Recently 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…”
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✔@PressSecLast 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 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.
Now Pam Bondi!
Saw that as well.
Looks really grim all around
Enjoy your Sunday. I need to unplug from the news and interact with my family 😍
no/Users/j/Desktop/Sign.jpg
WHO STARTED ALL THIS LACK OF CIVILITY. ???????
Earl Warren, the future Chief Justice, who burned our country’s moral and religious fiber. That’s who.
Liberals have not stopped since then and, like Bill and Hillary, have no inherent sense of uttering “mea culpa”…ever.
Contrition isnt part of their makeup. The ending looks extremely grim like Venezuela and N. Korea
“A liberal Republican, Warren was elected California attorney general in 1938. Though he helped to modernize the office during his term, Warren’s record was tarnished by the fact that he was a key player in the demand that people of Japanese ancestry be removed from the West Coast during World War II. Warren and others justified their actions by insisting that it was a matter of national security, and that California was vulnerable to Japanese spies. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the removal in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their property and businesses, and were moved to concentration camps for the remainder of the war. Warren defended his actions throughout his public career, but in retirement, he admitted the relocation was a terrible mistake based on unsubstantiated fears.”
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3834.html
Really? Blaming liberals for the internment of Japanese Americans? Really?
Who’s putting children in internment camps nowadays, Rhoda??? Liberals???
What? Who was president at that time?
I’m aware of that. FDR was President. And FDR was a liberal. Now who amongst American conservatives opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Any? Rumor has it that racism was the primary driving force behind the internment of Japanese Americans. Additional forces include straight forward land-grabbing and rampant paranoia about a Japanese invasion of Mainland America. Does any of that sound familiar to Suze? While you’re thinking about those questions, consider the previous question: who’s putting children in internment camps nowadays? Earl Warren? FDR? Or Trump, Sessions and Nielsen?
spins spins spins.
Coolidge appointee J. Edgar Hoover on internment:
“Hoover played a major role—though largely in the background—in the conflict between the Justice Department and War Department/army over the mass exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast. After Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox made the inflammatory statements about fifth column work in Hawai’i in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hoover contradicted Knox, stating unequivocally that there had been no such sabotage. Though Hoover’s statement was withheld for a time, it was made public after the Tolan Committee hearings. Hoover later reported to Attorney General Francis Biddle that the Western Defense Command’s intelligence capabilities were marred by “[h]ysteria and lack of judgment.”[1] On February 3, 1942 Hoover sent Biddle his assessment of the push for mass removal: “The necessity for mass evacuation is based primarily upon public and political pressure rather than on factual data.”[2] Though he didn’t necessarily believe all Japanese Americans were loyal, he did believe that there was no need for mass exclusion, especially given the FBI’s prior arrest of those on the custodial detention list. Hoover had read—and largely concurred with—Kenneth Ringle’s January 26, 1942 report and Ringle’s and Curtis Munson’s earlier recommendations (see Munson Report). Despite his presence at key meetings with the War Department and the esteem that the President held him in, Executive Order 9066 was signed and mass exclusion took place. “
Score one for American conservatives. Who else you got on your team?
Hoover was a progressive republican, not a conservative.
Nearly every program of the New Deal originated with Hoover.
Nearly every program of the New Deal originated with Hoover.
No, almost nothing did. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was set up during the last year of the Hoover Administration and Congress also incorporated a small fund meant to stabilize commodity prices. That’s it.
Several members of FDR’s braintrust would beg to differ.
Amity Shlaes provides numerous cites to people like Tugwell making the same claim that I did.
https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428
FDR actually campaigned against Hoover claiming he was a socialist and attacking the very programs that he eventually renamed or reconstituted and adopted.
Prior to his defeat by Roosevelt Hoover was a progressive republican. With decades of progressive bonafides.
Harding appointed Hoover – not Coolidge.
Coolidge and Hoover did not like each other and were political polar opposites.
Hoover became conservative AFTER his loose to Roosevelt.
Dhlii, I always looked at Hoover as FDR lite for a good number of things were started under Hoover and continued by FDR in a more substantial way.
Enough of that. I have to pick up another book for light reading where I will be distracted. I generally don’t like fiction. I liked Amity’s book on Coolidge. How does this one compare: The Forgotten Man?
I did not read Schlaes book on Coolidge – though she covers Coolidge a bit in the Forgotten Man.
But I though “the forgotten man” was excellent.
A substantial part of the book is the writing of people from the time. Schlaes Currates what she uses but much of that is said comes from the people who did it.
Thanks.
Dhlii, I always looked at Hoover as FDR lite for a good number of things were started under Hoover and continued by FDR in a more substantial way.
Except that isn’t true. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation and efforts to manipulate farm prices were the only notable programs of the era which antedated Roosevelt’s inauguration. Hoover’s response to the Depression was fundamentally passive for more than three years. The one thing the two men shared was an allergy to nominal wage adjustments. Hoover’s efforts in that vein were only hortatory, however.
Because you say so ?
We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the Whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.
Rexford Tugwell
The ideas embodied in the New Deal Legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Herbert Hoover’s aegis. We all of us owed much to Hoover
Rexford Tugwell
Replying to DSS or Nutchacha is Insufferable
Allan wrote:”Dhlii, I always looked at Hoover as FDR lite for a good number of things were started under Hoover and continued by FDR in a more substantial way.”
DSS writes: “Except that isn’t true. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation and efforts to manipulate farm prices were the only notable programs of the era which antedated Roosevelt’s inauguration.”
