Sarah ❄ Sanders to receive Secret Service protection

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

double standards confirmed only libtards are allowed to be bigoted

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

The thing is, that's true!  

 

We are bigoted against, specifically, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, due to who she is, what she's done, who she represents, etc. 

 

That's totally the same thing as refusing service to all gay people because they are gay! Totally the same thing GUYS.

 

Being bigoted against one person and being bigoted against an entire group = SAME THING GUYS. 

 

That is an inaccurate assement of the Masterpiece situation, and it’s actually very much like refusing Sanders service over her political beliefs.

 

Masterpiece served homosexual customers regularly, including the couple to whom they eventually refused service. Masterpiece took issue with a political stance (that the government should sanction same sex marriages) and refused service on that basis.

 

Red Hen did the same thing, refusing service as a matter of political principle.

 

The difference boils down to your view of the righteousness of the political views at play as well as the relative status and power of the aggreived parties (press secretary for White House vs. couple of average joes).

[Kamusha]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

That is an inaccurate assement of the Masterpiece situation, and it’s actually very much like refusing Sanders service over her political beliefs.

 

Masterpiece served homosexual customers regularly, including the couple to whom they eventually refused service. Masterpiece took issue with a political stance (that the government should sanction same sex marriages) and refused service on that basis.

 

Red Hen did the same thing, refusing service as a matter of political principle.

 

The difference boils down to your view of the righteousness of the political views at play as well as the relative status and power of the aggreived parties (press secretary for White House vs. couple of average joes).

 

Do you think he would have served them if they were having a non-legally binding commitment ceremony? Or is it only because the government was involved?

 

It’s not political, it’s bigotry.

 

It’s frankly disheartening you are comparing my relationship to the evils of the Trump administration.

[Greatoneshere]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That is an inaccurate assement of the Masterpiece situation, and it’s actually very much like refusing Sanders service over her political beliefs.

 

Masterpiece served homosexual customers regularly, including the couple to whom they eventually refused service. Masterpiece took issue with a political stance (that the government should sanction same sex marriages) and refused service on that basis.

 

Red Hen did the same thing, refusing service as a matter of political principle.

 

The difference boils down to your view of the righteousness of the political views at play as well as the relative status and power of the aggreived parties (press secretary for White House vs. couple of average joes).

 

Right, but the difference being that the refusal was based on a problem with the type of person the gay couple actually were rather than about anything with them specifically as Bob or Ed (in terms of their specific personalities, etc.). It may have been a stance against the government, but the net effect is bigotry towards a group of people. 

 

The net effect in Sarah Huckabee Sanders' situation is the protest was political in nature directed directly at the specific person that is, in part, responsible for what is causing their protest in the first place. It is aimed at her and only her. 

 

Group of people (gay people) vs. individual (Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically). Private people (random gay couple) vs. public figure (senior White House official / press secretary). 

 

That difference between generally and specifically is very important, even if both beliefs are political in nature. How it is aimed and who it is aimed at matters, which is why libel and slander laws (as a for instance) differentiate between private and public figures. I'm happy to discuss more if I'm truly misunderstanding something.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Komusha said:

 

Do you think he would have served them if they were having a non-legally binding commitment ceremony? Or is it only because the government was involved?

 

It’s not political, it’s bigotry.

 

It was pretty clearly in response to the legalization of same sexual marriage. They wanted a wedding cake. If a straight person came in and wanted to order a wedding cake with two grooms as the topper, they wouldn’t have made it.

 

If the last 2(00 :p) years haven’t made it clear, bigotry and politics aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

It is aimed at her and only her. 

 

Agree to disagree. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Agree to disagree. 

 

If you want to leave it at that, I'm happy to, but I'm not sure how you can "agree to disagree" when the person who asked Sanders to leave had gathered the entire staff and had a vote beforehand and the premise of asking her to leave was because she was Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically (she got recognized by staff when she came into th restauarant), mouth piece of separating children from their parents (among many other evils). 

 

I think their intent makes it pretty clear who it was aimed at, no?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

If you want to leave it at that, I'm happy to, but I'm not sure how you can "agree to disagree" when the person who asked Sanders to leave had gathered the entire staff and had a vote beforehand and the premise of asking her to leave was because she was Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically (she got recognized by staff when she came into th restauarant), mouth piece of separating children from their parents (among many other evils). 

 

I think their intent makes it pretty clear who it was aimed at, no?

