No Breakfast For You: Red Hen Kicks Out Sarah Sanders And Her Family [UPDATED]

SarahHuckabeeSandersRecently we discussed the disturbing protest carried out at the MXDC restaurant against Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.   Members of Congress like Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Cal.) defended the protesters in disrupting the restaurant and forcing Nielsen to leave.  It was a sad statement on the utter loss of any sense of civility in our current political discourse.  Now, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia is at the center of this debate after throwing out White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and her family from breakfast.  Many liberals celebrated the rude denial of service by the owners while conservatives have directed their anger at the restaurant.  Much of the criticism has been misdirected against the Red Hen in D.C. which has gone to pains to point out that they are not associated with the Lexington Red Hen.  Many critics on Yelp and other sites have unleashed on the restaurant.  The co-owner responsible for the decision was Stephanie Wilkinson. Wilkinson founded the restaurant with John Blackburn, who reportedly named the restaurant after his favorite childhood story.  Wilkinson is reportedly the founder and publisher of Brain, Child magazine. She lists herself as a co-owner of the restaurant.  UPDATE: Wilkinson says that she is proud of her actions and would do it again.

Friday night, Jaike Foley-Schultz, a waiter at The Red Hen, posted on Facebook that “I just served Sarah huckabee sanders for a total of 2 minutes before my owner kicked her out along with 7 of her other family members…”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Sanders confirmed that “Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

Sarah Sanders@PressSec

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

 The defense of such disgraceful conduct by liberals is itself shocking.  Presumably Rep. Speier and others would be put out if they were denied service due to their political beliefs. Indeed, this double standard is the subject of an earlier column.
Wilkinson lists herself as a graduate of Dartmouth with a B.A. in English Literature and a Ph.D., European & American Religious History from the University of Virginia. She also lists herself as Executive Director of “Main Street Lexington.”

The website for Main Street Lexington states:

“Main Street Lexington exists to enhance the economic prosperity and cultural vitality of our community, re-establishing downtown Lexington as the vibrant economic and cultural nexus of our area while maintaining its unique character.”

It is a curious approach for either economic development or managing a restaurant to tell conservatives that they are not welcomed.  Lexington is an area with many conservatives as well as liberals.  With marginal profits at many business, particularly restaurants, this inhospitable message for conservatives cannot be a good business plan.

Wilkinson is shown at executive director on the site.

I have been highly critical of Trump and his Administration.  However, I find this action to be incredibly offensive and wrongheaded.  I would feel that same if Rep. Speier were chased from a restaurant by a conservative owner.  Once again, we seem to have lost any sense of restraint and civility in our politics.  Extremists on both sides claim license to say and do most anything vis-a-vis their opponents.  There is a sense of utter release in these actions — the right to act in the most monstrous or menacing ways because you believe that you are right and they are wrong.  You can denounce Trump for petty and childish attacks and then engage in the very same conduct in response.  And so it continues on and on and on.  It is the impunity of action that comes with being right.

I would not go to the Red Hen any more than I would go to a restaurant that refused to serve Rep. Speier.  It is simple matter of courtesy and civility.

Update: The original column correctly noted that “[p]revious stories identified the co-owners as John Blackburn and Stephanie Wilkinson” while noting that it was unclear who were the other co-owners of the restaurant at this time.  It has since come out that Blackburn gave up his ownership a three or four years ago.  The original story said that it appeared likely that it was Wilkinson who is referenced by Sanders and, when Wilkinson confirmed her role, the column was updated.  While one of the two founders with Wilkinson (and the person who named the restaurant), Blackburn however gave up his interest in the Red Hen in 2014 and has complained that he is receiving considerable backlash from the story. That was obviously not our intention when we shared the information on the prior ownership information. He now appears to be in the unenviable position as the many other Red Hen restaurants receiving blowback after Wilkinson’s actions.  As noted in the column, what was missing in the Wilkinson’s actions was civility and understanding. The same failure of judgment can be found in those who are attacking third parties like Blackburn.  While the story would have still referenced Blackburn as a founder with Wilkinson, there was no intention to add to Blackburn’s burden in reporting what information we could find on the restaurant’s ownership history.

720 thoughts on “No Breakfast For You: Red Hen Kicks Out Sarah Sanders And Her Family [UPDATED]”

  1. Establishment Dims so pathetic trying to be clever. New T shirt out – same colour as Melanie’s anorak. “There’s no “hidden message” here. We like to keep it pretty straightforward. Donate $20.18 to get this shirt, and all proceeds will go toward defeating Trump-supporting Republicans this November.

    “We Care
    We Vote
    Do U”

    Peter Douches Liason tweets

    I couldn’t find the one for Super Delegates which would surely read

    ” WHO CARES? MY VOTE=15K OF URS.”

    #OwnedTogether #StillWithering🥀

    “WE CARE FOR OUR DONORS”
    “WE FIX PRIMARIES.”
    “DO U?”

    https://store.democrats.org/products/we-care-we-vote

  2. As stated previously, a person w/ a 5th grade education could understand the fundamental difference between this despicable act and the gay wedding cake case. This horsesh!t will insure a Trump reelection. The majority of people, no matter their politics, find this disgusting. The hateful far left are shooting themselves in the foot. Wait..they’re anti gun. They are pissing on both legs. I know they piss..we all have that in common.

    1. I totally agree. My mother is a lifelong Dem, but she was also offended by this. She said if she owned a restaurant, everyone would be treated as a guest, and she wouldn’t give a hoot about their politics. I’m a Repub, and I feel the same way. Kicking a family out, including children, denying them a place to eat due to political differences is beyond rude, it’s just plain hateful.