—–
“Except that isn’t true. “
DSS, we disagree again, but what you said in your own post was a large portion of FDR’s program and in part that is why I refer to Hoover as FDR lite. Hoover didn’t push them to the degree FDR did and was known as a ‘do nothing’. If only those two similarities existed I would continue making that statement (FDR lite).
Hoover wasn’t exactly the poster child of laissez-faire. In four years of his administration, he tremendously increased federal spending, raised taxes and he attempted to raise wages through government intervention. Add those things to what you have already said and you can probably add a few more.
In fact I am not very original in saying what I said. One of FDR’s own advisors admitted to the fact or at least he believed it to be fact that the essence of the New Deal was already started before FDR assumed the Presidency.
Think what Roosevelt’s platform was. He called Hoover’s spending reckless and called for lower federal spending.
DSS, you can continue to hold onto your opinion “Except” your opinion “isn’t true.”
Tiara Boy said, “Hoover was a progressive republican . . .”
Not that Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover.
And what’s up with Nii letting Tiara Boy get away with that one?
You introduced the FBI director.
Given that J. Edger had nothing to do with the RFA – the error is yours.
Nutchacha is insufferable
June 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM
Coolidge appointee J. Edgar Hoover on internment:
“Hoover played a major role—though largely in the background—in the conflict between the Justice Department and War Department/army over the mass exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast.
[edit]
Though he didn’t necessarily believe all Japanese Americans were loyal, he did believe that there was no need for mass exclusion, especially given the FBI’s prior arrest of those on the custodial detention list. Hoover had read—and largely concurred with—Kenneth Ringle’s January 26, 1942 report and Ringle’s and Curtis Munson’s earlier recommendations (see Munson Report). “
You obviously don’t follow threads. Your complaint is as tiresome as it is wrong.
I do beleive FDR was president – are you disowning him ?
I am not so sure that detaining people who break the law, prior to sending them back to their homes, is the same is gathering people who did not break the law and incarcerating them for the hell of it.
Turley wrote, “I have been highly critical of Trump and his Administration.”
Really? I have yet to read any criticism from Turley against Trump, Sessions and Nielsen’s zero-tolerance policy that separates immigrant children from their parents at the US-Mexico border. Sometimes silence is acceptance or worse–tacit agreement.
Meanwhile, Turley is outraged by two incidents of protest against members of the Trump administration.
And still not one word from Turley as to whether or not prosecuting every last immigrant parent who commits the misdemeanor offense of crossing the border illegally is a prudent use of prosecutorial discretion that necessarily separates immigrant children from their parents; that necessarily prevents the parents from seeking asylum; that necessarily places the children of one ethnic group in the care of another ethnic group without any existing process nor much of any realistic prospect for eventually reuniting those children with their parents.
What if Myanmar were doing this to The Rohingya? Would Turley then lodge a complaint against any protesters who might treat two Myanmar government officials in an uncivil manner?
Turley and many of us are highly critical of Trump.
But because we do not find EVERYTHING that he does evil, or EVERYTHING that is done to him to be automatically good – we get this nonsense from you.
Trump is a mysoginyst. Nor quite as bad a one as Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, or Roy Moore.
More in league with Franken, and Biden.
He is wrong on many aspects of immigration – though not nearly so wrong as the left.
He is wrong on Trade.
He is loud and grating – but so is the left and the press (as if they were different) and they deserve each other, while the rest of us ignore them.
He has also done the best job of any president in my lifetime of keeping campaign promises – even the ones I wish he had not.
That is something the left can not grasp – integrity.
It is not what you say. It is what you do.
Sure thing, sophist; does Hitler get kudos for keeping his promises as well?
“Sure thing, sophist; does Hitler get kudos for keeping his promises as well?”
I will take Sophist as a compliment – though my arguments are neither elaborate, nor devious.
Though I have attacked your ideology on many fronts.
The simplest is that your ideology does not work. History has demonstrated that over and over.
Churchill warned all that Hitler was serious and would keep his promises.
And he did.
Of course Trump’s actual promises are quite different from Hitler’s.
But if we are going to breach Goodwin’s laws,
The left’s desire to purge all dissenters compares more favorably to Hitler than anything Trump has promised.
Your false and cockamamie inferences regarding my political philosophical beliefs betray your risible dearth of intellect, surfeit of dishonesty and numbing moral incontinence.
“Your false and cockamamie inferences regarding my political philosophical beliefs betray your risible dearth of intellect, surfeit of dishonesty and numbing moral incontinence.”
I have made no presumptions about your political or philosophical beleifs.
I have taken you at your word.
I have assumed that you believe what you say.
I would further note that your argument is not only false, but fallacious.
False assumptions regarding your politics would implicate my clairvoyance not intellect.
I would further note you are actually making the mistake you are accusing me of.
Either that or you are lobing insult grenades without thought.
Prosecutorial discretion should be extremely limited.
If the police officer get a call for a burglary in progress while writing you a traffic ticket – he should deal with the burglary.
Much beyond that – the rule of law REQUIRES enforcing the law – dispassionately.
If the law is wrong – change it.
One of the best ways we can tell that the laws is wrong, is to enforce it rigorously.
Regardless, The recent IG’s report is ample demonstration of why prosecutorial discretion is a bad thing.
It is impossible to tell it from cronyism, bias or lawlessness.
As to the misdemeanor border crossers. We can avoid family separation entirely by immediately deporting anyone who crosses outside a proper checkpoint.
If you want to seek asylum – do so openly – come to Customs and immigration and ask for asylum.
If you are caught shoplifting at Walmart, no one is letting you off because you brought your child.
And you can pretty much expect to be separated.
