No one here is asking for open borders which means, such an argument is nothing but a straw man.

It is also fully possible for a president to be a clueless idiot. They are human after all.

The Trump machine is now accusing the Red Hen owner of stalking Sanders and ratcheting up the hatred against her. Mike Huckabee in particular is out for revenge. This is legitimate outrage in reverse, those who literally run the entire country trying to mobilize violence against a small business owner in order to scare others into not taking the same stand. :vomit:

https://www.rightjournalism.com/mike-huckabee-hen-owner-stalked-sanders-to-restaurant-to-continue-harassment-video/

This is legitimate outrage in reverse, those who literally run the entire country trying to mobilize violence against a small business owner in order to scare others into not taking the same stand — Baden

I did not see a Huckabee quote showing he wants to "mobilize violence against a small business owner".

Could you give me specific directions to this supposed statement?

And do you agree with the stand the restaurant took against Sanders?

Could you give me specific directions to this supposed statement? — raza

I didn't say he stated that. If I wanted to say that I would have said it. You can intend to do something without stating that you intend to do it. So, obviously he's not going to brazenly state that he wants the administration's supporters to violently intimidate the restaurant owner, but clearly if he makes inflammatory claims and continues to ratchet up the rhetoric that will be the result. I'm sure you're not naive enough to think he doesn't know that. The restaurant has already been attacked by the way. A protester has been arrested after throwing manure at it, which in itself is not so serious, but I doubt it's going to end there given the continuing intimidation.

And do you agree with the stand the restaurant took against Sanders? — raza

Yes, I wouldn't expect my staff to serve someone who happily takes a massive salary to lie to Americans, belittle the press, avoid legitimate questions, and spin and defend the indefensible especially concerning the recent border issue, particularly if I had Latino staff. It would be humiliating for them to serve someone like Sanders. And I see it as generally legitimate that those who are complicit in this administration's bad behaviour be publicly ostracized. Again, as with Roseanne, these are rich elites with every advantage. This kind of protest hurts them far less than they hurt the public sphere with their behaviour. It's the least that can be done.

So, do you support the administration's concerted attack on this small business owner?

I'd add that Sanders was refused because of her behaviour, not because she's white, not because she's a Republican etc. And as with the Roseanne case, I think it sends exactly the right message.

The restaurant has already been attacked by the way. A protester has already been arrested after throwing manure at it, which in itself is not so serious but I doubt it's going to end there given the continuing intimidation — Baden

Good that he protester got arrested. Personal responsibility, and all that.

I didn't say he stated that. If I wanted to say that I would have said it. You can intend to do something without stating that you intend to do it — Baden

So yeah, Huckabee he did not say that. He also did not obviously "intend" to do what he did not say.

So, do you support the administration's concerted attack on this small business owner? — Baden

I support their right to complain.

So if you support rejecting customers who have different political positions to the restaurant staff and/or owner do you therefore support a right for a Christian baker not to bake a gay wedding cake?

So yeah, Huckabee he did not say that. He also did not obviously "intend" to do what he did not say. — raza

And I say if you think he's not aware of the effect of his words, you are extremely naive about the nature of politicians. Maybe you just have a rosier view of them than me. That's your prerogative.

So if you support rejecting customers who have different political positions to the restaurant staff and/or owner do you therefore support a right for a Christian baker not to bake a gay wedding cake? — raza

I'd add that Sanders was refused because of her behaviour, not because she's white, not because she's a Republican etc. — Baden

I support rejecting customers on the basis of despicable behaviour of the type Sanders carries out as Press Secretary, and my support particularly concerns members of the elite. A regular couple who are gay or having a gay wedding obviously doesn't fall into that category. Having said that, I'm not sure there's much point in legally forcing Christian bakers to write messages on cakes that go against their conscience unless that would mean widespread unavailability of services to those affected. I would probably prefer that they be boycotted or the gay couple just move on to the next baker. It's a gray area for me at that level.

I support their right to complain. — raza

Actually, Sanders violated 5 CFR 2635.702 by complaining on her official Press Secretary account.

