Restaurant refuses service to Huckabee Sanders

[tango]

Black Americans were free to go to a different restaurant after being asked to leave. We correctly called it an injustice.
The argument that Huckabee is free to go elsewhere is bogus and avoids the obvious discrimination of the owner toward specific customers she doesn't want to serve.

I'd still find it distasteful for a customer to be turned away. That said I also believe that a business owner should have the right to serve, or not serve, anyone they choose.

If we want to allow the Christian baker to decline service to the gay couple wanting a cake for their wedding we also need to be open to other businesses wanting to decline service to customers based on other criteria.

 

[MennoSota]

I'd still find it distasteful for a customer to be turned away. That said I also believe that a business owner should have the right to serve, or not serve, anyone they choose.

If we want to allow the Christian baker to decline service to the gay couple wanting a cake for their wedding we also need to be open to other businesses wanting to decline service to customers based on other criteria.

This is the slippery slope. Can the restaurant owner claim a right to deny services based upon freedom of religion and artistic freedom of speech as the baker argued?
It feeds back to the article and quote I provided when politics become your religion.

 

[davedajobauk]

Good question

Deserves a forthright answer :thumbsup:

'Unfortunate witness' ?

While such a big-deal is being made of the interaction between two people
attention is being DISTRACTED from much more-important business
to wit, the abduction and concealment of young children from their parents

The parents are Mexican and so-much MORE 'AMERICAN' than many 'resident' in the USA

This interaction between TWO PEOPLE _ was settled
at the door of the restaurant _but for those other commentaries from the uninvolved

Courtesy, is almost-dead in America it-seems
and yes, "discrimination, of people, 'of colour' " has nothing to do with this matter
save for the word DISCRIMINATION
which, while not mentioned_ is the treatment
that Mexicans know only too-well
from certain people :scratch: NORTH, OF THE BORDER

Look, if a neighbour of mine had abducted kids from their parents
and when asked to explain, simply grinned at me
He would be ejected from my neighbourhood
AND become added to the Child Offenders Register

We have not been talking about DECENT PEACE-LOVING PEOPLE

If you 'play with fire', then you are likely to get burnt
and (perhaps) deservedly-so

If she were my daughter, I would disown her
she is old enough to know better_ and please DON'T imply
that she is a Christian ... We all know- BETTER
You cannot harvest 'good-fruit' from a bad tree


dave

 

[davedajobauk]

I'd still find it distasteful for a customer to be turned away. That said I also believe that a business owner should have the right to serve, or not serve, anyone they choose.

If we want to allow the Christian baker to decline service to the gay couple wanting a cake for their wedding we also need to be open to other businesses wanting to decline service to customers based on other criteria.

Absolutely AGREE

 

[tango]

This is the slippery slope. Can the restaurant owner claim a right to deny services based upon freedom of religion and artistic freedom of speech as the baker argued?
It feeds back to the article and quote I provided when politics become your religion.

If politics become your religion then live accordingly. The baker who declined to make the cake to celebrate a gay wedding chooses to worship Yahweh and does not wish to do anything he believes will dishonor Yahweh - if someone else chooses to worship Kim Kardashian and does not wish to do anything they believe will dishonor Kim what's the difference? We might think it's silly but people who do not share our faith consider us silly for our choice to worship.

Why is it OK to say "my religious beliefs do not allow me to...." but not OK to say "my political beliefs do not allow me to..."?

 

[tango]

Good question

Deserves a forthright answer :thumbsup:

'Unfortunate witness' ?

While such a big-deal is being made of the interaction between two people
attention is being DISTRACTED from much more-important business
to wit, the abduction and concealment of young children from their parents

The parents are Mexican and so-much MORE 'AMERICAN' than many 'resident' in the USA

This interaction between TWO PEOPLE _ was settled
at the door of the restaurant _but for those other commentaries from the uninvolved

Courtesy, is almost-dead in America it-seems
and yes, "discrimination, of people, 'of colour' " has nothing to do with this matter
save for the word DISCRIMINATION
which, while not mentioned_ is the treatment
that Mexicans know only too-well
from certain people :scratch: NORTH, OF THE BORDER

Look, if a neighbour of mine had abducted kids from their parents
and when asked to explain, simply grinned at me
He would be ejected from my neighbourhood
AND become added to the Child Offenders Register

We have not been talking about DECENT PEACE-LOVING PEOPLE

If you 'play with fire', then you are likely to get burnt
and (perhaps) deservedly-so

If she were my daughter, I would disown her
she is old enough to know better_ and please DON'T imply
that she is a Christian ... We all know- BETTER
You cannot harvest 'good-fruit' from a bad tree


dave

Huh? You say it deserves a forthright answer and then go off on something totally unrelated?