If you do not want your children cared for by others you do not know – do not cross the border illegally with them. Your argument is ludicrously stupid. About 20,000 minor us citizens are separated from their parents each year because their parents have committed crimes. Many of these are placed with people of different ethnicity. But if mexican americans or other hispanic americans want to step up and provide foster care – go right ahead.
In the meantime my first concern is for the children.
We do not jail children because of the actions of their parents. Though the left seems to be demanding that.
Acute and acerbic observation, L4D!
I lover your work, Portent401.
Commercial suicide is fascinating!
The other issue here is that she’s chairman and executive director of a parastatal local business association. It’ll be interesting to see what the rest of the board does with her – before and after her restaurant goes tits up.
par·a·stat·al
ADJECTIVE 1. working with the government in an unofficial capacity.
NOUN 2. a parastatal company or group.
For those of you keeping score at home, Nii says the deep state has gone parastatal in Lexington Va.
It is, isn’t it?
I have problems with what occurred to the Sec. DHS – that teetered on violence.
That said – just as Christian bakers are free to not provide cakes for gay weddings, the owners of resturaunts should be free to deny service to anyone they wish – Conservatives, liberals.
Free exchange is two parties voluntarily agreeing to trade. It must be voluntary.
Good intentioned laws to force some of us to serve others destroy morality.
Those on the left who wish to sequester themselves entirely from people who think differently, are free to do so – so long as they do not infringe on actual rights or engage in violence.
And conservatives or others who are offended can choose exactly the same.
Red Hen can serve who it pleases, and the rest of us can chose whether to patronize Red Hen.
I suspect ultimately business owners will find that being selective about who they serve is a bad choice.
Regardless it is their choice.
But please do not come begging to me, and moaning about christian bakers, or Hobby Lobby, or Little Sisters of the Poor, or if some Wall Street brokerage decides to test its job aplicants for specific political views.
If we are only free to make good decisions – we are not really free
Did you have the slightest compunction about candidate Trump’s direct — and clearly illegal but non-prosecuted — incitement of violence against individual protesters in front of him whom he targeted for physical abuse? Right….!
“Did you have the slightest compunction about candidate Trump’s direct — and clearly illegal but non-prosecuted — incitement of violence against individual protesters in front of him whom he targeted for physical abuse? Right….”
Did I say I voted for Trump ?
Like Turley and most others here who occasionally must hold their noses and defend Trump, that is not an endorsement of everything he says or does.
I would also note that “incitement to violence” prosecutions have a long ignoble history – perhaps you have heard of Debb’s ?
Nor do I have a problem with those at a political rally excluding protestors.
Removing those who are trespassing often results in violence.
You waft arround rhetorical flourishes like “clearly illegal” when “clearly” you do not know what you are talking about.
“people are more than the worst thing they have ever done in their lives”
― Helen Prejean
Feel free to attack Trump, or me, or anyone.
You claim to be intelligent and educated.
Can you constrain your attacks with facts, logic, reason ?
If you are as well educated as you claim then you know what a logical fallacy is.
You should know what a false equivalence is, but thus far the evidence is you can not tell
a false equivalence from one that is true.
You should also know what a sweeping generalization is.
Though given that nearly all your arguments are of the Form:
“Trump did something arguably bad.
Therefore Trump is more evil than Hitler.
You have defended Trump on one issue
therefore you agree with everything Trump says and does
therefore you are a fascist. “
Ironically, your pap commits every logical fallacy of which you preposterously accuse me without an iota of evidentiary warrant, gaslighter. As a philosopher, I’m entirely conversant with the range of logical fallacies — and moral inanities — that your posts belie!
“Ironically, your pap commits every logical fallacy of which you preposterously accuse me without an iota of evidentiary warrant, gaslighter. As a philosopher, I’m entirely conversant with the range of logical fallacies — and moral inanities — that your posts belie!”
Then you would be capable of pointing out each fallacious argument as well as the fallacy present.
Your remarks “but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
If you are so knowledgeable, so well versed – make your arguments – facts, logic, reason.
It is not all that hard.
Hen ‘recked
I made a comment earlier this evening that was incorrect and I need to apologize for it to other readers. I stated that I saw a photo of the signage outside the Red Hen that was from a news outlet that showed a hammer and sickle on the Red Hen outdoor sign. Later, while searching again, I found the photo of such a sign that read “Red Hen” and which included a hammer and sickle, but it was among hundreds of vicious attack photos/messages from both the right and left toward the restaurant, Sanders, Trump, Hillary, Obama, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, etc. It even included a mostly nude manufactured false photo of Sanders in a bath tub and photos of food with worms and vermin purported to be from the restaurant. The messaging from proponents of both sides was horrible.
While my subsequent commentary about the much higher historic relative viciousness of the left compared to the right holds was true the past and hold true even now, I apologize to other readers and to the Red Hen restaurant for my error.
I don’t know that anyone on the so-called left has time or inclination to manufacture Faux Neuz.
Of course, those on the left are the bastions of truth and accuracy in reporting….Not.
Some are. Some are too caught up in their cause.
Same goes for the so-called right.
I hate to classify as either left or right those going to considerable effort to just make stuff up, sometimes going to
extremes.
Maybe we should call those the downers.
We have a tiny number of christian businessmen who mostly using poor moral reasoning refuse to provide some limited services that offend their beleifs to some customers.
We have left coffee shops refusing service to people with MAGA hats and aparently much of the DC food industry actively trying to starve and punish anyone associated with Trump.
We have universities throughout the country where students ill burn the campuses down if anyone on campus is permitted to hear speakers they do not like.
Sorry, but the problem of intolerance on the left is far larger than on the right.
In the past I gave money to the ACLU and supported their efforts to allow Neo-Nazi’s and the KKK to march through my city. And when the marches occured I was at them quietly protesting.