 

They would have done the same if any of the other Trump folks came in. It wasn’t Sanders specific. 

[Greatoneshere]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

They would have done the same if any of the other Trump folks came in. It wasn’t Sanders specific. 

 

Right, it's specific to the public figures in the White House Trump administration. I agree. I'm saying that still makes it facially different than the gay couple case.

 

Politicians and public government officials are not a protected class like gay people are and it isn't bigotry to refuse an individual part of the Trump administration specifically whereas it is bigotry to do it to a specific gay couple because they happen to be gay generally. That's the legal (and moral) distinction I'm drawing. 

[Guest]

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

The restaurant serves conservatives. Even if they turned down other people in the Trump admin, it's still not the same. 

[Jason]

BTW Komusha's use of the guillotine here is the case-in-point of why we shouldn't have made it a +1 @SFLUFAN.

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

Fair enough. 

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The restaurant serves conservatives. Even if they turned down other people in the Trump admin, it's still not the same. 

 

Exactly. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'm going to side with @sblfilms in this particular debate.

 

The fact fact of the matter is that there were "political acts" involved in both cases, though in the case of one there was more likely an underlying sense of anti-homosexual bigotry.  

 

In regard to the equivalence of a relationship of any sort (heterosexual/homosexual/familial/etc.) to the inhumanity of the Imbecile-in-Chief's administration, I'm going to stake out the radical position that they are both expressions of "politics".  A relationship is an expression of cultural norms and values which are invariably shaped by "politics" in the broadest sense of the word.  The fact that "love" is involved doesn't change the notion that a society's norms and values shape how that particular physiological/psychological motivation is expressed.  The act of loving someone is therefore inherently "political".

[Kamusha]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

BTW Komusha's use of the guillotine here is the case-in-point of why we shouldn't have made it a +1 @SFLUFAN.

 

I wasn’t being serious. If you guys were serious everytime you used guillotine then this whole board should be monitored by the FBI.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Komusha said:

 

I wasn’t being serious. If you guys were serious everytime you used guillotine then this whole board should be monitored by the FBI.

What he means is that I changed to the guillotine to give a +1 reputation point

[Kamusha]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

What he means is that I changed to the guillotine to give a +1 reputation point :P

 

Ah, I gotcha.

 

Maybe I deserve the .

[Greatoneshere]

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'm going to side with @sblfilms in this particular debate.

 

The fact fact of the matter is that there were "political acts" involved in both cases, though in the case of one there was more likely an underlying sense of anti-homosexual bigotry.  

 

In regard to the equivalence of a relationship of any sort (heterosexual/homosexual/familial/etc.) to the inhumanity of the Imbecile-in-Chief's administration, I'm going to stake out the radical position that they are both expressions of "politics".  A relationship is an expression of cultural norms and values which are invariably shaped by "politics" in the broadest sense of the word.  The fact that "love" is involved doesn't change the notion that a society's norms and values shape how that particular physiological/psychological motivation is expressed.  The act of loving someone is therefore inherently "political".

 

I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that distinction. Both expressions are political, but as I explained (as well as CastlevaniaNut), there's a difference between refusing service based on who you are as part of a group you are refusing rather than refusing service to you because of who you are specifically in terms of a political public figure. 

 

It has nothing to do with love. The baker refuses all homosexuality, which is bigotry. The Red Hen serves conservatives and Trump voters, just not Sarah Huckabee Sanders. One is bigotry, which is illegal, and one isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's a clear difference regardless of both being of a political nature.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that distinction. Both expressions are political, but as I explained (as well as CastlevaniaNut), there's a difference between refusing service based on who you are as part of a group you are refusing rather than refusing service to you because of who you are specifically in terms of a political public figure. 

 

It has nothing to do with love. The baker refuses all homosexuality, which is bigotry. The Red Hen serves conservatives and Trump voters, just not Sarah Huckabee Sanders. One is bigotry, which is illegal, and one isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's a clear difference regardless of both being of a political nature.

Did the baker refuse service to homosexual customers previously on the basis that they were homosexual?

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The restaurant serves conservatives. Even if they turned down other people in the Trump admin, it's still not the same. 

 

10 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

The baker refuses all homosexuality, which is bigotry. 

 

The cake shop serves homosexuals, including previously the couple they wouldn’t make the wedding cake for.

[Kamusha]

I serve black people but don’t support them marrying white people.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, Komusha said:

I serve black people but don’t support them marrying white people.

Gotta split those hairs.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Gotta split those hairs.

