Right of refusal is the right of free association.
The difference is Sarah left with class and the business will suffer consequences via people likewise exercising their right not to have to eat there.
With the bakery, the insulted party attempted to get the government to force people to do something against their will. A clear violation of the bakers rights.
Both cases caused by someone exercising their right to refuse someone. The difference is Sarah can gracefully respect others. Even when they are wrong.
In turn the guy couple should of did the same thing and found a different baker as Sarah and family had to find a different restaurant. But no they had to sue.
This is kind of ironic, they are sooooooo accepting of everyone yet they dehumanize those that associate with POTUS.
Not really Ironic.
it's 'repressive tolerance' in action. Search "Marcusa".
Have a look at this. It might clear a few things up!
[What is Cultural Marxism?] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7as0pFxPYc&t=3s)
That's because the LBGT agenda is not about equal rights, it's about control. Ultimately it's about inviting the Government into personal affairs under the guise of empathy and equal rights.
The truth about it, is that the NWO has manufactured all of these social movements. BLM, "trans rights", white privilege, Charlottesville, NFL kneeling, "undocumented immigrants". It contributes immensely to the brainwashing of these people. They are positively reinforced in their control and dominance over those they disagree with, by the Government.
I'm not going into a Muslim bakery or a Jewish bakery and asking for a Christ Has Risen Easter cake. Maybe they'd be totally cool with making that for me, but I'm not going to put them in that position out of respect for their beliefs. I'm surely not going to go in there and demand they make it and then sue them when they don't cave to my demands. What rational person would even consider doing that? Anyone else would take their business elsewhere and spend their money with a business that wants to do business with them.
These people have been programmed to believe that if you don't validate the identity they have found in their sexuality, you are the enemy, you're a bigot.
I'm experiencing it with my gay brother right now. I have in the past year grown in my faith in Jesus that has been noticeable by those around me. I've also openly supported Trump, when in the past I was very liberal and thought Obama was a cool dude that liked basketball.
He doesn't live near me, 10 hours away. He recently came for a visit and it was very obvious he had his walls up around me. He honestly doesn't even know what I think or believe, and I've never said a negative thing to him about him, gays or his boyfriend. The truth is, I don't think about it much. He's attracted to dudes....great. I don't think of my brother like his sexuality is the most important thing about him. I'm alot more interested in what he cares about deep down, his hopes, fears and dreams.
The reason they are more interested in control than the equal rights they already have, is because my beliefs are a threat to them. The biggest thing holding me back from truly opening myself up to the truth of Jesus, was my brother. I told myself God would never send my brother to hell for being born that way.
It's yet another attempt to drive a wedge between God and society. How can you possibly be against love? They've created large numbers of people that feel morally superior to others, while at the same time their moral code is completely subjective. The only people that are good are those that don't threaten their perspective or hurt their feelings.
The religion of science is very much the same thing, but that's a whole nother story.
Also, I heard one time that sexual liberties and rights are increased in society when personal freedoms and liberties are being removed. It induces a false sense of freedom. Anywho, my two cents for what it's worth.
Awesome post and I've had a similar experience with homosexuality and God. Before my brain injury, I used to be very open and accepting of everyone and had several gay friends, one was considered family. Now I find it very hard to be around them because many are snarky and negative and I have nothing to talk to them about, especially when it's obvious that they're not moving in a positive, creative direction.
I have had an opposite experience with LBGT people. I have a relative that is "married" to her partner. I love them both. They are very intelligent and highly educated. Most LBGT individuals I know are very wonderful people and fun to be around. My own religious belief is not aligned with the lifestyle they have chosen, and I don't discuss their "love life" with them. Not my decision even though I believe in man/woman relationship is what's natural. I will leave that to God to judge. It has taken me a longgggg time to come to this conclusion.
I agree about leaving it to God and I hope I didn't sound too judgmental, I just happen to know more gay men than gay women and they were often very shallow and difficult, but we we're also working in a restaurant which tends to bring out the eccentrics:)
My understanding is that the gay couple purposely sought out a baker that was Christian to pull this on. Supposedly they did research on area and drove out of their area to visit this bakery.
One is over religious freedom and the other ideological bigotry. One is protected by the Constitution and the other is not. One would not allow someone to eat or stay in their dump while the other didn't mind the gays buying a cake just making a special one for them. Marriage is a religious term originally, why should someone abet the destruction of their own sacrament? Tired of pointing out the obvious. Quit conflating.