      1. Tin, The hateful far left didn’t see their hate electing Trump and they are doubling down on stupid.

      2. Tin – You apparently have your sensitivities in order. Upset about the children momentarily inconvenienced by having to go somewhere else to eat, not moved by children torn from their parents, some of whom will never be reunited.

        1. Are you referring to children who were illegally brought into the U.S. by their own parents? These parents are responsible for the plight of their children, not the U.S. government, which has no choice but to shelter and feed them. Yes, it is very unfortunate that children suffer when their parents’ commit crimes. It happens all the time in the U.S. The parent goes to prison and the child is left with other relatives or goes to foster care. Foreigners breaking into the U.S. illegally are not exempt from the consequences of their actions.

          1. The “plight of their children” in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and others is the direct result of US Drug policy over the decades. The cartels and gangs they are fleeing from would not exist in anything like their current form were it not for the US. If you were a parent of those children and to stay there in some cases meant certain death, what would you do? (My definition of certain death is when the gangs tell you they will kill them unless you pay money you don’t have). If you wanted the immigration to stop, you’d go after the companies that hire them.

            1. The Right DOES want to go after the companies that hire illegal immigrants. E-Verify should have the support of all citizens. Democrats, and the globalist Republicans don’t want it. Both groups like slave labor coming to America.

              1. If the Right wanted to go after companies hiring illegal immigrants, they have had many opportunities. What is the last Bill they passed in the House or Senate that severely penalizes those companies?

            2. “The “plight of their children” in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and others is the direct result of US Drug policy over the decades. ”

              Build the wall. Seal the borders and permit traffic only at legitimate border points. That will help to end the drug traffic, terrorists crossing the border, children from traveling without their parents using cayotes dealing in drugs, slavery, and prostitution.

              Alternatively, get rid of the welfare state.

              1. Amen,

                I oppose the war on drugs. Inject Heroin if you wish.
                If we are only free to may good decisions we are not really free.
                For long and prosperous periods in US history immigration was nearly unrestricted.

                But I am not under the delusion that freedom comes without consequences.
                Free people will make bad choices.

                Open borders is incompatible with minimum wage laws, and the social safety net.

                Pick one or the other.
                I am prepared to have open borders.

                I am NOT prepared to accept an arrangement that will fail catastrophically.

                The left seems to think that rights can be created from thin air and that their preferred policies have no consequences, and that incentives do not matter.

  3. Time to decentralize the the DC based federal government. The DC area is too comfortable with the largesse it takes from us. Move whole departments to flyover country so that government employees become reacquainted
    With it’s employers.

    1. We do this in Canada. Many government departments are hundreds and hundreds of miles away from Ottawa. It works well, although it makes for a more expensive government.

    2. Haha. As if anyone gives two sh*ts what the rubes in BFE nowheresville think about anything but sorghum prices, if even that. So sorry for your one, blinking traffic light.

  4. Turley sees a double standard when far more people in this country are denied service for being something, not for their conservative views. As far as Secretary Kistsjen Nielsen, she couldn’t have gotten better feedback from Americans as to how they feel about her actions and lies. Sarah Huckabee Sanders handled her situation as best she could have, one of the commenters referred to her “civility,” watching a couple of her press conferences might disabuse them of that notion.

    That the right is experiencing sometimes harsh reactions to their policies and even their leaders and spokespersons is a true thing. That it is greater than other examples of mistreatment in American history is laughable. They are perhaps the least persecuted group I can think of. If you cheered when a gay couple doesn’t have to be served by a baker. Consider how similar a situation Sarah Sanders found herself in.

    1. Enigma, the baker did not refuse to serve the customer. The baker refused to act immorally based on his religious viewpoint and would have served the customer in any other fashion. The purchaser could have added the specific words himself and not subjected a good person to such abuse. You know better and should recognize the difference unless your sole aim is to cause pain to those you disagree with.

    2. Enigma,…
      – If you feel that this ( Sec. Nielsen incident) is the best way for political figures to get “better feedback”, we can make it a standard means of communication across the board.
      Whether the target is Neilsen, Pelosi, Schumer, Ryan, Schiff, Nunes, etc.

      1. Tom – I feel that political figures should provide regular opportunities to communicate with the public through town halls, press conferences, public statements, interviews and other forums where they feel comfortable. If you choose to tell clear and outright lies, you just might hear from the people you acted so dismissively towards.
        If a politician shos up at a baseball game, right or left, they are subject to boos or cheers as the case may be. They are not entitled to have a beer thrown at them.

        1. Enigma,…
          Part of the problem with the town hall meetings is that it’s not a comfortable setting when the politicians get shouted down.
          Buy my point was that is you feel that the “Nielsen treatment ” is a legitimate form of “feedback”, you or no one else gets to unilaterally decide who gets the Nielsen treatment…..no office holder is exempt.
          Once you endorse/ condone that method of feedback, you forfeit the right to oppose its use by others who now feel “entitled” to “send feedback” in that manner.

          1. You are right in that no one gets to decide who gets the treatment. Many politicians try to limit any opportunity to appear before anyone except their most fervent supporters. I think the town hall format only became a problem when politicians acted diametrically opposed to the wishes of their constituents and instead on behalf of their contributors. In Nielsen’s case, she chose to go to a Mexican restaurant on the heels of both denying there was a policy to separate families, saying she didn’t know where the girls were, claimed no knowledge of the photographs issued by her department and refused to answer directly any questions about Latino families being torn apart. That crowd apparently had something to say about it.