 

[davedajobauk]

This is the slippery slope. Can the restaurant owner claim a right to deny services based upon freedom of religion and artistic freedom of speech as the baker argued?
It feeds back to the article and quote I provided when politics become your religion.

Can the restaurant owner claim a right to deny services

First I have heard re: the baker claiming "artistic freedom of speech as the baker argued?"



There you go-again (as I have noticed you so-often have done
ie: TWISTING THE FACTS to support 'your argument'

You deny her the right to-choose [to her choice] as to whom [is welcome]

GET THIS RIGHT :thumbsup:

She was not denied service, she was NOT-CHARGED for cheeseboards
She was asked to leave ~ JUST THAT ! [verbatim]
No excess banter, quiet voices, and she left

What transpired afterwards, was-initiated ~by Huckleberry's tweet

I note that you pass NO-COMMENT on that behaviour of Huckleberry's
She WAS 'winding-up the boys' for-action and of that I have no doubt

Trump's suggestion that it could "USE A COAT OF PAINT"
could also be referred to, as instigation, should the supporters, then make a mess of the site

I see you keenly making a storm in a teacup ~with these little-matters
which as I said should, have ended at the door on the way out
But the big matters
those that affects many hundreds of lives, south of the border [desert]
you have no-interest or, apparent empathy-with

True Colours ?

 

[davedajobauk]

Huh? You say it deserves a forthright answer and then go off on something totally unrelated?

Your duplicitous retorts are intended to fuel friction
Your intractable replies, are always contentious, and such that you will not see the points made

You are BLOCKED

dave

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is the slippery slope. Can the restaurant owner claim a right to deny services based upon freedom of religion and artistic freedom of speech as the baker argued?
It feeds back to the article and quote I provided when politics become your religion.

Interesting isn't it how a baker wins a case allowing discrimination based on a morals issue (he didn't want to spend his artistic efforts on gay couples to make a wedding cake for them) and The Red Hen owner and staff didn't want to spend their artistic efforts feeding Sara Sanders and her friends on a morals issue because they were uncomfortable with a "Trumpist" spokes person who excuses separating parents and children for entering the USA without valid entry papers. Maybe it is as you suggest "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

 

[tango]

Your duplicitous retorts are intended to fuel friction
Your intractable replies, are always contentious, and such that you will not see the points made

You are BLOCKED

dave

Wow.

 

[tango]

Interesting isn't it how a baker wins a case allowing discrimination based on a morals issue (he didn't want to spend his artistic efforts on gay couples to make a wedding cake for them) and The Red Hen owner and staff didn't want to spend their artistic efforts feeding Sara Sanders and her friends on a morals issue because they were uncomfortable with a "Trumpist" spokes person who excuses separating parents and children for entering the USA without valid entry papers. Maybe it is as you suggest "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

This doesn't need to become a Trump bash, it's not as if children weren't abused before Trump took office.

The underlying issue is essentially whether a business has the right to refuse to service a would-be customer or not, and if so whether there are any restrictions on what reasons the business may use to refuse service.

If we are allowed to refuse to serve someone based on a religious objection, why not a political objection? The trouble is that the fringes of both sides see one as justified and the other as unjustified. You can't allow the baker to refuse to serve the gay couple based on religious objection and not allow the restaurant owner to refuse to serve the politician based on political objection, and you can't allow the restaurant owner to refuse service based on political objection while not allowing the baker to refuse service based on religious objection.

 

[Albion]

She was not denied service, she was NOT-CHARGED for cheeseboards
She was asked to leave ~ JUST THAT ! [verbatim]
No excess banter, quiet voices, and she left

Yep, it looks like you got the restaurant owners story down pat, all right. The second version she came up with, that is.

In the third one, she is probably going to say that Sanders attacked HER and she started begging for her life, etc., etc. etc. etc.

 

[MennoSota]

Why is it OK to say "my religious beliefs do not allow me to...." but not OK to say "my political beliefs do not allow me to..."?

Good question. Is it OK? Can we run a public service business and discriminate against whom we will serve? The standard answer is...no. If there are exceptions, what are those exceptions?

 

[MennoSota]

Wow.

Indeed. I choose not to respond to irrational posters who cannot stay on topic.

 

[MennoSota]

This doesn't need to become a Trump bash, it's not as if children weren't abused before Trump took office.