So if you support rejecting customers who have different political positions to the restaurant staff and/or owner do you therefore support a right for a Christian baker not to bake a gay wedding cake? — raza

None of this follows from the specifics of the Red Hen "incident" (which I use here very loosely). The owners of the Red Hen asked Sanders to leave because of the role she plays in the Trump Administration. She was not asked to leave because she is a Republican or a Conservative (I imagine the Red Hen, given its location in Virginia, serves a far amount of Republicans/Conservatives). This has nothing to do with mere "political positions". Sarah Sanders is an individual, not a member of a minority class, and this is not analogous to a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, on the basis of it being a gay wedding.

That said, this whole issue is a non-story. A powerful, wealthy, public facing woman, who works for an administration that separates families, was denied food at a restaurant. Boo-hoo. No one should care.

So if you support rejecting customers who have different political positions to the restaurant staff and/or owner do you therefore support a right for a Christian baker not to bake a gay wedding cake? — raza

While I agree that people should not be rejected as customers based on their political ideology, it's not clear that Sanders was refused for being a Republican or holding conservative views, or something similar, in this case. It seems she was refused resulting from her personal choice to work for the Trump administration and help carry out and defend what many perceive as unjust and illegal policies. This is on a different basis entirely than discriminating based on a person's sexual orientation.

And I say if you think he's not aware of the effect of his words, you are extremely naive about the nature of politicians. Maybe you just have a rosier view of them than me. That's your prerogative. — Baden

Personal responsibility as to how one sees his words. The "effect" of his words could be such that people are even more persuaded to vote against those other politicians who advocate, like Maxine Waters, to harass administration officials whilst they eat at restaurants.

So yeah, Huckabee is just doing what a political type does.

It's a gray area for me at that level. — Baden

It is hardly a grey area, surely.

Prior to the civil rights protests of the 50's white business people were enforced legally to not serve black people.

Of course many wanted to serve black customers.

So to my mind it shows how dangerous it is to grant government the power to tell private business owners who they should serve and who they should not serve.

Actually, Sanders violated 5 CFR 2635.702 by complaining on her official Press Secretary Account. — Maw

This maybe true. I suppose it could be looked into and judged accordingly. By the way, she didn't complain in her tweet but rather described what actually took place.

It has been others, such as her father, that complained of the treatment.

It is hardly a grey area, surely. — raza

Maybe things are simpler for you because you have a tendency to conflate and ignore nuance. Sanders was refused on the basis of her behaviour not her group. No issue concerning discrimination. A person who doesn't want to write on a gay wedding cake may object due to their religious beliefs and there is an issue concerning discrimination but it's muddied by the fact that they may still want to serve gay customers but feel uncomfortable exclusively about the institution of gay marriage. Someone who refuses someone on the basis of their race is a racist and definitely engaging in discrimination, which shouldn't be allowed.

Prior to the civil rights protests of the 50's white business people were enforced legally to not serve black people.

Of course many wanted to serve black customers. — raza

Pointing out that discrimination used to be embedded in law is about the worst argument you could possibly make for having anti-discrimination not embedded in law.

That said, this whole issue is a non-story. A powerful, wealthy, public facing woman, who works for an administration that separates families, was denied food at a restaurant. Boo-hoo. No one should care — Maw

I don't actually care either. I agree with the progress of the civil rights movement to get government out of the way of private business's approach to their own customers where no violence is implicated or carried out.

If the Red Hen won't serve anybody they don't like then they should not have to be forced to. But the consequence can still be that their stance could be broadcast.

And anyway, after all, they probably wanted their stance broadcasted in order to show their non-support of Trump. Correct?

Pointing out that discrimination used to be embedded in law is about the worst argument you could possibly make for having anti-discrimination not embedded in law. — Baden

You just agreed with me about the gay wedding cake. You're all over the place, bro.

Quote me where I contradicted myself then. What I said above is a criticism of your argument not an expression of mine. I explained my position very clearly. This is just bad reading comprehension.

Maybe things are simpler for you because you have a tendency to conflate and ignore nuance. Sanders was refused on the basis of her behaviour not her group. No issue concerning discrimination. A person who doesn't want to write on a gay wedding cake may object due to their religious beliefs and there is an issue concerning discrimination but it's muddied by the fact that they may still want to serve gay customers but feel uncomfortable exclusively about the institution of gay marriage. Someone who refuses someone on the basis of their race is a racist and definitely engaging in discrimination, which shouldn't be allowed. — Baden

You cannot make having racist views a criminal offense. This is why government should not be granted more power than necessary in order to keep it's propensity for tyranny restrained.

