Sarah Sanders kicked out of Virginia Restaurant

[_EAllusion]

But, just to be clear you support the businessman's freedom to do so, no?

- Doc

I would Doc in country with equal treatment under the law. But we don't have that now.

I respect Sarah Sanders for politely leaving. We know what kind of people would put up a fuss, get the police involved, burn down the city in response to bigoted actions as this etc.

What kind of people are those Ajax?

[_Themis]

Because restaurant employees are low lifes who would do this, everyone knows what kind of scum they are, if they weren't low lifes they'd have real jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WaNio9Cx8

[_honorentheos]

When did people on this board stop understanding sarcasm? café Crema clearly wasn't being literal.

[_honorentheos]

She walked into a business seeking to do commerce. The business is quoted as claiming they would not serve her because she worked for the President. Maybe they said something else, but as far as what is reported that seems very much like discrimination based on affiliation. It's anti-democratic. And, yeah, I disagree that it is justified. It's bad for the direction of the nation, and worse still it demonstrates a lack of underlying values beyond affiliation.

Perhaps it was put to her that the reason she was asked to leave was that she works for the President, but the reality is because she chooses to be the face of the administration that she experiences the consequences.

She is now down to the level of saying, "I only know what I am told to say".

When a reporter asked Sanders to address her claim from last August that President Donald Trump did not dictate his son Donald Trump Jr.’s statement on a controversial Trump Tower meeting—which contradicts information from a leaked letter to Russia probe special counsel Robert Mueller—Sanders refused to answer about matters “dealing with the outside counsel.”

"I think you all know I'm an honest person who works extremely hard to provide you with accurate information at all times," Sanders said during her daily press briefing.

I say again: Donald Trump is demonstrably the biggest liar to hold the Presidency. The word demonstrably is intentional. Part of of is that as media gets more digital, it is easier to cross-check a President's statements, but Trump is a moving fountain of mistruths. Look at what he has said in the past week about the border crisis: That is is the law, that he hates the law, that it is the Democrats' fault, that Congress must pass legislation to fix it, but that the legislation must include funding for the border wall. In addition he told reporters the problem could not be fixed by executive order.

After then signing the executive order he had said would not fix the problem, the President said this would "make a lot of people happy". He then said that the Democrats "manufactured phony stories of sadness and grief".

That's what her boss did in one week. This is the man she goes out and defends day after day. This is not an Stevenson supporter refusing to serve someone with an Eisenhower button. Sarah Huckabee Sanders defends the crimes of her boss day after day on television. To me this is more like someone having the guts to refuse service to Joseph McCarthy. Yes, he was a Republican, but standing up to him had nothing to do with party affiliation.

It strikes me that what America looks like is a distant mirror of what America would have looked like if Joseph McCarthy had wrested control of the party from the Eisenhower Republicans. Trump is out tonight making his usual highbrow arguments against Wacky Jacky and Pocahontas. Roy Cohn would have been proud.

Trump has actually said that he is more presidential than anyone other than Lincoln. In his Inaugural, Lincoln said "“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Trump has always appealed to the worst angels of our nature. He uses lies and hyperbole to whip up fear of the other. Donald Trump wanted to shake up the norms, the established order. This is the President who fantasizes about NFL team owners firing their players for kneeling because it is too upsetting, but will use the suffering of forced family separations at the border as a bargaining chip to get Democrats to fund the border wall he said would be paid for by Mexico. The mouthpiece for a President that gives billions in tax breaks to the rich, slashes social services to the poor, and demonstrably tells more lies than there are days in his Presidency, has staffed agencies with incompetent and corrupt cronies, is willing to undermine the public trust in agencies charged with investigating his potential crimes, and that is before we get to Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos et al (whoever is in the Cohen files).

This is not Ronald Reagan or a Bush, Dole, Kemp, McCain or Romney. This is Donald Trump. He is different. The people who serve him are different. Those people don't think so, because they live inside a bubble. Puncturing that bubble is not necessarily bad.

I don't think this is an example of puncturing a bubble. Quite the opposite. If one's driving narrative is that popular media and the progressive left are so opposed to the President that it doesn't matter what he does they will treat him like a monster, then having a restaurant owner refuse to serve one of his spokespersons is reinforcing that narrative.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that only one side can be in the wrong. If we aren't defined by our values and commitments to equal protection then we aren't any different than they are in a meaningful way.

Folks that hate the Obergefell ruling and misread the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling firmly believe that God is opposed to homosexuality, and that the US is being destroyed from within by immorality. Whatever one's view of religion, one cannot dismiss the sincerity of this belief as being on par with the sincerity of your belief that Trump is also destroying the nation from within. I share your opinion of Trump's Presidency but am miles away from your opinion as to what is required to resist it to hopefully keep the nation repairable when he leaves office.

We're not going to win anything by fighting fire with fire. It doesn't change their minds because it is exactly what they expect while also making legitimate arguments for equal protection look like partisan favoritism. It was wrong of the restaurant owner and it did damage that will be difficult if not impossible to undo. There's no upside to it.

[Guest]

Not serving her was poor form.

I do not agree with her political speech, if she was eating at a table in the same eatery I would not have to listen to her.

No kidding. This was a missed opportunity to witness Sanders unable to speak, at least for having her mouth full of food.

