Sarah Sanders kicked out of Virginia Restaurant

[_EAllusion]

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.

I don't believe that public accommodation is a universal right, nor is this notion enshrined in law. In fact, I think it is important that private business owners retain the right to refuse service to people in their private businesses. Arguments that argue for limited exceptions to this on the basis of protected class don't generally challenge people's freedom of association or property rights entirely. It's not an argument to merely assert that is a universal right. That begs the question in the context of what you are replying to. You have to explain why it ought to be a universal right. And while you're doing that, the justification should explain the contours of that right better than you currently are doing.

[_honorentheos]

You have to explain why it ought to be a universal right. And while you're doing that, the justification should explain the contours of that right better than you currently are doing.

Up thread I made the point that to argue the restaurant was in the right to refuse service to Sanders because of her culpability in acts deemed immoral is to create a gatekeeper role similar to that of the religious arguments overturned during the last century that hinge on the implied shared understanding any decent person would similarly agree with the gatekeeper's prerogative. While there are plenty of accepted and established reasons for a business to refuse someone service in a place of public accommodation, basing it on their moral standing as defined narrowly by one group of people has already been debated and lost. The detail of whether one uses religion or politics to define morality is not so far apart nor demonstrated in precedent to be a reasonable claim there is a meaningful difference. Certain jurisdictions have acknowledged by law that political affiliation should be included as deserving equal treatment. That's where most federally recognizes claims started. I'm not inventing an argument here.

You want to convince me that the restaurant owner didn't do harm to a fundamental concept within liberal democracies? Make this into an argument that shows how the decision to refuse service can be framed in neutral terms that would apply to all potential customers at that restaurant. If the only argument for neutrality is general libertarian discard for protecting a right to public accommodation, then I guess that is the best evidence to give to those who might agree with refusing Sanders service and also feel a cake maker in Colorado ought to supply wedding cakes to all comers regardless of whether their marriage is between a man and a woman or some different legal form of marriage. And I would hope that would give them pause.

[_Gunnar]

I understand their visceral displeasure at having to serve someone who supports and does the bidding of someone as disgusting as Trump, but by refusing to do so they make it easier for Trump to falsely claim the higher moral ground.

Sadly, this country cares not for moral high ground. What they care for is BS.

Largely true, but that doesn't stop people from falsely claiming the moral high ground on the flimsiest of pretexts when trying to justify screwing over someone else.

[_subgenius]

Sadly, this country cares not for moral high ground. What they care for is BS.

Largely true, but that doesn't stop people from falsely claiming the moral high ground on the flimsiest of pretexts when trying to justify screwing over someone else.

Moral high ground? How can you expect, given your position, moral high ground? You seemingly have this notion that morality is ambiguous, subjective, and blurry. I mean is not such proclamations like "moral high ground" in this context nothing more than "my way or the highway"?
So, whose moral high ground are you guys talking about? The Christian ground? The Atheist ground?....for guys that insist that science is all we really need, you seem to spend more time wishing people were religious/spiritual....granted, you wish they were "your kind" of religious/spiritual but c'mon....

[_EAllusion]

You have to explain why it ought to be a universal right. And while you're doing that, the justification should explain the contours of that right better than you currently are doing.

Up thread I made the point that to argue the restaurant was in the right to refuse service to Sanders because of her culpability in acts deemed immoral is to create a gatekeeper role similar to that of the religious arguments overturned during the last century that hinge on the implied shared understanding any decent person would similarly agree with the gatekeeper's prerogative. While there are plenty of accepted and established reasons for a business to refuse someone service in a place of public accommodation, basing it on their moral standing as defined narrowly by one group of people has already been debated and lost.

Every single reason short of physical impossibility for refusing service or being allowed to refuse service is grounded in moral justification. It is inherent to the claim. "You ought not to be served" or "I ought to not have to serve you" just are fundamentally moral statements regardless of the reasons supplied to justify them. This includes things like No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service and kicking out rude customers. Kicking out someone for being a jerk is refusing service on the basis of moral standing.