You cannot make having racist views a criminal offense. — raza

No, but you can make racist actions, like refusing to hire someone because they're black or they're a woman, a criminal and / or civil offense. And we do do that in every developed country. But are you saying it's tyrannical to not allow businesses to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their race, gender, nationality etc? Do you think we would have a more harmonious and better society where it was legally acceptable for corporations to only hire white males, for example? If this is the case, then what you are really doing here is using the strawman of a tyrannical government to encourage a tyranny of business, which most likely would hurt the most vulnerable and cause massive social unrest. Why would you want that? Is it because of some misguided notion of "Freedom"? Or are you saying something more nuanced?

Quote me where I contradicted myself then. What I said above is a criticism of your argument not an expression of mine. I explained my position very clearly. This is just bad reading comprehension. — Baden

You agreed law should be kept out of a private person's, including the operation of their private business, right to discriminate as to who to serve as customers.

The "customers", in the gay wedding cake case, is the specific customer of which desired a gay wedding cake.

A gay person who just, say, wants a birthday cake, is a completely different customer to that of a person wanting a gay wedding cake.

The Christian baker merely has a discriminatory and different view than you, or me for that matter.

The Red Hen owner had a different view to Sanders. The Red Hen owner had a discriminatory view of Sanders.

This is all fine by me.

And it gets publicized with which other people have opinions and with which they may take such opinions to the ballot box.

All the while THE LAW keeps it's potentially tyrannical hands off of it, just as it should have prior to the civil rights era.

You agreed law should be kept out of a private person's, including the operation of their private business, right to discriminate as to who to serve as customers. — raza

No, I didn't. I made some important distinctions and qualifications (including using words such as "gray area" "probably" and most importantly pointing out what I considered to be discrimination and not to be discrimination. You are just not reading my posts carefully enough.

E.g. Most obviously...

Someone who refuses someone on the basis of their race is a racist and definitely engaging in discrimination, which shouldn't be allowed. — Baden

But are you saying it's tyrannical to not allow businesses to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their race, gender, nationality etc? — Baden

It would have to be quite provable, otherwise it is tyrannical. Beyond all doubt. Competence over race.

THE LAW — raza

Like this?



Weren't you earlier defending the law's tyranny against illegal immigrants though?

It would have to be quite provable, otherwise it is tyrannical. Beyond all doubt. Competence over race. — raza

What would have to be provable? That they were discriminating? Isn't that how things stand?

Someone who refuses someone on the basis of their race is a racist and definitely engaging in discrimination, which shouldn't be allowed. — Baden

We should be free to discriminate for any reason we choose.

We are therefore more encouraged to be honest.

If we are more honest then we a more out of the closet.

If we are more out of the closet, we are less suppressed.

The more suppressed we feel the more we are likely to oppress others.

The more honest about how and why we think and feel about things means we are more likely to face what others think and feel about those things.

I say let the true racists reveal themselves. Allow them that freedom.

Otherwise they will more likely perform horrible deeds as a closet racist pretending not to be.

Engage them by welcoming them into conversation. They may change their mind at some point.

If they don't, who cares?

Ironically (maybe), this is apparently the sign in the window of The Red Hen:

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend"

Do you think this philosophy was in play when they addressed Sarah Sanders?

Of course many wanted to serve black customers. — raza

I agree with the progress of the civil rights movement to get government out of the way of private business's approach to their own customers — raza

lol no dude.

Engage them by welcoming them into conversation. They may change their mind at some point.

If they don't, who cares? — raza

People who don't like racism...

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend"

Do you think this philosophy was in play when they addressed Sarah Sanders? — raza

I hope not.

Anyway, thank you for the poem.

Weren't you earlier defending the law's tyranny against illegal immigrants though? — Baden

Constitutional law. It is not under constitutional law to make a Christian baker not discriminate against a customer who wants from them a gay wedding cake.

And it is not "tyranny against immigrants".

The border defines the boundary which defines the country.

To start with, immigrants have immigrated via immigration protocols. Protocols of a country of which those who are not said immigrants are not citizens of that very same country.

Maybe you do not know what country you live in.