[_Maksutov]

I've gone around on this one but this is where I ended up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 599a91945e

[_honorentheos]

From the link -

This exception to the rule of polite social action should be used sparingly (if for no other reason than we will never get through a restaurant meal without someone hollering at someone else). If a lawmaker, for example, who favors a harsh, ill-conceived immigration bill walks into a restaurant, I would not recommend raising a rumpus (though I would not invite that person to my home).

Listen, I get it. The notion of shunning or excluding or heckling can devolve into philosophical hair-splitting as to whether someone has engaged in normal public service or whether they’ve strayed outside the bounds of decent behavior. Each to his own method of expressing disdain and fury, I suppose.

Nevertheless, it is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they’re exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn, exclusion and rejection. If you don’t want to provoke wrath, don’t continue to work for someone whose cruel and inhumane treatment of others rivals the internment of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II. And yes, I’d have hollered at then-California Attorney General Earl Warren, who pushed for the roundup of people of Japanese ancestry, even American citizens.

My personal issue with the article is that it lumped in multiple responses into one response. Those ranged from vocal group protest of Kirstjen Nielsen who was eating at a Mexican Restaurant to an individual calling out Stephen Miller while also eating at a Mexican Restaurant to the owner of a restaurant refusing to serve Sarah Sanders. Those aren't equal forms of expression, in my opinion. The first two are just that - folks exercising their rights to express themselves and their beliefs. The later, however, takes on political baggage in that it becomes a business attempting to use expression as justification to refuse to engage in commerce. That is a political bomb being set that could do severe damage in the long run. It's confusing the objection to the later as distaste for non-polite expression rather than for alarm that it crossed over an important line in the debate of what constitutes protected expression.

[_cafe crema]

I think that working in a restaurant, whether kitchen side or service side, is a really demanding job most of the time. I don't know what you classify as a 'real job', but it certainly provides an essential service in the modern world, and people don't choose it because it is easy money.

You astound me in missing my point. You know what I "know" as opposed to "think" people who work in restaurants view it as their "real job" it sucks, it's hot it's demanding and on every single shift they will deal with at least one jerk if not half a dozen. But you know what they don't do (because it's their "real job") is throw crap in people's food, and you know why because it's their job and they take pride in doing their job as pathetic as it is viewed by some. I replied to a comment that implied restaurant workers were low lifes that would put their bodily fluids in customers food because the are mad or disagree with them politically or what ever other reason that strikes the workers fancy, that's contemptuous, disdainful, it implies that service people are low lifes simply because they are service workers.

I get your reply and a link to a TV show where the scene was all about one character playing on the phobia of another.

1. [99% of the reasons] That kind of confrontation spoils most of the pleasure of eating a meal prepared and served by others, and in general I find that a little time invested in being nice to often overworked and underpaid service staff pays a big dividend in reciprocal niceness. And in any case (as the Buddhists know) being nice to someone else is good for you, whatever the reaction.

There is more than a pinch of condescension in this part.

[_Themis]

I replied to a comment that implied restaurant workers were low lifes that would put their bodily fluids in customers food because the are mad or disagree with them politically or what ever other reason that strikes the workers fancy, that's contemptuous, disdainful, it implies that service people are low lifes simply because they are service workers.

You took way more then was there, but I dare you, eat it.

[_Jersey Girl]

I replied to a comment that implied restaurant workers were low lifes that would put their bodily fluids in customers food because the are mad or disagree with them politically or what ever other reason that strikes the workers fancy, that's contemptuous, disdainful, it implies that service people are low lifes simply because they are service workers.

You took way more then was there, but I dare you, eat it.

Well I have to throw in here. My first jobs were in food service here in the states and then overseas while waiting for a gov't position to open up. My very first job was scooping Italian ice in front of a store in summer in Jersey, then I sold hot dogs from a hotdog stand inside the store and worked my way "up" into the snack bar where I started with beverages, desserts, and cash register, then learned to cook short orders, then learned to do both jobs at the same time (and god help me, bus tables in between rushes) when my coworker was on break or we were short staffed, and ended up assistant manager of that first place I worked in. In Europe, I worked the grill exclusively because by then I was damn good at it.

Preparing and serving food to order is some of the most demanding work you'll ever do in your life, it will teach you about human social behavior like not many other jobs will (John Q. Public can be incredibly rude when it comes to food or take out their troubles on you simply because you are "there"), make you become adaptable, it requires the ability to multitask like a demon, stay on your feet for long hours because good luck getting a break when you're working with a skeleton crew. I've worked with kitchen staff that take an enormous amount of pride in their work and presentation, who can hustle like their life depends on it, I myself could handle a grill of 50 orders (breakfast, lunch or dinner), get them all right, and get them out. Coffee regular, coffee black, coffee light, would you like a slice of pie with that?

I've worked in all sorts of fields and then finally a long career in child development and administration. There are folks who choose food service because they enjoy the fast pace and intellectual stimulation, and it becomes their career. Others do it short term on their way to something else or in between, or while they're going to school.

And then there are naïve people on the internet who think that taking a swipe at a whole profession and the people who engage in it, makes them look smart. When what it really does is make them look like a complete ass who doesn't know crap and has no insight to draw from.