            1. Enigma,….
              Politicians are almost always certain to “act diametrically opposed to the wishes” of at least a sizeable minority of their constituents.
              The volume of the vocal opponents at town hall meeting is not necessarily a gauge of the overall support for, say, a Congressman,in his district.
              It’s also counter-productive in the public’s quest for access to their representatives, in that they generally don’t feel obligated to appear before a pack of jackels.
              So phone-ins, emails will probably supplant the traditional town hall meetings.
              The “shouting down” tactic, the heckling, etc. is becoming more common, and seems to be far more readily employeed by the left than the right.
              While that is presently the case, we may see more of a “balance of tactics” in the future.
              In the case of apparently pre-planned, organized set-ups, those involved may find themselves subject to like treatment.
              And an institution like a restaurant will need to decide if they’re in business to setve food, or serve up food with politics/ political statements.

              1. It seemed the right has been afraid to hold town halls for fear that their own constituents will take them to task. You haven’t forgotten the Tea Party already have you? Then during the attempts to destroy the Affordable Care Act. The Republican rank and file began to realize how taking away benefits they use and need like coverage for pre-existing conditions would affect them. Sure some Democrats (who also live in those districts) raised hell but it was mostly Republicans blowing up the town halls.

                1. Enigma,…
                  Yes, it is likely the right that is more reluctant to hold these town hall meetings.
                  It is also likely that conservative speakers are going to be met with disruptive behavior on many college campus.
                  As I said, this tactic seems to be employeed more by the right than the left.
                  I don’t know of any previous administrations’ members being denied service, or badgered at restaurants.

                  1. I don’t know of any previous administrations’ members being denied service, or badgered at restaurants.

                    ‘Cuz it didn’t happen. Have a look at our Facebook feed if you want the answer why. Our Republican friends put up pictures of their grandchildren. Our Democratic friends post dopey political memes. They just have to state an opinion, no matter how inane. We’ve got one whose posts in a day can break into two digits. The distinction is between those who see life as composed of different spheres and those cannot manage it.

                    1. Enigma,…
                      Every time I was ever turned down asking for a date, I just always assumed she was rejecting me because of my political affiliation.😄😂

                    2. If the women are that stupid then these guys should look for a classier group. I am sure those women will be extremely happy with people of the likes of Democratic idol Harvey Weinstein.

                    3. Allan,…
                      Also, Carlos Danger should be getting out soon if Weinstein is unavailable.

                    4. What do I care about the dating habits of people? I’m happily married for many years and I concern myself with my own marriage not the marriage of other people that I don’t even know. That borders on voyeurism which I guess is OK but of little interest to me. Let the parties involved determine good and bad. They don’t need you at the bedside.

                    5. I don’t know why you care but you do.
                      “If the women are that stupid then these guys should look for a classier group. I am sure those women will be extremely happy with people of the likes of Democratic idol Harvey Weinstein.”

                    6. “I don’t know why you care but you do.”

                      Downright stupidity, Enigma. You fall to the level of people like Harvey Weinstein.

                2. Apparently, you do not remember that it was the Democratic Unions that were most prominent in locking the doors to keep the Tea Party individual’s out. They even beat up a guy in a wheel chair.

                  Perhaps you also don’t remember that it was Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu who refused to answer calls from her constituents and instead blamed a broken phone system. That was revealed by James O’Keefe the modern muckraker.

    3. I don’t see anything wrong with a lot of your comment, other than that you don’t address the article. I mean the woman should have gotten served. And you haven’t said otherwise.

      1. You know, Steve, if it had been my business I would have just allowed her to be served, despite finding her repugnant, because I have always been in business to make a profit and not to make political statements. But whether or not she should have been served is merely a matter of opinion.

      2. There were two separate issues, Kirstjen Nielsen heckled why she came to a Mexican restaurant of all places and Sarah Sanders who was asked to leave.
        I don’t disagree with the first case, Nielsen was welcome to eat her meal if she chose but there were consequences for her actions.
        As for Sarah, I think the owner has the legal right to refuse her service. In some states, it might not be legal like California where it is illegal for a restaurant to refuse someone for “political activities” and Sanders might have had legal protection. I don’t see under Federal Law that she falls into any protected class. The owner acted within their rights, again there may be consequences for the restaurant, they may be boycotted, they may grow their business. As to whether they should have refused her, I wouldn’t have made that choice but I confess to being amused. I don’t think she was refused because she was “conservative.” But in reaction to her personal conduct while doing her job.

          1. Incidentally, you seem to be fine with her getting turned away for political reasons, but not for skin color. Well the commerce clause doesn’t work that way. So get your act together on what you want and get back to me.

            1. Federal Law (not me) says you can’t discriminate against protected groups. In California, political activities have been added and are also protected. Apparently, this isn’t true in Virginia. I am for her getting turned away for lying every day to the American public. I can appreciate that she represents a man that lies all the time and she pretty much has to support him to keep her job. These are the consequences… unless she moves to California.

                1. Well you just can’t turn someone out of a hotel or restaurant for that Enigma. And by the way, I’m using the commerce clause not the Civil Rights Act. Although why you think the latter can’t be used is beyond me.

                  1. I’m not a lawyer, perhaps you can cite what in the commerce clause applies here and I might agree with you? I don’t see that Congress banned any type of private discrimination other than racial discrimination in the commerce clause.