That used to be what liberalism meant. I was arround for the Berkeley Free Speach Movement.
Now Berkeley is ground zero for left wing nut intolerance.
dhlii, you understand what liberalism means. Liberals like you are nearly extinct. The radical leftist wing of the Democratic Party has taken over. Certain opinions must be suppressed, because they are founded on “lies.” Further, violent action against people expressing “extremist views” is justified because it is “self-defense.” That of course, is the position of Antifa, not mainstream progressives. It is only a matter of time until angry mainstream progressives adopt the Antifa view
It’s a good thing the radicalist right wing hasn’t taken over the Republican Party……
The GOP these days is pretty tame.
The culture wars are over and the left won.
The only issues regarding Gays is whether christian bakers can be forced to make them wedding cakes.
Just as whether far left Restaurant owners are free to discriminate against patrons based on their politics.
The entire country has come to a consensus on abortion – before 20W OK, after probably not.
Many republicans are agressively trying to end abortion after 20W. All but the most ferverent leftist do not care. Ultimately there must be a line somewhere – unless you beleive that mothers are free to kill their adult children ?
Efforts to force christian fundimentalism into government have died.
The Neo-Conns have all moved to the Democrats, so the war party is the left.
What is it that republicans are so radical about ?
That we can not spend ourselves to prosperity ?
That whatever you feel about a variety of issues, that it is not the governments job to deliver to you all your wants and needs.
If you want an abortion, a sex change, birth control, medical insurance, a job, ….
These and many many others are all things you must provide for yourself.
Is that controversial ?
Govenrment is force and force has few legitimate uses:
Punishing the unjustified use of force by others.
Enforceing the committments we make to others.
Holding us accountable when we actually harm others intentioanly of otherwise.
The price of raisins, or sugar subsidies are just not the business of government.
What is so radical about the GOP today ?
It’s unconscious and incoherent conflation of libertarianism with anarchism, just for starts.
“It’s unconscious and incoherent conflation of libertarianism with anarchism, just for starts.”
Why not start with a clear english sentence.
Or more simply can I buy a noun ?
“It’s” – what is “it’s”.
Presuming by “it’s” is you mean the GOP’s – the possessive form of it is “its”. “it’s” is a constraction of “it is”.
Though you could solve the problem by not using a pronoun at the start of a sentence at the start of a comment.
Overall I am not looking to defend the GOP.
But neither the GOP nor I conflate anarchism with libertarianism.
I know of no significant group and no one posting hear arguing for anarchism.
I do not know of any consequential group arguing for anarcho-capitalism – which is not anarchy.
At the same time thus far your intellect has not proved capable of knowing what an anarcho-capitalist is much less engaging in a debate with a competent one.
Republicans are not even minarchists.
The GOP just passed a budget that was atleast as profligate as what one would expect of democrats.
That is very un-anarchist, un-libertarian.
Being slightly less statist than your typical progressive is NOT the same as being an anarchist.
But then what would you expect from those who think anyone to the right of Marx is a Nazi.
I am libertarian – aka classical liberal, not progressive I am Liberal – like John Locke, Voltaire, David Hume, John Stuart Mill.
Yes, I understand the difference between actual liberalism – as in valuing individual liberty highly and the modern left.
The left is self destructing.
If the Red Hen does not want business – that is a self punishing act.
“so-called?”
Then you do not watch any news.
This actually made BBC world news.
And also the Guardian today.
Also the Telegraph.
So are the employees of the Red Hen going to ask each of their customers what political party they support before they are seated?
“Political party” had absolutely nothing to do with the refusal of service for the mouthpiece and enabler of the day glo bozo. Just as “elections have consequences” so does “lying to the American people as part of your job” have consequences. She didn’t resign once she discovered what her job entailed, thus she merits her treatment by patriotic Americans. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “But what about benghazi or seth rich or a black president” christi
Mark – You have the right (which unfortunately our law does not recognize) to choose to engage in volunatary exchange or not with whoever you choose without regard for your reasons.
You are free to think as you please regarding Sanders. You are free to server her or not, to boycott those who do, or to boycott those who don’t.
Whatever freedom you have, you must also allow others.
If the left can refuse service for political reasons – so can anyone else – including the right.
Wickedly nailed the Trumpneck hypocrisy and ignorance!
Do you think that the hypocritical garbage of left wingnuts is meaningful ?
Pot meet Kettle.
One does nto have to be an in the tank trumpster to grasp that Trump and his minions have not yet offered a whopper like
“if you like your doctor you can keep them”
or
“I did not have sex with that woman”.
Just part of the process as the country slides towards civil war. My own view is that the sociologists and political theorists in the Kremlin must be dancing for joy, as their carefully aimed torpedos rip the US ship of state asunder.
Chances are that The Kremlin is licking its chops over the prospects for forcible mass deportations of non-Russian ethnic populations. And if Trump objects, then . . . wait. Trump objecting to Putin??? Never mind.
Not a problem. Groups can coordinate, find out where the Russians eat and hang out, and then heckle them right out of the country.
If Trump created this situation….”he started it” with the “Russia issue”…and it’s believed that he’s dragging him feet when it comes to deporting enough Russians, then I’m confident that enough people will take action “to make their voices heard”.
Trump is sending people back to their homes.
I’ll go with Ockham’s razor for none of the proposed rationals make sense, unless the proprietor deliberately acted to inflame public opinion which itself would be an act of pure political biased behaviour. Would be a non-issue had the proprietor simply stated that being disquieted in that some bugged eyed, foaming mouth protesters would show up, causing a scene thereby disturbing the peace of the customers and possibly create a shambles of what is a family restaurant, being a thing closer to truth is far more forgivable than the public discord now raised . .