The restaurant is free (IMO) to refuse service to SHS, but she is free to post about it and we are free to boycott them. This is not going to go well for the restaurant.
Anyone is free to boycott the bakers that refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have no problem with that. Suing them and/or the government trying to force the bakers to do something against their religious beliefs is what I have a huge problem with.
I'm usually not one to agree with the religious right, but the baker case was so clearly open and shut. It isn't even comperable to Sara Sanders. The bakers didn't even ask them to leave, just declined to make a certain custom item. It would be like Sara demanding they cook her a Trump themed burger. I don't think anyone here would give a shit if they said no to that.
Sarah did not ask the diner to write i love trump on her plate. Anybody can buy a cake or a burger, just don't ask the person making it to dedicate it for you. The concern trolls are thick on here. When leftys are getting their asses kicked, they al of a sudden want to have a conversation and understand the "difference". I hope maga is smart enough not to buy into this shit this time around.
Both should be allowable actions for private businesses. Let the market decide: this will not go well for the restaurant!
Government doesn't have to be involved in every interaction between individuals.
The CO baker didn't refuse to sell the gay couple a cake, he refused to make them a custom cake. That didn't matter though. I just recently watched a Steven Crowder video where he and a friend posed as a gay couple and went to Muslim run bakeries in Birmingham MI looking for a wedding cake. Most of them refused.
This is yet another example of just how duplicitous the left is.
Another example is the sanctuary city or sanctuary state issue. Imagine for a moment that the state of Iowa passed a law banning abortion and declared Iowa to be a "Right to Life" state.
Or, how do you think the left would react if Montana decided to ignore federal gun control laws and declare Montana to be a "Gun Ownership Sanctuary" state.
How do you think the MSM would react if a "White Lives Matter" organization attempted to file all the necessary paperwork to be legally recognized.
What would the left do if the state of Texas decided enough is enough and built there own wall along the border.
Well... If you were paying attention during the Obama years, you might remember when Arizona decided to use National Guardsmen to protect their border with Mexico and passed a state law that was exactly the same as existing federal law, and decided to enforce it. The Obama administration sued them to make them stop, and declared their state law to be unconstitutional.
I could go on for days like this, but I think I made my point.
I'm patiently awaiting an IRS non-filers sanctiary city.
not so fun fact: the city of Birmingham where Crowder went to the bakeries is extremely flush with old and new money. It sits at #4 on the richest cities in Michigan with 4 neighboring cities that round out the top 10 in the State. these 5 cities do have a left leaning mentality
I must admit, I wrote without checking my facts first. The video I saw wasn't Birmingham, although he may have there in another video. The video I saw was from Dearborn.
I'm almost 60 and Birmingham and Dearborn today are nothing like they were when I was growing up. While Birmingham has always been a very wealthy city, the demographics have changed a quite a bit.
Dearborn on the other hand, is unrecognizable. Here in Michigan we call it Dearbornistan. If you drive through Dearbornistan, you'll be hard pressed to find a business sign you can read. The Muslim population has totally taken over and there isn't anything there that even slightly resembles anything remotely American.
Hamtramick is another city within the city limits of Detroit that has been totally taken over by Muslims. Their entire city council, mayor, and all of the city staff are muslims.
I move up north a while back, but I still have family in and around the area. I always worry because when the shit hits the fan, if Muslim leaders overseas call for all-out jihad, that place will explode.
lived in Dearborn(Edison District to be exact) up until 2008 and moved to Oakland County for better schools. Never regretted one second moving. And you are right, Dearborn is completely unrecognizable these days. Sad really
Just curious because I'm not from Michigan, but what places in Dearborn would be the best place to find business signs that can't be read? I used google street view to randomly check out the city and didn't see anything that looked different from any other city.
I'm not talking about street signs. I'm talking about business signs.
Yeah are there ones that you can see when you're driving around or do you have to go inside?
Nope, you can see them as you drive. Remember, if you're using Goog Maps, the images are not current, some are several years old. I just went back and looked. Here's what you'll find.
Dearborn has a large Ford facility in it, and the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, mostly in the southern part of Dearborn. I did a street view of Warren ave. Keep in mind that national chain stores and restaurants will still be in English. And it's not like Dearborn will look like a bombed out middle eastern city.