                    1. The commerce clause covers private discrimination. A specific form of private discrimination was enumerated in the Civil Rights Act. Given the commerce clause, this Act should not have been necessary. But we’re stuck with the Country and the history we have, so a redundant Act was drafted.

                    2. I read it the other way around. The Commerce Clause speaks directly only to racial discrimination and the Civil Rights Act covers several protected classes. Again, if you can point to something specifically in the Commerce Clause, I’d be happy to consider it.

                    3. The Commerce Clause speaks directly to racial discrimination? The clause itself shows that’s not the case.

                      But any rational reading of the clause means you can’t have such discrimination in commerce.

                    4. The ONLY rational reading of the commerce clause is that Starts are barred from making laws interfering with interstate commerce.

                      All commerce is inherently discrimination.

                      When 100 people apply for a job – 99 get discriminated against.
                      Discrimination is a synonym for “choice”
                      Pregnant women discriminate against fetus’s when they get an abortion.

                      Given that the commerce clause was written by men who owned other men – black men, and that is took nearly half a million deaths to expunge formal govenrment discrimination from the constitution the claim that the commerce clause is anti-discriminatory is just historical ignorance of the highest order.
                      Worse, there is nothing one way or the other in the text.

                    5. But any rational reading of the clause means you can’t have such discrimination in commerce.

                      The Commerce Clause is a vague delegation of regulatory power to Congress. It doesn’t have any substantive content binding on private parties. (And making use of it to regulate retail trade with a predominantly local clientele was…innovative).

                    6. The primary purpose of the commerce clause was NOT to give the federal govenrment broad power over commerce. It was to deprive the states of power over interstate commerce.

                    7. If you feel you must combine it with the equal protection clause along with other sections, be my guest.

                      But I’m more than satisfied that businesses are subject to the commerce clause in the ways I stated whereas private homes are not.

                    8. “But I’m more than satisfied that businesses are subject to the commerce clause in the ways I stated whereas private homes are not.”

                      Bzzt, wrong – the constitution makes no distinction between a business and a home.

                      All that is not owned by govenrment is private and our founders wanted very little of the country owned by govenrment.

                      Further though we have a few modern and stupid exceptions the vast majority of modern law, rests on the premise that you are free to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited.

                      The concept of natural rights means government may prohibit very little.

                      Finally we know that as govenrment further encroaches outside those limits it fails ever more.

                      If it were possible for government to effectively control our lives completely communism and socialism would not have repeatedly failed so catastrophically.

                    9. SteveJ – I’m not combining anything with the Commerce Clause. The Civil Rights Act spells out specific types of discrimination including private which are illegal. It does not include political views. Some states like California have added political views as not being subject to discrimination. I don’t think the Commerce Clause applies at all in this case.

                2. You called Trump a racist based upon an untrue claim about his father when his father was 21. You also said the evidence was in the newspaper. I pulled out the newspaper and a copy of that 1927 news report. What you said was a bold-faced-lie.

                  You have accused Trump of several items and we discussed them at length. On one of those topics, I even went to the original government records that were signed by all concerned including the Trumps. What you had said was a bold-faced-lie.

                  You have a very bad record about bold-faced lies and I have come to the conclusion that your interpretation of a bold-faced-lie is frequently totally dependent on race and political persuasion.

                  1. I call Trump a racist based upon his own actions, which he adds to on a regular basis. I called his father racist for his own activities, including the ones where he and his son were sued twice by the Federal Government for housing discrimination. You do remember the applications marked “C” for colored which were used to deny rental applications? At least you acknowledge that Father Trump was at the KKK riot where he was arrested. Donald Trump the liar says he wasn’t there. Keep trolling, it’s all you’re good for.

                    1. Don’t provide another bold-faced-lie. Our discussion and your accusations that have been disproven are in black and white on earlier blogs. You said Trump’s father was a racist based on a 1927 article and that was a lie. Then you said his son Donald Trump was a racist because (paraphrasing) because an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Later you discussed a government suit proving he was a racist that wasn’t true and the signed documents proved that what you said was a bold-faced-lie. There was no accusation that Trump inserted the letter C on any documents and despite a long, expensive and extended investigation nothing of significance was found.

                      “At least you acknowledge that Father Trump was at the KKK riot where he was arrested. Donald Trump the liar says he wasn’t there.”

                      I checked on that as well and no one can even be sure it was Trump’s father at the age of 21 was actually there. Further, there was no statement that the person thought to potentially be Trump had anything to do with the KKK march.

                      All you have to do is hold Trump to the same standards you hold for yourself. If you did that then you would be saying that Trump was as pure as snow.

                      For historical sake I want you to remember that it was in 1924 that the DNC was called the Clanbake because of the strong presence of the KKK. Yes. The Democratic party was quite racist.

                    2. The most accurate thing you said was that the Democrat Party was quite racist. I’m sure I know their history better than you. I also know most of the racists left beginning in the 1960s after Democrats reluctantly passed Voting and Civil Rights Bills (with some Republican help). The “person” arrested under the name Fred Trump also provided the correct home address for the Trump family, he was represented by the same Klan lawyer as the other defendants. Only you doubt it was him, and of course, anyone who believes everything out of Donald’s mouth. As far as what I said, I can provide a blog piece indicating everything I said about Fred & Donald up to an including the “C” for colored you now forget about. Since every communication between us is in writing, I challenge you to prove all the things you claim?

