of hate speech. Notwithstanding the judge's decision, if the owner has no legitimate legal ground for refusing service, then the basis for his refusal must be on purely moral grounds, e.g. he hates all Trump supporters. His act of refusing to serve, then, would be a form of hate speech. He simply acted out on his hate for Trump supporters.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"Dangerous to THEMSELVES"? Do you suppose that these "leftists" are unhinged enough to poison their OWN food?

I was referring to left-wing extremists in general. Yes, they are unhinged and that makes them potentially dangerous. Unhinged people tend to not think in rational terms.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's very different, sir. Different as night is from the day.

The Christian baker was acting out of conviction about all that the bible teaches about how Christians are to hate all that is evil (same sex sex being one of those evils), and to rejoice and love all that is righteous.

The baker was also acting according to the mandate that when the world's laws conflict with God's, the Christian is to forsake the former and cling to the latter. Ultimately, Christians are to act out their faith by obeying God, rather than men in that kind of situation.

And thirdly, Christians are obligated to guard their Christian testimony by abstaining even from the mere appearance of evil, such as the baker sending a tacit signal to the homosexual couple that he was onboard with their sinful lifestyle, which his artistic hand-made cake would have sent if he had consented to design and make the cake.

Conversely, it is begging to be asked of the restauranteur: Which of God's laws or which U.S. law do people, of different political persuasion from yours, violate that makes them worthy of your discrimination?

Moreover, I believe a good case could be made that the restauranteur's refusal to serve constitutes a form of hate speech. Notwithstanding the judge's decision, if the owner has no legitimate legal ground for refusing service, then the basis for his refusal must be on purely moral grounds, e.g. he hates all Trump supporters. His act of refusing to serve, then, would be a form of hate speech. He simply acted out on his hate for Trump supporters.

In other words...when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Christian baker to refuse service to the gay customers...it was upholding the validity of the bible's message regarding "evil"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In other words...when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Christian baker to refuse service to the gay customers...it was upholding the validity of the bible's message regarding "evil"?

I didn't say that. I've explained a few of the reasons why the baker would refuse.

Permit me to turn your question around and pour it on your head: Do you think the baker refused service on the grounds of the SC ruling?

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You wanna know how I see it? These are public figures...and public figures should come equipped with a fair amount of thick skin. If they can dish it out...then they should be able to occasionally TAKE it, as well. This isn't "hate"; at the most, it's built up aggravation that occasionally spills out a little more widely than it should. SO WHAT? Tom lashes out against ALL the liberals here...and I haven't yet heard ONE righty accusing him of "hating".

When you accept a job in the public arena, and make it your business to address the public in any way that you see fit...then you are fair game, IMO. And it doesn't matter if your name is "Donald Trump", "Barack Obama", "Bill and Hillary Clinton"...or "Sarah Sanders". This isn't a "church"...it's an online chat-room...for heaven's sake. Aren't we allowed to have a little fun?

First of all my comment to you was not about Sarah Sanders having a few meals, it was more about a point in time we obviously are not currently. We are pitted against one another because of ideology and because it enables others to profit from our confusion. Forget Tom, your a liberal because you were born and bred to be one. The same can be said about Tom born and bred to be catholic, like till the day he dies right? Some things are not meant for change when you really understand the underpinnings. You say Barack Obama and I say Donald Trump, you say he was the best and I say by any measure he did not love this country. The truth is that he was a globalist and because of that it precluded doing for our nation but instead did for the world. One can say Obama's friends lost big money after Trump was elected, and conversely Trumps friends made big money shortly after he was elected. Check it out Soros/Icahn just weeks after Presidential election.

You want to have a little fun I say go for it, you think deeper here we will be around.

[davew]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I didn't say that. I've explained a few of the reasons why the baker would refuse.

Permit me to turn your question around and pour it on your head: Do you think the baker refused service on the grounds of the SC ruling?

The artist just refused to adorn a wedding cake for them and was willing to supply other things.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I didn't say that. I've explained a few of the reasons why the baker would refuse.

Permit me to turn your question around and pour it on your head: Do you think the baker refused service on the grounds of the SC ruling?

Whatever the reason was that led the baker to refuse service to the gay customers...it was still "bad business", IMO. Going into business is a very risky endeavor...and the risk multiplies further when you bring religious or political proclivities into your operation. I don't care if it's a Greek refusing a Turk, an Arab refusing a Jew, a Christian refusing a gay...or a liberal refusing Sarah Sanders; even if the refusing businessman has a "moral" leg to stand on...he is still committing a grave business error, which can easily cost him his business life.

If a person feels that his religious or political affiliations influence his business judgement, then he should perhaps avoid going into business to begin with...because running a business is hard enough in today's economic climate. The venture certainly doesn't need any further complications.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by fast4522

First of all my comment to you was not about Sarah Sanders having a few meals, it was more about a point in time we obviously are not currently. We are pitted against one another because of ideology and because it enables others to profit from our confusion. Forget Tom, your a liberal because you were born and bred to be one. The same can be said about Tom born and bred to be catholic, like till the day he dies right? Some things are not meant for change when you really understand the underpinnings. You say Barack Obama and I say Donald Trump, you say he was the best and I say by any measure he did not love this country. The truth is that he was a globalist and because of that it precluded doing for our nation but instead did for the world. One can say Obama's friends lost big money after Trump was elected, and conversely Trumps friends made big money shortly after he was elected. Check it out Soros/Icahn just weeks after Presidential election.

You want to have a little fun I say go for it, you think deeper here we will be around.

If we are indeed pitted against one another because "others profit by our confusion"...then, why should we continue doing it? We KNOW that we are being used for the benefit of "others"...but we still persist in our "confusion"? Why don't we just wise up...and tell those "others" to go FVCK THEMSELVES?

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If we are indeed pitted against one another because "others profit by our confusion"...then, why should we continue doing it? We KNOW that we are being used for the benefit of "others"...but we still persist in our "confusion"? Why don't we just wise up...and tell those "others" to go FVCK THEMSELVES?

Gus, you do what you have to.

[delayjf]

Whack-a-doddle Maxine Waters is calling for Dems to harass any and all Trump Administrators in a similar manner. I think Rush is right, somebody's going to get killed.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by delayjf

I think Rush is right, somebody's going to get killed.

Nothing like a voice of reason......El Rushbo

How is that likely to happen anyway?

[davew]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Nothing like a voice of reason......El Rushbo

How is that likely to happen anyway?

Some crackpot will run with his gun and shoot a group of Republicans.


I would take El Rushbo over Maximum drama queen Waters anytime for voice of reason.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Nothing like a voice of reason......El Rushbo

How is that likely to happen anyway?

Ask Steve Scalise

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Ask Steve Scalise

Scalise had it coming. Just ask h4c. He'll tell you.