I don't think it is self-evident that if you allow some moral justifications for removing a person them you must accept all. That's an argument to be made and I don't think you can successfully make that argument. That's why you continue to assume it. And even if you successfully made that argument, it does not follow that the choice is to demand everyone be accommodated by private business owners. That's also an argument to be made. That businesses should be forced by the government to serve everyone regardless of who they are or what they're doing isn't self-evident even if this is a logical prerequisite to preventing racial discrimination. And again, that's an argument to be demonstrated that does not reflect our current legal culture.

If instead you try to argue that only moral justifications that would enjoy universal agreement can be allowed, this again is an argument to be made rather than something to be asserted. It has a serious flaw in that there are no justifications that enjoy universal agreement. Someone is going to be told that they're wrong.

[_canpakes]

I mean is not such proclamations like "moral high ground" in this context nothing more than "my way or the highway"?

A moral high ground determined by strict adherence to a particular religious dogma would seem to be the least flexible and best match for “my way or the highway”, while perhaps also being no less flimsy than any perceived worst offender.

What forms the basis of your own?

[_canpakes]

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.

Honor, aren’t these two separate items? The reason why Biden and Sanders were in (or intending to be) their respective destinations differs, but the reason for refusal of service is essentially the same (the proprietor’s disagreement with the political view or attitude expressed by Sanders or Biden)?

ETA: maybe not so similar, but similarly justified. One could argue that the Red Hen’s proprietor refused service to Sanders because of her behavior, although that behavior wasn’t manifesting inside of the restaurant.

[_subgenius]

I mean is not such proclamations like "moral high ground" in this context nothing more than "my way or the highway"?

A moral high ground determined by strict adherence to a particular religious dogma would seem to be the least flexible and best match for “my way or the highway”, while perhaps also being no less flimsy than any perceived worst offender.

What forms the basis of your own?

the basis of mine is not being proclaimed here...perhaps you should pose that question to the posters who are screaming about moral high ground.
viewtopic.php?p=1128358#p1128358

[_honorentheos]

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.

Honor, aren’t these two separate items? The reason why Biden and Sanders were in (or intending to be) their respective destinations differs, but the reason for refusal of service is essentially the same (the proprietor’s disagreement with the political view or attitude expressed by Sanders or Biden)?

ETA: maybe not so similar, but similarly justified. One could argue that the Red Hen’s proprietor refused service to Sanders because of her behavior, although that behavior wasn’t manifesting inside of the restaurant.

In the case of Biden, the act in question that was refused was not that of commerce. Rather, the commerce was being used as the context for a larger political act. That being, it was intended to be a feel good, VP out buying cookies from a local business that also happened to be captured on camera.

Sanders went to a restaurant to engage in normal commerce. Apparently she was there to have a meal just as every other customer in the establishment was there to do. She was no different than every other person allowed to eat there that evening in terms of what she expected from the restaurant.

The restaurant can't make an argument that serving her makes them complicit in her political activities any more than a Christian baker can claim that providing a wedding cake to a same-sex couple makes them a participant in a same-sex wedding. But in the case of the cookie store owner, he was being asked to engage with Biden in making a political promotion.

These are clearly two different cases.

[_honorentheos]

Up thread I made the point that to argue the restaurant was in the right to refuse service to Sanders because of her culpability in acts deemed immoral is to create a gatekeeper role similar to that of the religious arguments overturned during the last century that hinge on the implied shared understanding any decent person would similarly agree with the gatekeeper's prerogative. While there are plenty of accepted and established reasons for a business to refuse someone service in a place of public accommodation, basing it on their moral standing as defined narrowly by one group of people has already been debated and lost.

Every single reason short of physical impossibility for refusing service or being allowed to refuse service is grounded in moral justification. It is inherent to the claim. "You ought not to be served" or "I ought to not have to serve you" just are fundamentally moral statements regardless of the reasons supplied to justify them. This includes things like No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service and kicking out rude customers. Kicking out someone for being a jerk is refusing service on the basis of moral standing.

And they can be defined neutrally. It doesn't matter who you are otherwise, if you are being a jerk in a restaurant then the owner has the right to refuse you service. It applies to everyone equally.

If you can make the same neutral argument to justify refusing Sanders service, please do.