This is ridiculous I think a lawyer needs to become involved and sue the red hen for discrimination just for the point you can’t hang an open sign and then refuse to serve certain people who have done nothing wrong
Lisa. You ignorant sl*t. This is a blog frequented by lawyers. If you had read any of the postings here, the preposterous remedy you cried for would have been fully illuminated and debunked for you. Pro tip: reddit is down the hall.
this is to “but when it’s one of “those people” it’s different, isn’t it?” lisa
Mark, the logic problem is on your side fo the fence.
Lisa is merely advocating the same legal warfare the left has engaged in regarding discrimination for decades.
She is wrong – for the same reasons the left has been wrong for decades.
Freedom means the right to make choices, with your own life, property, and businesses that others do no like.
Mark M … “Lisa. You ignorant sl*t.”?
I bet it never dawned on you Mark what a “willfully stupid” response that is?
Oh wait … YOU are one of the “too stupid to recognize stupid” among an otherwise intelligent group of humanity?
If STUPID commenting was your goal?
BRAVO little man you are a success 😉
“Lisa. You ignorant sl*t. This is a blog frequented by lawyers. ”
Mark, you have said you are a lawyer and based on what you write I don’t think she has too much confidence in the legal profession. She would be right to state that you aren’t very bright.
Lisa, there are some lawyers on this blog that are smart and polite. Mark is better known as road kill.
Please NO!
This is a huge mistake on the part of the left.
They are not merely demanding but taking a very strong stand for the right to make personal economic choices regarding voluntary actions with others.
They are destroying the legal foundations for all anti-discrimination and public accomodation laws.
LET THEM!
They are undermining themselves, the only response that anyone should have with the left over this is that rights are universal. There is no such things as a right specific to lefties to protest those that offend them.
What a heaping helping of malarkey — dished out by a law professor whose moral compass was apparently miscalibrated to render the incontrovertible human evil of tearing innocent immigrant babies and young children from their mothers commensurate with showing the door to the authors, enforcers and defenders of that inhumane government policy. False facts are bad enough. False moral equivalence evidences brazen immaturity and repugnant gaslighting!
Nope! Turley is exposing a quite true moral equivalence.
I would suggest reading JS Mill’s “Essay On Liberty” almost two centuries old but still absolutely on point.
We can not and should not infringe on the right of the owners of the lexington Red Hen to discriminate as they please.
That very same freedom allows us to discriminate against the Lexington Red Hen or not.
If you do not like Turley’s you are free to give the Lexington Red Hen even more of your business.
The lexington Red Hen will reap the rewards or punishment of their choices at their cash register.
To dhlii, reading J. S. Mill—most certainly NOT! That is another problem of America. Does not the Bible counsel: “Blessed is the man who has not listened to the counsel of the ungodly, or sat in the seat of evil men, nor stood in the way of sinners”. Mill is an Atheist. Atheists destroyed Western Culture. Why would I read anything of a reprobate? “Liberty”? that is Crowley’s cry of “Do what thou wilt!”
Atheists overthrew Christendom. I won’t read anything of an atheist.
You have clearly not read Mill.
BTW Mill – as well as Locke, Franklin, Smith, Voltaire, Bastiat, Thoreaux
ARE WESTERN CULTURE.
Even Martin Luther’s concept of individual moral responsibility is just a predecessor to classical liberalism.
Christ counseled us to respect others – even those we hate. You will find the same counsel in “On Liberty”. You will find much of what is in the new testament – and to the extent that the new is just a digest of the old that too in Mill and Classical liberalism.
The core of Judeau Christianity is the concept of free will. That is inseparable from your christianity.
Free will is the core of all western thought – and Mill is one of its torch bearers.
Your illogic could not be more risible, dhlii. A signal criterion of intelligence is a capacity to recognize clear distinctions between variant situations. One can easily take one’s business elsewhere, but taking one’s political resentments against Federal, Executive Branch policy elsewhere — through voluntary expatriation — is not commensurate with the former, in any fashion whatsoever, dunce. And yes, as a political philosopher, I’ve read Mill’s “On Liberty” and doubtless understand it far better than your lackluster intellect.
You claim to be able to make distinctions – and yet you clearly can’t.
You further like all left wing nuts are incapable of separating emotions from reason.
Your clarivoiance regarding my feelings about government are outside your ability to judge, not your business and irrelevant.
There is an enormous difference between argument using facts, logic and reason for limited government and resentments.
You are correct that the tools that can be used in voluntary arrangements are less effective with regard to government – that is an argument for limited government. Certainly not one for more.
Government is the use of force, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. If the left continues to use government as a means of imposing its will on even a minority through force while resisting all lessor efforts to mitigate, the result ultimately will be violence.
Your post effective demonstrates your intellect – or lack thereof.
If you have read Mill – you clearly have not understood him.
Nor the voices of myriads of others over the centuries like him.
Start with Non-determinism and free will and fact, logic and reason will get you to the truth of centuries of classical liberalism.
Do you really want to argue that humans do not have free will that we are machines who respond programmatically to stimuli ?
My arguments speak for themselves – joining with centuries of others.
Mill’s conception and endorsement of free speech as both presupposing and nurturing a marketplace of ideas was predicated on a noble and idealistic belief that all actors within a democratic polity are rational and well-educated. Alas, Trump puts the lie to that utopian chimera, in spades, as the apotheosis of both ignorance and irrationality, tout court.
“Mill’s conception and endorsement of free speech as both presupposing and nurturing a marketplace of ideas was predicated on a noble and idealistic belief that all actors within a democratic polity are rational and well-educated.”