                    3. You don’t stop with your bold-faced-lies.

                      You better look at your history again. It’s too late to straighten you out, but the Democratic Party was the party of racism and then the party of race-baiting and paternalism towards blacks believing that blacks were incapable of managing their own lives. … And yes they were still racist even many that hid behind the veneer of a loving worldly person. I lived among Democrats and was a Democrat though not political until I recognized the damage they did to the black community.

                      ” The “person” arrested under the name Fred Trump also provided the correct home address for the Trump family”

                      There were many questions never answered as to whether or not that person was Fred Trump. In the end, the others were let out on bail but Fred Trump or one that assumed his name was ***released as an innocent bystander***. Honest people don’t pick the conclusion they want. They accurately detail what is known. You are not being honest. Anyone can know someone’s address and if they were using someone’s name then it is likely they would know the address. I don’t know how it was in 1927, but I know from experience with children that many of them when they go to college have false ID’s with actual addresses and pictures on them even if the name is different from their real name. You are willing to convict anyone of a crime if you don’t like their politics or if their race doesn’t suit you.

                      ” he was represented by the same Klan lawyer as the other defendants. ”

                      Prove it was a Klan lawyer without using hit pieces that are willing to lie as easily as you do.

                      “Only you doubt it was him, and of course, anyone who believes everything out of Donald’s mouth.”

                      I don’t “doubt” it was him. I don’t know. There are conflicting reports. Unfortunately, to you conflicting reports mean that you choose the report that suits your aims instead of saying the truth. In other words, you crate bold-faced-lies.

                      You provided your evidence from random statements placed together to prove what you wanted to prove. That is BS. I provided the actual documents signed by the investigators and the Trumps, I think the actual documents reveal more of the truth than your random statements provide.

                      “Since every communication between us is in writing, I challenge you to prove all the things you claim?”

                      I don’t have to because you are repeating many of the statements you made before. What statement have I accused you of that hasn’t been made by you in the past few responses? Anyone can look up the 1927 news article and see that what I have said is true and that much of what you have said is a lie. Anyone can look up the documents regarding the housing dispute. Anyone can check the literature to see how the government failed to make their case and anyone with knowledge of NYC real estate can understand the political motivations.

                      Hold yourself to the same standards you hold Donald Trump. He comes out the better of the two.

                    4. Enigma, as I said you chose a hit piece against Trump placed in the NYTimes 2+months before the election. The headline reads Trump “Was First Accused of Bias”. The first sentence of the Times article documented above was a lie. Yes, Trump was accused and after a long, expensive and political investigation the investigators failed to prove their case. The investigation was covered by the NYTimes and they even reported decades ago that Trump was not found guilty. Anyone can search for the signed papers of that investigation.

                      Did they talk about the history of NYC involving such claims? No. Why they chose Trump? No, but politics was a part. Did they talk about what was actually happening? No. All the NYTimes wanted was to present a decades-old case that was closed where Trump was not found to be guilty that they could spin just before an election.

                      You are a great disappointment Enigma for you demonstrate how dishonest people can actually be. Just like your argument about Fred Trump failed, so does this one except for those that choose to disregard the truth.

                      I can see your enemies writing an article right before a vote to determine who would be a city’s next mayor. I can see the headlines How Enigma Got His Start and Was first Accused of Murder. The first sentences of copy would read Enigma gradually got rid of his competition and the murder of his main opponent was painstakingly documented. Of course, your enemies knew that the actual killer had already been executed decades before but that was not the point of the article. The point was to create a bold-face-lie by insinuation. That is what your kind do. You practice character assassination and do not care about the truth.

                    5. “So Trump sued and got a retraction right? No need to lie when the truth is sufficient. What exactly are you claiming are lies?”

                      Most of what you say.

                    6. “what was a lie?”

                      Insinuation with intent to deceive is a lie. Everything below is the truth (in this fictional story) but the intention was to deceive whoever was reading it.

                      “I can see your enemies writing an article right before a vote to determine who would be a city’s next mayor. I can see the headlines How Enigma Got His Start and Was first Accused of Murder. The first sentences of copy would read Enigma gradually got rid of his competition and the murder of his main opponent was painstakingly documented. ”

                      What do people reading the NYTimes believe after reading the above? They believe you killed your competition. Everything is true even though you had nothing to do with the murder. It is all a matter of how the piece was written and its sentence structure.

                    7. Donald Trump on immigrants, “These are sick evil people,” Trump said. “I called them animals and people said ‘that’s a terrible thing to say.’

                      Racist much?

                    8. “Donald Trump on immigrants, “These are sick evil people,” Trump said. “I called them animals and people said ‘that’s a terrible thing to say.’ Racist much?”

                      Another example of distortion of the truth. Let’s deal with the “animals” comment that you imply was racist. The video is at https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4729859/president-trumps-ms-13-animal-comment The question asked of Trump was about the members of MS 13 to which Trump answered: “these aren’t people, these are animals” (about 20 seconds in on the video.) Yes, the members of MS 13 are animals. Ask any family who has lost a loved one that was killed by an MS 13 member. Maybe we should call you an animal as well, Enigma.