It’s not splitting hairs, it’s saying things that are accurate and true.

 

Saying a place doesn’t serve all gay people is inaccurate when they matter of factly do the opposite. They literally had sold cakes to the same gentlemen before the events in this particular case.

 

17 minutes ago, Komusha said:

I serve black people but don’t support them marrying white people.

Ok?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

They were denied a routine service based on who they were. If the state commission hadn't been so outwardly hostile to the bigot's religious beliefs, the case would have gone in favor of the couple. 

 

So, no, I disagree with your stance. 

[Kamusha]

Saying that gay people shouldn’t marry is to support their status as second class citizens. The very position itself is discriminatory against gay people. If one didn’t think less of gay people they wouldn’t hold that position.

[Greatoneshere]

41 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Did the baker refuse service to homosexual customers previously on the basis that they were homosexual?

 

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The cake shop serves homosexuals, including previously the couple they wouldn’t make the wedding cake for.

 

It doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a pattern of behavior for it to be bigotry, it's bigotry based on its type-ifying even if it is in one instance, that is, basing the refusal of service on the couples' grouping rather than their specific person that is in a uniquely protected way (as in, if they were public figures, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, and it was based on the politics they push, like Sanders does).

 

One instance is enough for it to be illegal. Sanders is a unique case of political protest in which service refusal is protected. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, Komusha said:

Saying that gay people shouldn’t marry is to support their status as second class citizens. The very position itself is discriminatory against gay people. If one didn’t rhink less of gay people they wouldn’t hold that position.

 

Precisely why it should (and basically is) illegal in the case of gay people, but isn't in the case of Sanders, exactly. 

[Jason]

And let's not act like it's news that there are distinct legal treatments for politicians/government officials and regular private citizens.

[Jason]

Huge difference in terms of what you expect if you live in a free society between not wanting to serve gay people and being able to tell a government official to get out of your restaurant without her using her official account to sic the goon squad on you.

[Greatoneshere]

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

And let's not act like it's news that there are distinct legal treatments for politicians/government officials and regular private citizens.

 

Literally been saying this since my first post.

 

Sanders, and people like her, are unique and thus completely different than any other example. It's our only way to shame our politicians into moral behavior, which is important in a democracy, which is why they are uniquely not protected, to indicate that: "hey, you can't eat here because you rip parents from kids" whereas in totalitarian states, people like Hitler and Goebbels and whoever else could walk into any restaurant and eat wherever they wanted. That's why it's allowed here, to keep them scared, in a way. It's the entire point of non-violent political protest. 

 

It's the same reason that you can yell shame at Kristjen Nielsen too. It's totally legal, and it should remain that way, for the above reasons. The cake one, totally different, and should be illegal, for reasons everyone previously outlined.

 

Like I said, there's a reason the law separates private and public figures when it comes to libel and slander laws (there's even further breakdowns from there within those groups in the law, because it is important to have exceptions like Sanders, where you can refuse them service). 

[Guest]

I’ll say it again, bigotry and politics aren’t mutually exclusive. One can hold explicitly bigoted political beliefs, many were (are?) enshrined in the constitution itself. 

 

13 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

It doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a pattern of behavior for it to be bigotry, it's bigotry based on its type-ifying even if it is in one instance, that is, basing the refusal of service on the couples' grouping rather than their specific person that is in a uniquely protected way (as in, if they were public figures, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, and it was based on the politics they push, like Sanders does).

 

One instance is enough for it to be illegal. Sanders is a unique case of political protest in which service refusal is protected. 

 

You said they refuse service to all gay people, this is factually incorrect. That’s really the only issue I’ve taken with your claims such that the pattern of behavior matters. The rest is simply opinion to which I think we largely agree in one case (Masterpiece Cakes) and disagree in the other (Red Hen).

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I mean, to go back on what Komusha was saying earlier, would it be okay for the baker to serve all black people but refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding?

 

I mean, I'll be honest here, I don't really care about wedding cakes. It's the bigger picture I'm concerned about.

[Kamusha]

 

  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, Komusha said:

 

 

There is an incredible divergence between what Sanders actually said and the tone of the headline of that article.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

They were denied a routine service based on who they were. If the state commission hadn't been so outwardly hostile to the bigot's religious beliefs, the case would have gone in favor of the couple. 

 

So, no, I disagree with your stance. 

Just wait until the case goes back to SCOTUS now. Be prepared for "no homos" signs.