Either you have not read Mill or you have forgotten him completely.
You claim is utter garbage. Mill makes multiple argument for freedom – and particularly free speach,
none of which presume democratic polity, rational or well educated actors.
Like our founders Mill finds Democracy to be MORE oppressive.
Mill specifically addresses each and every item that you claim he presupposes.
Just one of hundred’s of counters from “On Liberty”
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. …”
John Stuart Mill
Both a truth and without any dependence on a nurturing marketplace of ideas, or a democratic politiy or rational and well educated people.
You are either a fool or a liar.
Regardless, go back and read Mill before making more of a fool of yourself.
More “sound and fury, signifying nothing” from portent401
I also read the Conservative Treehouse & I actually saw some interesting suggestions from people in the comment section. Many people suggested that instead of boycotting why not have conservatives and/or Trump Supporters that are Gay, Hispanic & other cultures, make reservations and go and eat there, & have them go with “white” supporters. Someone brought up identity politics, yes I understand this looks like identity politics, but for some reason the left can’t get in their head that conservatives & the right come in all different shapes & sizes & YES we even have gay Trump supporters, I have some friends that are gay, & PROUD Trump supporters!!! I don’t judge people by who they are, I know most people on the right don’t either, but I do think this is actually a wonderful suggestion. for a a few reasons..
I realize this sounds odd, but if people ARE POLITE and NOT MEAN OR RUDE & and they eat & then leave, this could lead to a few things 1) Them kicking out a large mass of people 2) High turnover 3) OR The realization that picking and choosing who they are going to serve is going to be a problem – This could garner a lot of unwanted media attention even more than they are receiving now. I realize people want to boycott, bombard their Yelp page, & be mean. But why not take action? This is one thing people CAN DO. You can organize your friends, makes reservations for different nights, days whatever, then go & attempt to have a meal.
Look at it this way, I don’t ever want to be known like those people who shouted down Secretary Nielsen at dinner, I would rather be known for the class act that BOTH Secretary Nielsen & Sarah Sanders have shown. This I fear is not going to get better anytime soon, so what are we just not going to go eat? Or are we going to fight back? If anyone has any better ideas or ways to perfect this I am ALL EARS.. But once again WE GIVE AN INCH they will TAKE EVERYTHING, it is time we STOP giving an inch!
I, for one, call BS on you knowing any gay day glo bozo supporters. Prove it.
this is to “sometimes, I just make up sh*t for the hell of it” lollygagger
Given that Trump just appointed the first Openly Gay ambassador, I think there is plenty to refute your nonsense.
Regardless, you argument is meaningless. Lollabells either knows gay Trump supporters or she does not.
Your saying she does not, does not change the facts – whatever they are.
He hasn’t. Clinton put one of his donors in charge of our embassy in Luxembourg. The Senate was rather resistant, perhaps because the man was an heir whose employment history was limited to seven years as an admissions examiner at the University of Chicago Law School and who’d spent 29 years clipping coupons while cruising in San Francisco. Of course, the media editorial writers attacked the Republicans on the committee, for their usual swinish reasons.
I personally know one gay supporter of the day glow bozo. Do I need to prove it to you? How about you just look around. They are not that hard to find.
As a conservative, I wouldn’t go there to eat for one reason: the left attends “rallies” complete with pi$$ filled balloons to throw at conservatives who have the nerve to attempt to exercise their free speech. God knows what would be put into your food at the Red Hen with a left leaning staff that knows you are there as a conservative no matter how banal the “protest”.
So on the one hand, bakers should be forced by law to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages they disagree with. At the same time, it’s cool that on ideological grounds patrons are denied service at public establishments?
At some point, the left simply must burn for all of this nonsense. It has gone on for too long. It is all way too absurd for any legitimate, thinking adult to accept. There is no point in reading The Onion anymore because the left out-peforms The Onion every time.
You can not expect logical consistancy from the left.
OH MY I disagree.
They have been totally consistent with destroying their own Democratic party. Who is left in their right mind … who wants these fools anywhere leading anything?
Soon all of the sane democrats will be changing to the other side.
OH WAIT … I think that is how Donald Trump got elected.
Funny the left is not smart enough to have figured that out yet.
ROFL daily at the “kill their party” antics.
Self destruction is consistent with logical inconsistency.
We are not at odds.
Freedom includes the right to make bad choices ones that do not work.
Being free to make bad choices does not make them work.
Yes dhlii I agree fully.
We are all free to choose what we choose.
Personally my tolerance level for those who choose unwisely then whine to high heaven over it? … is between slim and none.
We are ‘free to chose” – constrained only by Kant’s imperative that our freedom is limited by the equal freedom of others – in other words we can not use force to infringe on the equal freedom of others.
We are “free to choose” badly
The quality of our choices is most effectively determined by the results.
When our choices have bad consequences for us.
That is our problem.
Our freedom does not include any right to the outcome we want.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/red-hen-owner-who-booted-sarah-sanders-speaks-out-would-absolutely-do-it-again/
And the bitch doubles down. Note how she distributes responsibility to her staff. NB how the waiter’s original account (that the Sanders Party had only been seated for two minutes when the owner showed up – someone’s lying, and I doubt it’s the waiter). Hard to be sympathetic with this pretentious tw*t.
Like you have any quarter to speak Natcha. You, who demand bakers make cakes against their will under the threat of government sanction. I’m sorry Natcha but by your own design that store in question must have been required to serve even if they didn’t want to in the first place. You reap what you sow Natcha so get your sick fat face down deep in the crap and soil you love so much and reap the garbage you’ve sowed like the gluttonous facist you are bitch.