        1. Enigma,…
          I wasn’t questioning if the restaurant had a legal right to refuse service to Sanders and family.
          I suppose the restaurant’s actions COULD be challenged in court, but I’m not at all sure that Sanders or any politicians are a “protected class” re public accomodations.
          Back to the Nielsen incident
          ….Nielsen could have stayed there, if, as you say, she was prepared to “face the consequences”.
          Those consequences being insulted and yelled at.
          I don’t don’t go to public places where that is likely to happen to me; obviously, I don’t get out much.😄
          But leaving my personal experiences or legalities aside, if you sign on to the Nielsen treatment as a legitimate form of communication/ feedback, then in fairness it’s open season on any candidate/ office holder who has strong opposition if they decide to “face the consequences” and go out in public.
          And that is just about every candidate and office holder.
          I think both incidents ( Sanders and Nielsen) are examples of useless, asinine gestures.
          And that one either needs to either express disapproval of those gestures, or accept it when they don’t like “their” politicians targeted in the same manner.

          1. I say if you lie to the American people, you deserve to hear about it when in their presence. Nielsen lied up and down about the policy she said didn’t exist. The public spoke. And yes, I could live with that happening to “my” politicians when they lie or go against the wishes of the people.

              1. Not disagreeing, to some degree it has always been such. I imagine it’s why Trump goes to Duluth, MN and West Virginia and other places where he isn’t likely to get “feedback.”

                1. It was actually the entire nation who gave their feedback when the electoral college made their decision. The US Constituion is the law. Move to Venezuela if you dont like it.

                  Dividing the nation is the way Marxists work. We should call a spade a spade and not allow them to do this.

                  Pull Red Hen’s busines license

                  1. There is a flaw in your “entire nation” theory. The Electoral College didn’t accurately reflect the entire nation’s opinion, did it? But that’s another issue. What law would you use to pull their license?

                    1. I suspect that Batiste would appeal to the Law of the Jungle [a.k.a. Might makes right.] I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.

                  2. In positive law, they have a franchise to do what they did. What’s your basis for stripping them of their licenses?

    4. You know perfectly well that that Baker was targeted by the gay couple for what happened. It’s not the only time either. If you’re going to make comparisons, make sure you’re picking apples from both sides.

    5. You know perfectly well that that Baker was targeted by the gay couple for what happened. It’s not the only time either. If you’re going to make comparisons, make sure you’re picking apples from both sides.

  5. Good grief. Liberals in this country have gone way past unhinged – I am stunned. This is beginning to get legitimately concerning.

    1. The conservative Ben Schapiro said, “We shall hunt down racists—and hurt their careers”. Nationalists are losing their jobs across America—no one says “Boo”. If you take a man’s job away, you kill him. Be a Trump supporter—and you will lose your job.

      Yes. But it is past “legitimately concerning”—it is time to oil the weapon and stockpile food and ammo. It’s a comming folks.

      What are you going to do James, when the Democratic House of Representatives in 2019 Impeach President Trump? Will you stand by idly and moan? Complain a little? What are you prepared to do?

      “Legitimately concerning” We just had a Coup-de-etat! Federal Bureaucrats across many departments conspired to whip up conditions to Impeach Trump. The IG report only covers a small part of the Coup.

      I think it is way past time for “concerned”.

      1. It remains to be seen. I’m not prepared to make proclamations about anything just yet. Most people still get along just fine in my mid-sized city, as well as those that I visit, our leaders are not our popukace, no different than any nation. For now I will allow my real experiences to counter balance online hostility.

    2. It’s liberals, eh?

      This coming after conservatives won the right to refuse service to people they hate for supposedly religious reasons is p-r-e-t-t-y effing rich.

      1. This coming after conservatives won the right to refuse service to people they hate for supposedly religious reasons is p-r-e-t-t-y effing rich.

        No, what’s rich is that you’re issuing rebukes while being too crude and ignorant to understand the issues or the parties involved in either case.

      2. That was to the best of my knowledge, an isolated incident, and I find it just as distasteful as you. This peice pertains to what has become a daily and regular occurance.

      3. “Right to refuse service to gays”

        There it is in a nutshell by Gingerbaker.

        For 2500 years, Western Civilization and culture discriminated and refused service. That is part of the Western ethos.

        What is new is Gingerbaker’s sentiment. It is the ethos of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism! Modern Republicanism ended Western Civilization. Modern Republicanism which was the American and French Revolution ended Christendom.

        The Sophist Hegel and all the other Enlightenment thinkers ended Western Culture.

        What replaced Western Culture and Civilization is Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism, or Liberalism.

        What we are witnessing is the mop-up operation of the Left as they continue to sanitize the last aspects of the Old Order, Christianity and Nations, from the face of the earth. They are hell-bent on their crusade of Utopia! They are about cleansing the earth of all that is vile—Christians and nationalists!

        Nihilists all.

        As it is in the song: “Welcome to the Jungle”!

  6. Jonathan Turley I always appreciate how you consistently place principle over politics. This posting provides one of your best examples. I agree with you 100%. We need civility to help us solve problems. #LoveIsTheAnswer #‎MoreLoveLessHate

  7. We need a mugshot of the owner. It could be used to advertise items such as toilet paper or outhouse cleaner firms.

  8. The purpose of a business is to make money. Why should they care what the background or employer is of a customer? As long as they pay the bill and don’t cause problems anyone can come in the door.

    For this restaurant if they want to act like this, let them suffer the benefits of their decision. If they lose money or fail good for them. It just means more revenue for other restaurants.

    1. Exactly!!! If I were a conservative cake baker, and a gay couple asked me to bake a cake, I would ask for the quantity wanted and ask them to refer their friends. Likewise with a restaurant who has a member of the White House Staff who is loaded with cash and multiple friends. I would ask to have pictures taken while eating at my restaurant, then hang the frame photos at my restaurant and in advertising for sales and marketing purposes

      WDBJ TV News Channel 7 is reporting that the owner of the restaurant is a cousin of Meryl Streep.

      http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Sarah-Sanders-asked-to-leave-Red-Hen-restaurant-for-her-political-affiliation-486354651.html

      So much for open minds being like parachutes.