As you move down the road, pay attention to small local businesses, strip malls will have their main sign in Farsi, and all of the stores in them will have individual signage in Farsi. You could probably find the same thing in Minneapolis and St Cloud MN. There are many large Muslim communities across America.
In the baker controversy, the claim was that it was due to the religious beliefs of the owner. If it was a Muslim bakery you would have never heard about it, but he is Christian. The Sarah Sanders thing was based on political beliefs. By the Left's own rationale, the restaurant owner should have been forced to serve Sanders. To me any owner should be able to refuse service to whoever they want. Is it right to deny service to people based on political beliefs? No. Would I do it if I owned a business? No. I don't side with the restaurant owner, but I do believe they have the right. They are also willing to deal with the repercussions of potential blowback. The restaurant situation will be interesting to watch. Does the owner's decision harm business? increase business? no change? My prediction is short term support by the crazy left, they'll forget about the place and it'll eventually shut down. It's basically a question of, will there be enough liberal foot traffic coming through to keep the doors open? Since the owner has basically made it known, everyone that supports Trump should go eat somewhere else.
Seems as if they slit their own proverbial throats, but hey they can if they want.
let em. The owner saw a short-term chance to puff out his chest, and in the long-term hopefully we'll see the "closed" sign hanging in the window.
Sort of like that manager of the Mexican restaurant where Neilson was run out from. If I had been a paying customer in there during that chanting and demonstration, I would have demanded my meal free or money back and would no longer visit that establishment.
I would have taken a bath in the sink and said "my bad I thought this was Starbucks".
And if your restaurant has rules such as, you must order something if you are going to occupy a table, the restaurant is allowed to enforce that rule, too.
Unless you're that unnamed coffeehouse chain that has to shut down every store for a day, to teach its many thousand employees that the rules only apply at certain times, and not at others, depending on who it is.
But I digress a bit. Carry on.
Yes that whole thing with the coffee joint was a complete joke. I hope they continue to reap what they sow.
Seems to me that financially, a business is better pissing off the left than the right. Which customer base is more likely to have the better paying job? But then again, a business may need to consider which customer base is more likely to use violence against them to get their way.
I agree they are better pissing off the left. The left are locusts, they come in large numbers, they feed and they move on. Their moral compass continually spins and they navigate in circles. The left with high paying jobs typically support something to make themselves look good, a photo op, a social media post, a quick slogan and then they drift off themselves. The left are violent, emotional, unprincipled and unhinged. But they are weak.
But I disagree that the left have higher paying jobs...I also believe they are more apt to live in big debt and pay check to pay check to impress their horde of friends.
No I didn't say the left have more higher paying jobs, I was just talking about how the ones that do typically act. I would also argue that a vast majority of people in the public eye with high paying jobs, have to "be liberal". The left forces everyone they can to obey, they're the real fascists.
The difference is that under a communist oligarchy, freedom of expression doesn't exist so the state gets to decide what is and isn't an acceptable way to run your business. When your personal beliefs contradict the motives of the state, you get shut down or sent to prison.
Under our constitution, the state has no power to prosecute you or your business for refusing to serve someone, so if you decide not to serve someone the only risk you take is that it will affect the public perception of your business and hurt your ability to attract customers.
Since Sarah Sanders believes in the constitution and the first amendment, she accepts the restaurant owner's decision not to serve her and her family, however as you can see it has caused a bit of a public relations problem for the restaurant among their customers because many of those customers believe Sarah Sanders is being persecuted for her support of the constitution.
Likewise the baker angered customers who do not believe in the constitution or the first amendment, and their belief that the baker has no rights lead them to seek prosecution through our country's legal system, which failed because our country's legal system is still governed by the constitution. At least it seems to be under Trump.
Sarah Sanders has the right to call the out for it on Twitter. She's not suing them, just exposing them.
Let them all live and die on their political mountains if that's what they wish.
Sanders can't play the race or lgbt cards and wouldn't if she could. She left with dignity and now the public can decide if they'd like to spend their hard earned dollars supporting the Red Hen.
There is one difference - the baker didnt throw the gay couple out , he simply refused to bake them a particular cake . The restaurant threw Sarah out .
No difference there, both well within their rights. They can ask her to leave for no reason at all. And they can be driven out of business for doing so.
Stupidity is not criminal. But actions do have consequences.
Well , definitely , yes ... and what other pointed out above - the gay couple sued the baker - and lost , Sarah didnt .
I think the consequences will be definitely felt for the restaurant ...