You’re not distinguishing between what the law is, what the law should be, and what common courtesy requires. If anyone’s interested, I’ve made my view on these subjects clear throughout this thread. You haven’t read what I’ve said and have instead elected to reply to the voices in your head.
“You’re not distinguishing between what the law is, what the law should be, and what common courtesy requires. ”
The law allows discrimination for all reasons – except a very few that it does not.
The law SHOULD allow all discrimination – improper discrimination is self punishing.
What people SHOULD positively do – courtesy, ethics broader morality is outside the scope of govenrment.
The Dems keep calling Trump “Hitler” and his supporter are all Nazi’s, but they are the ones using fascist tactics. Now here we have an example of a restaurant owner being an actual Soup Nazi (from Seinfeld episode). No soup for you Sarah Sanders!
Who cares ?
Turley’s response is perfect.
Frequent Red Hen, or don’t. Your choice, for whatever reason.
And the owner can chose to serve you or not – her choice, for whatever reason.
That is how actual freedom works – so long as things remain non-violent.
A business may generally discriminate only on the basis of offense taken with respect to political, social or moral differences in viewpoint but not on the basis of involuntary attributes such as race, gender, ethnicity or age, etc., with the exception of usually freely-chosen ascription s such as religious belief.
“A business may generally discriminate only on the basis of offense taken with respect to political, social or moral differences in viewpoint but not on the basis of involuntary attributes such as race, gender, ethnicity or age, etc., with the exception of usually freely-chosen ascription s such as religious belief.”
You are wrong both as a matter of morality and as a matter of law.
Your argument contains numerous black and white – binary fallacies as well as numerous just plain errors.
“Business” is not some distinct human sphere. Humans engage in various forms of exchange in all aspects of their lives – “you feed the dog, and I will feed the cat”.
Adam Smith noted that Man is the only animal that engages in trade.
It is a uniquely human characteristic.
Regardless there is not some binary distinction between the rest of our lives and “business”
Discrimination means chose. Freedom is the right to make choices. It does not exist if those choices must be made by someone else’s definition of wisely.
Further we constantly discriminate on the basis of involuntary attributes.
Do we allow idiots in Mensa ?
Do we discriminate against those with less physical prowess in sports ?
Do we demand the best reflexes from pilots ?
Employers strive to higher the best person for the job, in the process discriminating against a wide variety of voluntary and involuntary attributes.
Human Attributes are not binarily distinguishable between voluntary and involuntary.
I have no gift for music. It is not possible for me to play like Yo Yo Ma. But with enormous practice I can be better than I am – is musical proficiency a voluntary or involuntary attribute ?
More specifically to the law, our constitution explicitly dictates government “make no law” interfering with speech, the press, religion and assembly.
That bars laws based on your criteria in those areas – or at the very least compels them to reach “strict scrutiny”.
At the statutory level though the specifics vary the law precludes open discrimination on specific basis.
There is no general proscription against discrimination based on involuntary attributes, nor will there ever be as we would be barred from demanding physical or mental proficiency in jobs that require it.
Logically the claim that you can not discriminate based on involuntary attributes devolves to communism.
The fallacious notion that we are actually equal in any way but before the law.
We can preclude by law covert discrimination, but we can not enforce it.
Your predilection for sophistical straw man argumentation is duly noted. In fact, nearly all of your ideologically straight-jacketed caricature of libertarianism is symbiotic with that logical fallacy. To wit, the rights of civil liberty are not constructed, codified and enforced on the basis of your fantasy of some false binary between voluntary and involuntary ascriptions or capacities per se, but rather in the context of the relevance of such to protecting human freedom and equality in a democratic republic. Only an intellectual manqué would analogize discrimination against persons by dint of their skin color with discrimination based on innate musical or artistic skills, for example. Can your low intellect, lockstep ideological and hypothetico-deductive — or rather reductive — ratiocination even grasp that fact?
“Your predilection for sophistical straw man argumentation is duly noted.”:
Assertions are not argument.
If one of my arguments is a “sophistoicated” straw man – you should be capable of identifying that argument and how it is a straw man.
Otherwise you are just lobbing naked assertions.
That is not argument.
“In fact, nearly all of your ideologically straight-jacketed caricature of libertarianism is symbiotic with that logical fallacy. To wit, the rights of civil liberty are not constructed, codified and enforced on the basis of your fantasy of some false binary between voluntary and involuntary ascriptions or capacities per se, but rather in the context of the relevance of such to protecting human freedom and equality in a democratic republic.”
This would be true “because you say so ?”
Again a naked assertion is not an argument.
Separately your conclusion is both false as a matter of what libertarianism is, and false as a matter of fact.
Neither libertarianism nor any other philosophy resting on individual liberty rests on the presumption of a democratic republic.
Mill specifically notes that democracy has a tendency to become one of the most repressive forms of government there is.
Further any broad argument regarding equality is inherently false and only a juvenile would make it.
Humans are not equal. That is self evident to anyone. You can make claims for legal equality, or equal rights,
But the ideologies and philosophies positing broader equality have universally resulted in copious bloodshed – whether the french revolution, Mao, or Stalin.
Locke derives government and the social FROM individual liberty – not the other way arround – as does our declaration of independence.
Only an intellectual amoeba would get the relationship backwards.
Humans are not ants. We associate voluntarily – by choice, and often chose not to.
“Only an intellectual manqué would analogize discrimination against persons by dint of their skin color with discrimination based on innate musical or artistic skills, for example. Can your low intellect, lockstep ideological and hypothetico-deductive — or rather reductive — ratiocination even grasp that fact?”