The underlying issue is essentially whether a business has the right to refuse to service a would-be customer or not, and if so whether there are any restrictions on what reasons the business may use to refuse service.

If we are allowed to refuse to serve someone based on a religious objection, why not a political objection? The trouble is that the fringes of both sides see one as justified and the other as unjustified. You can't allow the baker to refuse to serve the gay couple based on religious objection and not allow the restaurant owner to refuse to serve the politician based on political objection, and you can't allow the restaurant owner to refuse service based on political objection while not allowing the baker to refuse service based on religious objection.

First, I agree.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, the baker was willing to bake the cake and decorate, but couldn't in good conscience write a congratulatory statement for the wedding. He then provided other places that he suggested would write what they wanted.
In that situation, the issue was the message being required, not outright refusal to provide service. But, perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[psalms 91]

First, I agree.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, the baker was willing to bake the cake and decorate, but couldn't in good conscience write a congratulatory statement for the wedding. He then provided other places that he suggested would write what they wanted.
In that situation, the issue was the message being required, not outright refusal to provide service. But, perhaps I am mistaken.

Nope you got it

 

[Albion]

This doesn't need to become a Trump bash, it's not as if children weren't abused before Trump took office..

Actually, it appears that EVERY charge made against Trump during the recent immigration flap has turned out to be something that Obama had done before Trump--holding children in separate quarters, deporting illegal immigrants, putting people in cages, and more. All had been done by Obama with nary a word from the usual protesters.

 

[davedajobauk]

Yep, it looks like you got the restaurant owners story down pat, all right. The second version she came up with, that is.

In the third one, she is probably going to say that Sanders attacked HER and she started begging for her life, etc., etc. etc. etc.

It was Huckleberry that began the 'stink'

As I said, it should have ended at the door, but Huckleberry lit the fuse
and sent smoke signals to all and sundry (Tweet to-followers)
~I mean who-else would see her tweet

"sour grapes"
and Trump, the King, (of grabbing P...) with Huckleberry (his pawn)
must most-certainly be-seen as ROOT CAUSE
for his pawn, being considerably disliked by those whom did not vote for-him

This 'press secretary' can pull some really-disgusting sneers
following receipt of, SENSITIVE QUESTIONING from journalists

If others, do not see evasive-responses from Huckleberry
they will be CONNED [lied-to ~by proxy]

dave

 

[tango]

Good question. Is it OK? Can we run a public service business and discriminate against whom we will serve? The standard answer is...no. If there are exceptions, what are those exceptions?

That's the key question. Personally I think we should able to refuse service to anyone based on whatever criteria we choose. My only stipulations would be that decisions be made at company level rather than individual level (or, at a push, branch level), and that they be clearly posted on external doors.

For the sake of an example, if Wal-Mart decided they didn't want to serve fat people I believe they should be free to do so but should be required to clearly post their restrictions, so that a fat person wouldn't go into the store, gather up their shopping, only to be refused service at the checkout because they were fat. It would need to be at branch level or higher so you didn't end up in a situation where you gathered up your shopping only to find that checkout 1 wouldn't serve you because you were black, checkout 2 wouldn't serve you because you were buying alcohol and they were opposed to alcohol, checkout 3 wouldn't serve you because you were buying beef and they were Hindu, checkout 4 wouldn't serve you because you were buying pork and they were Muslim and checkout 5 wouldn't serve you because you were fat.

Maybe it would make sense for private companies, sole traders etc to be allowed to decline customers but publicly traded companies be required to serve anyone. Either way I think that if you're doing business as a self-employed trader you should be allowed to take a commission or decline it based on whatever criteria you choose. Personally I don't see making and decorating a cake to represent moral approval of an event but clearly the baker who refused the gay couple has a different view.

 

[tango]

First, I agree.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, the baker was willing to bake the cake and decorate, but couldn't in good conscience write a congratulatory statement for the wedding. He then provided other places that he suggested would write what they wanted.
In that situation, the issue was the message being required, not outright refusal to provide service. But, perhaps I am mistaken.

I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to the issue.

If a baker refuses to make a cake, or makes a cake but refuses to decorate it, or decorates it in every respect other than writing "Congratulations" on the cake, the key theme underlying every one of those situations is that he is declining to do something that a paying customer is requesting. If he is allowed to refuse to write "Congratulations" on the cake, why should he have to make the cake at all? If he is not allowed to refuse to write "Congratulations" on the cake, should he be required to make a cake with "Lucifer is Lord" on it or other anti-Christian sentiment?