      They will be closing due to loss sales.

      Hypocrites and hate abound these days.

  9. Perfessa, Where did you read in Mark M statement that he calls the right Nazis or told you or others to die? You did that, not Mark M. The only abhorrent behavior was yours.

  10. I will be surprised if that Red Hen will be in business one year from now.
    That leftist owner bought herself a ton of bad press.

    1. Gary – she will increase her business exponentially – all the left over Hilbots will eat there in droves.

      1. I agree but most likely that will be only a temporary measure. More likely most of the new liberal customers will return to their old restaurant habits, the present conservative customers will never dine there again, and the restaurant’s goodwill will be damaged for a year or two.

        People who like a business just add it to a list among many others, but when they are pissed off by a business they never forget.

        1. Lexington is a small town and her clientele is likely local. She could get business off I-81, although she’s slightly out of range for that. There’s usually a cluster of franchises around each exit. Then again, Mrs. Sanders located her, almost certainly while traveling. Lexington’s not an exurb of Washington. It’s hours away even without the traffic. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they get the college town faculty business and the woman’s social circle is so uniform she’s hardly aware of anyone else there.

        2. You’re probably right Darren. And Liberals are notoriously trendy when it comes to “causes” – short attention spans I guess.

  11. I’m sure it’s a religious objection to serving a liar! I hear that SCOTUS is all for it! No problem with he exclusion on the new ruling. No liars, no shoes, no shirt no service! Sounds fine to me.

    1. Justice Holmes, do I have to have a religious objection to serving liars in order to refuse service to liars? Could I assert, instead, a fear of those who say that I’m supposed to fear their God whenever I lie but not whenever they lie?

  12. Public Accommodation laws were established to ensure no law abiding traveler would ever be turned away from among other things, a place to eat. To that there is no room for discussion . . .

    1. Under the law, being a lying mouthpiece for a charlatan is not a suspect classification. This is a blog frequented in large part by lawyers, reddit is down the hall.

      this is to “counselor” someguy

    2. Shopkeeper engaged in viewpoint discrimination based solely upon who the person works for, which is prohibited under the First Amendment. You may not like who a person works for but you are required to keep that view to yourself when you enter the realm of public accommodations . .

      1. Shopkeeper engaged in viewpoint discrimination based solely upon who the person works for, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.

        The shopkeeper isn’t an organ of government.

            1. Store keeper is not a private party, the storekeeper is by virtue of the business license an extension of the state.

              1. Yes, a storekeeper is a private party. No clue how you got the idea a hardware dealer is an ‘extension of the state’.

              2. The owner of The Red Hen is under no obligation to celebrate the political ideology of Sarah Huckabee Sanders nor The Commonwealth of Virginia.

                However, the owner of The Red Hen is obligated to tolerate the political ideologies of all Americans including Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And The Commonwealth of Virginia cannot impose any one political ideology on any of its citizens.

                P. S. There’s no indication that Ms. Huckabee Sanders intended to foment any political ideology at all whilst dining at The Red Hen. And it’s not necessarily her fault that she didn’t know that American anarchists are the one’s who cooked up the fable of The Little Red Hen in the first place. That would be the fault of The State of Arkansas, instead.

                1. “However, the owner of The Red Hen is obligated to tolerate the political ideologies of all Americans including Sarah Huckabee Sanders.”

                  No they are not. They are obligated no to use force against others.
                  They should be free to make their choices as to who they do business with – aka free association, as they please. They are generally free to do as they please – but for the ever increasing number of left wing nut special reasons why they can not. As they left does not seem to grasp that we are only equal in terms of our natural rights, and before the law. We are clearly not equal in any other way.

                  “And The Commonwealth of Virginia cannot impose any one political ideology on any of its citizens.”
                  Correct, but the Red Hen is NOT the Commonwealth of Virginia.

                  “There’s no indication that Ms. Huckabee Sanders intended to foment any political ideology at all whilst dining at The Red Hen.”
                  Irrelevant. At an actual public forum – which the Red Hen isn’t she is free to “Foment” away.
                  When in the property of others she is constrained by the requirements of the property owner.

  13. Supposed that openly gay couple walked into that bakery seeking to purchase
    a considerable number of pastry items, says 2 to 3 dozen of a number of items.
    Curious, the owner asks, “Big party?”
    The couple respond, “Why yes!It’s for our Wedding Reception?
    The owner by whatever questions determines that it is the gay couple that are getting mmarried.
    Would the owner be required to allow the purchase?
    What about that, Nick?

    1. Yes, the baker would have to sell the pastry items. Jesus, how many times does this have to be explained? In simple language? Okay, I’ll give it another go. Please try to follow along this time. The Supreme Court said a baker does not have to create a CUSTOM wedding cake, which is a form of artistic expression, if such would violate his religious convictions. Key words, “create” and “custom.” The ruling does not apply to non-unique items like cookies, donuts, pastries, and off-the-shelf cakes. Get it? It’s really not that hard to understand….

