You'd have to be trying to miss the point quite hard if you can't see how this is hypocrisy. The same people decrying the owners of this restaurant for asking Sanders to leave are also the same people who want businesses to be able to refuse service over something as inane and unchangeable as being gay. If it's find to discriminate against someone for something they have literally no control over then it's perfectly okay to discriminate against someone like Sanders for upholding and defending garbage political policies. It's called consistency.
It's just a fact that the baker didn't ban people because they were gay. It's not even disputable. He had served gay people in the past, offered to serve gay people in the future, and had served this gay couple already. Being gay was not a reason for this baker to refuse service. What he refused to do was associate with an event than he disagreed with. You are welcome to think that his choice is totally wrong, but it's not the same thing as saying he banned people for being gay. To make the race comparison would be to say that a baker was totally fine serving black people, happily does so already, but that he refused to make a cake for an interracial wedding. I don't believe we have any cases on that sort of situation (If I'm wrong, please correct me).
Who is saying the gay people shouldn't have the right to criticize the bakery?
spotted on twitter
Joe the Plumber, meet Chris the Baker.
The Republican ticket has embraced a new small-business hero. On Wednesday, the owner of a bakery who last week turned away Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. introduced Representative Paul D. Ryan at a rally in this city where President Obama uttered his “You didn’t build that” remark.
Chris McMurray, the owner of Crumb and Get It Cookie Company with his wife, told a crowd at another small business, a hardware store, “We are gathered here today to send a message to the Obama-Biden team that we did build it.’’
Mr. McMurray said the Biden campaign approached him to ask if the vice president could drop by his cookie shop while campaigning, and he replied, “Nothing personal, but I just happened to disagree with the president and the vice president on a few things.”
Notes from a less insane country.
Can you clarify the relevance? It looks like the baker didn't want his shop being a stop for a Biden campaign photo op, not that he wouldn't sell Biden baked goods.
Sadly, it seems all the original local articles are dead links now, but everything I've seen says it was a campaign stop, not an individual visit.
Yes, that's exactly right. Kicking out Sarah Sanders is infinitely more morally defensible than the baker's actions. Sarah Sanders has been judged on the content of her character, not the immutable fact of her existence. Sarah Sanders wasn't born a hateful, shameless, self-serving, destructive liar. You may be right on saying that its not hypocritical to find the bakers' actions justified and not Sarah's treatment, however, as the extremists of the Alt-Reich fundamentally do not accept that minorities and homosexuals are human beings with equal rights. It's not hypocrisy to think that Sarah Sanders's treatment is unfair and the brutality, bigotry, and hatred heaped upon minorities is totally fine when you have decided that Sarah Sanders is a human being and The Others aren't.
Obama and Biden didn't treat the baker like crap in response, for one thing.
... he didn't want them to stop there for a campaign visit. The baker didn't refuse to bake goods for them. It's not even close to the same thing
With that said, Trump's direct attacks on the restaurant have been horrific, and I am certain Obama wouldn't have stooped so low.
Imagine comparing low wage retail work to six figure salary for being Spicer 2 at the Trump Admin
It's deeply frustrating to hear conservatives complain about incivility in politics when they elected a dude who basically everyone admits is a huge asshole, it just depends on whether he's your asshole or not.
You could say it's even hypocritical.
https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1010608206429581312
Obama's chief of ethics
Kinda interesting how you've learned nothing and still argue over what basically boils down to semantics while ignoring people whose arguments you can't actually contest. Not that I'm surprised considering that in that other thread you basically ignored everyone giving you constructive feedback.
I totally agree that there's some hypocrisy in that.
I just don't see them as connected issues. Trump can both be a "deeply unethical, uncivil asshole," which I wouldn't disagree with, and also disagree with banning Sanders from restaurants. There are lots of people who I think of as "deeply unethical, uncivil assholes," but I wouldn't support them being banned either.
The violation Walter cites: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702
Is this something they can get in legal trouble for or just rules
Nobody is banning Sanders from anything, they're asking her to leave. big difference there.
Can you clarify the difference? It seems that making someone leave the premises is equivalent to banning.
I can't remember the last time you admitted you were wrong by the way.
