Sarah Sanders kicked out of Virginia Restaurant

[_EAllusion]

The Onion has some useful tips for how to address propagandists for child interment camps in a civil manner in order to maintain the decorum of our pluralistic society.

https://www.theonion.com/tips-for-stayi ... 1827147411

[_EAllusion]

You can't escape the need to have people making sound value judgments about what sorts of activities can and cannot be discriminated against by retreating into the law. The law makes distinctions and the authors and ratifiers of the law have to display sound judgment in the distinctions it makes. We necessarily are forced to rely on people's ability to make sound judgements. Otherwise, you are advocating for simple anarchy where a person has a legal right to be in a private establishment open to the public regardless of their behavior. No one, including you, seriously thinks or wants that.

Exactly the point.

While there are clearly laws in various jurisdictions that do specifically make politics a protected class against which one cannot discriminate, there is precedent against which one would need to make an argument. Demonstrating how discrimination based on political affiliation is justifiable would be a reasonable given the Constitutionality of a discriminatory act has not historically always relied on laws being on the books that are violated. Often they have come as challenges to such laws.

You're not at all making the case that public accommodation laws should include discrimination on the basis of political actions or views, nor are you making the case that failing to do so will lead to collapse of accommodation laws on the basis of other classes, nor are you making the case that such a comprehensive forced accommodation would be a good thing. It is true that my view that businesses should be allowed to deny service on the basis of race is a radical position, but my view that Jews shouldn't be forced by the government to give Nazis massages if they want to remain in business is anything but a radical position. Your slippery slope argument aside, that's your position and you ought to explain why it is a good thing.

[_honorentheos]

Massage parlors aren't listed under establishments where public accommodation is protected in the Civil Rights Act. Eating establishments are. Again. I think you are missing a lot in your argument and it isn't following necessary legal outlines to even begin to make the case you are asserting.

[_EAllusion]

Massage parlors aren't listed under establishments where public accommodation is protected in the Civil Rights Act. Eating establishments are. Again. I think you are missing a lot in your argument and it isn't following necessary legal outlines to even begin to make the case you are asserting.

What the heck happened to your slippery slope argument? Refusing to serve Sanders was legal. Again, it is not illegal. Not even a little bit. You are arguing, philosophically, that if you allow any refusal of service then all exceptions that exist in public accommodations will fall. This isn't an argument about the current state of the law, but how that law will change at some point in the future based on logical commitments. This same approach applies to all services provided by businesses open to the public. It's difficult to tell where you think the slippery slope begins and ends since you've given zero basis to think it exists.

Finally, if you prefer, you can add your desire for government agents to force Jews to serve Nazis calling for their extermination in establishments covered under the Civil Rights Act. This is not a popular view, so you probably shouldn't marshal what would have public sentiment behind it as a point in your favor.

[_honorentheos]

It isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an argument that refusing service based on moral judgments is of a class with other arguments where a person would refuse someone else service where precedent protects the right to public accommodation and equal treatment. I don't think it's going to lead to problems. It's problematic in and of itself. The civility debate is around parties on two sides of an argument over judgment calls on just how bad or culpable Sanders might be. My argument is that both sides of that debate are misguided and the question needs to be answer as to how one could reasonably refuse Sanders service from a position of neutral, equal treatment. I don't see that being reasonably defensible and those on the left who applaud the restaurant are being naïve.

[_EAllusion]

It isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an argument that refusing service based on moral judgments is of a class with other arguments where a person would refuse someone else service where precedent protects the right to public accommodation and equal treatment. I don't think it's going to lead to problems.

If that's your argument, then why bring up that spas aren't covered under the civil rights act? On what basis do you think a spa should be able to refuse service to a Nazi, but not a restaurant? I think you are moving freely between what is the law and what is morally proper without coherence.

[_EAllusion]

If we shun a propagandist defending this by refusing to serve them in a private restaurant, then this will lead to the outcome of ________ because ________ which is bad because ______?

[_honorentheos]

It isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an argument that refusing service based on moral judgments is of a class with other arguments where a person would refuse someone else service where precedent protects the right to public accommodation and equal treatment. I don't think it's going to lead to problems.

If that's your argument, then why bring up that spas aren't covered under the civil rights act? On what basis do you think a spa should be able to refuse service to a Nazi, but not a restaurant? I think you are moving freely between what is the law and what is morally proper without coherence.

The point is that public accommodation laws can't be treated as a bludgeon for enforcing one's personal moral views without undermining the arguments for equal protection. You use examples that aren't within that argument, apparently because you seem very intent on focusing on the emotional moral argument against Sanders as a spokesperson for Trump. Because the Christian whose sincere belief a literal divine all powerful being has sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman is clearly inferior in their judgment, we need not concern ourselves with the quality of the position supporting refusing Sanders service. We merely need to remind one another that she defends an awful person.

That's ridiculous, EA.

[_honorentheos]

If we shun a propagandist defending this by refusing to serve them in a private restaurant, then this will lead to the outcome of ________ because ________ which is bad because ______?

Shunning or otherwise exercising one's right to freedom of expression is not a blanket point in this issue. It's narrowly about the fact the restaurant owner chose to refuse service in an establishment where Sanders had the right to expect normal service afforded to anyone under normal public accommodation.

If we refuse service to a person based on our moral beliefs about them in a place of public accommodation, we undermine the argument that public accommodation is a universal right rather than merely a tool of convenience. It's not a slippery slope as in if we allow this one thing that may be ok it will lead to things that aren't ok. It's just plain not ok.

[_honorentheos]

Yeah, these events are totally the same thing - someone call the hypocrisy police!

“Nothing personal, but I just happen to disagree with the president and the vice president on a few things.’’

That was his reasoning so in that sense it is exactly the same thing. This idiot said he was particularly upset about Obama's "you didn't build that" remark that was taken out of context and the entire Right Wing world played stupid on purpose just to use it as a political weapon.

Now when it happens to the Queen of Lies, Conservatives suddenly find outrage that anyone would be denied service because of their Right Wing views. Because, you know, hypocrisy. Except Sanders was likely denied not for her political views, but because she is constantly lying to the country and is complicit in Trump's dismantling of American democracy.

Turns out he went out of business in 2016, so he really didn't build anything.

Biden's staff specifically asked him if he would sell him cookies and they would make it into a photo opportunity for the VP. He was asked if he would participate in a political act and he said no because he wasn't supportive of that political side. Biden didn't just show up to buy some cookies and was refused service. It's not the same thing and to argue it is makes it clear there is a big gap in your understanding as to what was going on in both cases.