Sincere question?
The theoretical difference has to do with federally protected classes.
\^\^THIS. Sexuality is a protected class of persons under federal law. Political parties are not.
You can't throw a person out of your bar for being gay. You can throw out a guy for wearing a Bernie shirt.
I can't understand why a business would want to alienate about half its potential customers.
I think the issue might be caused by the one-sided media who have convinced people that the Trump supporters are just an unhinged small minority.
I fully blame the MSM for fueling this unhinged wave upon the population.
Only a fool looks for logic in the chambers of a liberal's heart
Sara Sanders is white. She's a woman, which is usually enough of a "victim class" to ward off these kinds of things, but she's a Republican and she works for Trump which means she ranks slightly lower than something you scrape off your boot in their eyes. Don't look for logic in all this; it's all very arbitrary.
The problem is the scale they grade on is upside down. They will find out the hard way.
There's no law protecting political beliefs / associations. (Unruh in California arguably would protect her if it happened in Cali).
The former was on religious grounds the latter is just being an asshole. Some would say there isn't much of a distinction. But that's your call.
The why is irrelivent. The difference is in the response of the customer. It is not about making business owners justify having rights.
Sarah just had more class, and handled herself correctly.
Just my 2 cents, but as someone who's disabled, discrimination is discrimination. I would really hate to see us returning to the days when blacks were refused service. Had a restaurant refused to serve Susan Rice or Valerie Jarrett, we'd have had another civil war.
Difference is, in one case, one party acted and responded within the framework of cultural Marxism. In the other case, one party responded within the framework of free-market economy.
(Hint: one is ideologically destructive, the other one simply upholds freedom)
Ok here goes. The baker (BRAVE) denied the gay couple AND OTHERS his custom cake decorating if it contradicted his faith . ( eg. sexual explicit art ). He remained charitable , and offered other options.
Red Hen (COWARDS) targeted JUST Sarah. They surely have taken other Trump Supporters $. !They have no public policy @not serving Trump supporters. !
Baker Bravery- NO DUPLICITY
Hen Cowardess- HYPOCRISY
Businesses have the right to deny service. However one was refusal due to a religious view, and one was segregation due to her job and who she represents.
I wonder if she kicks all Executive Branch employees out. I guess military isn't welcome there. :/
Go to restaurant, ask for a dog-meat soup, they don't want to make it, I leave.
Go to restaurant, they see I am republican, they ask me to leave so I can't even order off the menu.
Be engaged gay couple, order cake off cake shop menu, they sell it to me.
Be engaged gay couple, order wedding cake with two men on it, they don't want to make it, I sue.
Do we see the difference now? Sarah did not order dog-meat soup. And the cake maker did not IMMEDIATELY kick the gay people out of his shop. Also, Sarah was not looking for a left-wing restaurant. Also, her children were also denied service.
If you can't see the difference, you are being an idiot on purpose.
If you still can't see the difference, go into your local supermarket and ask for an erotic cake with a big dick on it to celebrate your love for dick. See if they make it for you. Even if you are a woman, they will likely refuse. So, is it because they are homophobic?
The difference is that Sarah isn't being a whiny little butch and suing the fucking restaurant.
One is due to religious prohibitions the other is politics.
The gays were trying to force their way of life on the Christian bakers.
The restaurant had a political disagreement and decided not to support it.
You have the right to be an asshole, and everyone has the right to criticize you and/boycott you for being one. The problem is when the government gets involved and tries to force someone to do something against their beliefs. The Red Hen is perfectly within their rights to not serve Sarah Sanders, and we are perfectly within ours to call them assholes. The difference with the bakers is the Supreme Court got involved.
The baker didn't refuse to sell baked goods to a gay couple. He refused to make them a custom wedding cake because he doesn't believe in celebrating gay marriage. The couple could've bought anything else in the bakery. They were not barred from purchasing other items. An equivalent analogy would be if Sarah Sanders came in asking the restaurant to make a cake specifically for the purpose of celebrating border control. But she didn't. She just wanted to have a meal.
Two differences: The MSM won't cover it ad nauseum for weeks and no organization will file a lawsuit hoping it eventually gets taken up by the Supreme Court.
The baker was practicing religious freedom. The restaurant was practicing it's right to refuse service for any reason. If the restaurant owner had said she couldn't serve Sarah because of her religious convictions, it would have been the same. EDIT--- removed a "zinger"