When did I say differently? I've already agreed that conservatives are hypocritical in some ways.
Banning her from restaurants sounds way bigger than one simple rejection.
I mean, they did ban her, though, didn't they? They refused to serve her, asked her to leave, and, I assume, will continue with that stance. How is that different from banning someone?
Then you have Maxine Waters, a congresswoman, calling for mobs of people to seemingly force anyone from Trump's cabinet out of any public place they are seen. In her words:
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Fu3g1MGHY
Quote is from around 5:20.
You can ignore me all you want but that isn't going to stop me from constantly pointing this out. You know what would though? Acknowledging the issue and making it clear you're actually working on it instead of digging your feet in over it.
You know what's sad? Bordering on pathetic? Just a few days ago, SG was lamenting how toxic political discussion had become and how there maybe aren't quality discussions any more. And now here he is, fiercely trying to defend that no, no, it's not hypocritical of the GOP that they're condemning this while praising the cake thing.
You were given support and advice and you threw it out the window. Congratulations, you've learned fucking nothing.
These are just rules. There are probably mechanics to call for resignation or otherwise censure but she can't be charged with anything.
I'm more interested in responding to the people who are actually here to discuss.
If it's anything like Kellyanne Conway's use of a federal account to plug Melania's clothing line it'll be ignored.
I'm not certain calling this one a semantic argument is entirely accurate considering he's disagreeing essentially on an interpretation of what happened, not on the proper wording to be used to describe what happened. Then again I might be reading his post wrong.
You ignored plenty of solid arguments, such as BDA's, which weren't attacks. Also of course you'd act victimized rather than acknowledging anything. I've already explained why I don't waste my time with real arguments with you anymore which is why I didn't provide any argument other than simply calling you out on the way you're arguing. After all I see no reason to waste my time with something you'd ignore and that several people you previously ignored have argued for me in a perfectly good way.
Rather than playing victim, maybe you should focus on taking care of your reputation so you stop getting called out. Your solution is just as poorly thought out as Hezzy's solution to the Tudd problem. As in completely ineffective and only makes things worse.
Calling it semantics may be a little bit off but it's the same basic premises. He's trying to paint the facts one way to support his argument and invalidate others in a way that's effectively the same as arguing semantics.
Regarding supposed hypocrisy, I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, sgman is strictly correct when he says that, on a personal basis, it's not hypocritical to both support the right of a business to refuse service because they disagree with their sexuality, their religion, or their political opinions, as well as reject the specific instances wherein an owner rejects someone. A principled conservative/libertarian can certainly hold both positions that the government shouldn't interfere in a business, but that a business denying service to someone because they were gay, or a Muslim, or work in the Obama administration is reprehensible.
The problem though is that this "principled conservative-liberatarian" doesn't really seem realistic in the view of the left, or even just moderate independents who have seen Republican social policy attempt to chip away at freedoms or regulate businesses when it suits them. I genuinely don't get the impression that most of the right-wingers who are wringing their hands over this, people like DInesh D'Souza and, frankly, Sanders herself would give two fucks if this was happening to the other side. If anything the liberal narrative is the one that is more diverse, with even the editorial board of the Washington Post sticking to their guns on the issue of how businesses that operate as public accommodations should accommodate the public.
So honestly I'd agree with sgman91; it's not hypocritical in the most strictest definition of the term. The caveat being that I can say it is enormously hilarious.
Just to provide some context to this for people who haven't worked in food service, 15 violations is quite a lot. The company I work for hires a private contractor that grades on a much harsher scale than the government and two or more "failures" in any department represents a failure overall. I don't know how other companies scale on this system but I know for a fact that we have passed every time, which tells me that 15 is particularly bad.
Thing is it seems to me his other argument also isn't entirely wrong, as it does seem to be true that the bakery mentioned earlier denied that gay marriage cake precisely because of disagreement on the very existence of "gay marriage" as an institution and participation in such a thing, not out of a problem with the existence of gay people themselves. This would be similar here, where a person was kicked out not for their mere being a republican, but because of what institution that specific person is currently acting on behalf of.
This is, of course if I'm not lacking knowledge about the facts here myself, because I do not see this specific part of his argument being addressed (although I can't exactly blame people for not doing so).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.