In accepting that humans are not equal in musical or artistic abilities, you have destroyed any basis for general equality.
Regardless, as noted before – discrimination is just another word for chose.
You confuse your own perceptions of utopia for what is possible.
In some utopian world all choices would be made with perfect knowledge and never for less than perfect reasons.
We do not live in that utopia and never will.
Anyone who has ever had to hire one person from 100 applicants (or even `10) knows that in the end there is no perfect rational explanation for their final choice.
That “the best person for the job” is both impossible and nonsense. That the real objective is to make a reasonable choice given the parametes available and the resources given for the decision.
If I need a plumber to clear a stopped toilet I do not interview 100, I pick a name from the phone book, or ask a friend or consult reviews.
In the end I need my toilet fixed, it is sufficient that I select someone I can afford without consuming my life making a decision.
The first two rules nearly everyone in sales knows are:
1). All things being equal people choose the one they know.
2). All things being less than equal people still tend to choose the one they know.
We are prejudiced – get over it. We will choose based on race, based on nationality based on gender, based on hair color, based on church membership,
based on anything that gives us the smallest sense of knowing one person over another.
That is human nature. You can dislike it, you can try to persuade me to act otherwise, and if you succeed, all you will manage is to get me to shift from one form or tribalism to another.
Your entire ideology presumes that human choices are entirely algorithmic and conscious that you can root out choices made on basis that you do not like through the use of force.
Not only are you wrong – there is no device that allows us to know with certainty why someone made a specific decision.
The person making the decision does not know all the factors that went into the decision.
Humans are hurestic, not algorithmic, vast portions of human thought and choice occurs below the explicitly conscious level.
You seek to punish people for factors in their decision making they are not even aware of and that you can not know with certainty exist.
You and your ilk have proclaimed more than half the country as vile, hateful, hating haters, as mysognists, racists, homophobes, transphobes,
You have slandered people for your presumptions about the basis for their decision making that they are mostly not conscioius of and you are not capable of knowing with any certainty.
Once again “a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing”
I would further note that not only are your arguments crap, but they are antique, they failed centuries ago, they smell no better the 4th time arround.
You claim to be educated and knowledgeable about philosophy.
Either you are lying or your education was crap and you should demand your money back.
If they were kicked out for a religious objection, that would be ok, right?
Love that…there you go!
They’re not legally liable now, so what’s your objection? That people are criticizing them for being lousy service providers?
The law should not question why someone refuses to do something they never should be obligated to do.
Religion, politics, hair color, does not matter.
Politicians need to feel this pressure; they bring this on themselves by not representing the real left that reflects the beliefs of the majority of Americans who support things like single payer and greater rights for workers and minorities. When liberals conflate effective civil disobedience with “the right to act in the most monstrous or menacing ways…” they reveal how truly lost and lacking in moral imagination they have become.
Let’s assume there is some acceptable justification for not serving Ms. Sanders. What about the six family members who accompanied her? What is the argument for making them collateral damage to punish one family member?
According to the Anointed, we’re all in the Basket of Deplorables.
Reading comprehension is a learned skill. So, I’ll assist you this one time. If, you had read the story, you would have known that the persons with the lying mouthpiece were not refused service. Rather, they chose to leave on their own.
this is to “most of time, I just post sh*t without really knowing what I’m talking about’ petie
Why is Red Hen obligated to justify their choice ?
There are few if any acceptable justifications for the law to force private people to do anything they do not want to.
So glad I left the Democrat Party I have 13 years of recovery. Its hard to believe any sane person would stay in the party the way it is today. The party has turned into the party of Fascist, McCarthyist, Liars, who threaten anyone who disagrees with their agenda with violent protests, boycotts, rape, murder and now kidnapping. How could anyone want to be associated with a party that is so extreme and hostile. The party who crys about Immigrants while ignoring all the dead babies from abortion, in fact their so nuts they want to abort up until a few minutes before delivery or the American citizen children who are killed by illegals who should not have been here. They have never cried for all America’s children who are separated by judges, Child Protection Services when their parents go to jail. So grateful I finally opened my eyes, ears and mind.
False. hiding behind the make-believe bodies of imaginary children merely reveals you as some sort of wackjob fundamentalist bible-thumper. I regret to inform you, sir, that the “good ole days” when a woman was the property of her nearest male relative are through. Now, women control their own lives, which includes their reproductive system, so it seems you’ll need to find a new courtship ritual. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “If’n I use a girly name, they won’t know I’m a troglodyte misogynist” “Kathy”
“Yes. As for civility, consider the example set by our POTUS.”
Hollywood, when you think about civility and the President take a look at what happened when Trump accused officials of “wiretapping “his office at Trump Tower. Review what the news media said and what was said on this blog. Listen to what the comedians said and listen to what was said by politicians.
Then read the IG report.
There is no civility when it comes to many on the left. We now see a corrupt FBI leadership, corrupt actions at the IRS, corrupt actions at the DOJ and more corrupt actions from the Obama administration and the Democratic nominee for President that lost and still doesn’t know it.
Civility? Is that what you are looking for when elements of the left act in such a fashion and you ignore it?
Portent401
June 24, 2018 at 12:16 AM
“What a heaping helping of malarkey — dished out by a law professor whose moral compass was apparently miscalibrated to render the incontrovertible human evil of tearing innocent immigrant babies and young children from their mothers commensurate with showing the door to the authors, enforcers and defenders of that inhumane government policy. False facts are bad enough. False moral equivalence evidences brazen immaturity and repugnant gaslighting!”
L4D says Portent401 has the best comment on this thread thus far.
Much obliged for the moral support, L4D. I reciprocate that judgment!