  14. She wasn’t asked to leave for being “conservative.” She was asked to leave because she is the lying mouthpiece for the greatest danger our Great Experiment has ever faced. We have always been able to come together (E Pluribus Unum) to defeat any external foe. But the internal foe in the White House and those that charlatan has conned have riven our country asunder. Any moral person who was placed in the position of being required to lie the the American people on a daily basis would have resigned. She hasn’t and so therefore is complicit in the attempt to destroy America. She forgot that when you lie down with dogs you gonna get fleas.

    1. No, she was asked to leave because the owner is a shrew willing to trash her business in the service of witless political fictions to which you hold and she holds.

      1. So sorry for your status; as one of the conned you will fortunately also be saved when we remedy your mistake.

        this is to the nutty sufferer

        1. Mark M., are you suggesting that the owner of The Red Hen may have had a legitimate concern for the public safety of her other patrons and her own property, if she had served Huckabee Sanders, and if something approaching a riot might have ensued? IIRC, that defense has been previously used to stymie boycotts and picket-lines and the like. So why couldn’t that defense work for The Red Hen refusing to serve Huckabee Sanders?

          1. L4D,…
            – I don’t know what kind of “defense” you are thinking of.
            I doubt that there will be a legal challenge involving the restaurant’s refusal to serve Sarah Sanders and family.
            (And the legal aspect of this incident has not been my focus in prior my prior posts in this thread)
            If you are instead making a far-fetched claim that the refusal to serve was based on the restaurant’s management’s fear that the presence of Samders and family was an incitment to disruptive activity/ violence among other patrons, that’s pretty lame.
            But I will say that in the relatively few times that I have seen disruptive, over-the-top behavior in restaurants, nightclubs, taverns, etc., the management has dealt with those who inititiated the disturbance.
            I think that makes a lot more sense than claiming that the mere presence of a “potential” target like Sanders & family ” might” be soooh offensive to some patrons that trouble “might” develop.

          2. L4D the owner can have good reason or no reason at all.

            The left wingnut fixation on why people do things is stupid.

            Out law should – and almost always does restrict itself to our acts.
            Our ability to guess the reasons why something was done are irrelevant.

    2. FYI, I felt the exact same way when the charlatan Obama was in office. Big difference was that he despised our country, and Trump does not.

      This is to “watching The View gives me a woody” Marky Mark Mark.

    3. Marky Mark Mark re: “Any moral person who was placed in the position of being required to lie the the American people on a daily basis would have resigned.”

      Huh – maybe she has a lot more in common with Rachel Mad Cow than I thought!

  15. Previous stories identified the co-owners as John Blackburn and Stephanie Wilkinson.

    The Facebook page to which you linked is Mr. Blackburn’s personal page. He lists himself as a ‘former co-owner’.

  16. Question. Is Red Hen a Chain of some sort and if so what is the geographical area.If so was he management the offending store ….managed by corporate? Or are they left to do whatever?

    1. I’d have guessed a franchise, but apparently there are two restaurants within a few hours of each other using the same name. You don’t have a trademark if you don’t register it and defend it.

      1. There are (at least) three completely separate entities called The Red Hen on the East Coast: one in Lexington, VA, one in Washington, DC, and one in Swedesboro, NJ. They are not related at all, and have no common ownership. You really do not feel obligated to check facts before posting, do you? Your arrogance is completely unjustified.

        1. You really do not feel obligated to check facts before posting,

          You evidently don’t feel obligated to read what I said, either.

  17. I am an 80 year old retired attorney and I have never seen the state that this country is currently in. The violence that the liberals will engage in is unbelievable. We may have to revert back to the biblical adage “An eye for an eye.” That may be all that they understand. I never thought I would see the day when a whore (Stormy Daniels) and a clown (Kathy Griffin) would stand up at a performance and give the President of the United States the finger and say F— you. A disgrace! We can not continue to allow this behavior. We could be looking at a civil war if the common man ever wakes up as to what is really going on in this country. It may be “Lock and Load” time.

    1. Did you fail the Constitutional Law courses at your law school? How about Criminal Law? You are truly a scary individual, Ray. I am so glad to hear that you are retired, and I hope that you will get a mental health check up soon.

    2. Ray, I am with you, as an Older American, Veteran. You are quite right. Don’t listen to “L2” or the rest of the naysayers. You are correct sir. America is gone. We are in a cold civil war–which will turn hot.

    3. I truly am frightened by the hate on the left. I think if this were done to a liberal by a conservative business, I would not be interested in doing business there. It is so different than the bakery situation. People just want to ignore facts.

    4. You shouldn’t worry about it so much, Ray. You’ve done what you can and you won’t have to witness the results for long.

  18. One more thing. Liberals get away with this kind of behavior because civil people like Sara Sanders is a lady. I am not, this old country boy would have accidentally flipped over a few tables and broken some dishes on the way out. I am looking back at life and am sad our better days are gone. I remember when people with differing views had civil disagreements. Today it is perilous to say anything political to anyone.

  19. Sarah Sanders did exactly the right thing, just walk away. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

  20. As much as I am against the restaurant, and bakeries that refuse cakes to gays, I can’t help feel sort of, kind of, in a way, good about it. The restaurant owner should have let them be seated, and then sold tickets to the fight between patrons; ‘food fight’.

    1. As a gay man I will note that bakeries have not denied cakes but rather messages on cakes for gays. I would not feel obligated to bake an ISIS cake.If you find joy in the restaurant’s behavior, then your standing up for us gay is fake

      1. Gay men seem to be able to stand up for themselves. I find joy in seeing that disgusting hand puppet of Trump’s get a little of the abuse the turnip is visiting on America. At least I am being honest. You should try it some time.

Leave a Reply