USA Today: Sarah Huckabee Sanders guide to refusing service: Christian baker can, Red Hen can't
This is what Sanders said during a White House briefing: “We were pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. The First Amendment prohibits government from discriminating against the basis of religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for his religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights.” ... She criticized a private business from the Twitter account @PressSec, which has more than 3 million followers. (I can only imagine the response from Republicans if President Barack Obama's press secretary Josh Earnest had done that.)
This is important to highlight because Sanders does have a personal account: @SarahHuckabee. So her action appears to have been deliberate. And if it weren’t, it was stupid, and I really don’t know which is worse. Beyond that, a former head of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, says Sanders' tweet violated ethics rules.
And yet I do recall the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop citing their "moral convictions." (Direct quote.)
The Red Hen owner speaks! "People have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals. We just felt there are moments in time when people need to live their convictions."
Hey, they're both obnoxious and wrong. That's why it's comical to see conservatives gnashing their teeth over the injustice of a private business deciding whether to provide goods or services in the manner they themselves choose, and in accordance with their principles. Starting this past Friday.
Of course, without some unconcealed hypocrisy, a conservative could barely get out of bed these days.
So that's: "Christian baker can get prosecuted, Red Hen can't?" Or did I get that wrong?- Is Sarah Sanders trying to get the Red Hen prosecuted, and I just missed it?
I think what you're trying to say is that it should be legal to discriminate against an entire class of citizens, but not against one individual person. And that the moral basis for that discrimination should be their genetic makeup, but not their actions.
P.S. Sarah Huckabee Sanders can't get the restaurant prosecuted. Look up "bill of attainder" and get back to us.
But there's no need to lash out against your betters. After all, double standards are a kind of standard.
The right's inarguable and hilarious hypocrisy here recalls a line of dialogue from a film featuring another bad restaurant dining experience, Pulp Fiction: "You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit."
So that's: "Christian baker can get prosecuted, Red Hen can't?" Or did I get that wrong?- Is Sarah Sanders trying to get the Red Hen prosecuted, and I just missed it?
I think what you're trying to say is that it should be legal to discriminate against an entire class of citizens, but not against one individual person.
Let me help, by phrasing the point a little more directly: Show your evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her.
Let me help, by phrasing the point a little more directly: Show your evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her.
You appear to have confused me with a USA Today opinion column headline.
And even then, Careful Reader, perhaps you’ll explain how one editor’s "guide to refusing service" turned into Sarah Sanders claiming a "legal right."
Between USA Today, me, Sanders, the restaurant owner and you, there’s only one party talking about your "direct point."
Alas, Sanders v. Hen will never reach the Supreme Court. There’s a reason I signed this post as Karma Electora instead of Legal Violation Electora. Karma can be a bitch. Karma can be hilarious. And karma this certainly is. Perhaps the Supreme Court in India will hear your grievance.
Correctly ignored by you, maybe, but at a bare minimum she's inciting people to harass people, it's not the first time she's done that sort of thing (Watts Riots), and we see how that escalates (Scalise). At least Schumer just came out against her bullshit.
And how does one ignore another's opinions by responding to them? Kinda counterintuitive, isn't it?
I won't make equally fake demands based on the fact that you've posted the same "can't" headline twice, thus giving you twice the total, existential ownership of it. If you really care-- and you don't-- you should take your fake pedantic demand here:
USA Today Letters to the Editor 7950 Jones Branch Dr. McLean, VA 22108
P.S. The instant karma that has befallen Baghdad Blob is STILL hilarious!
I did contact USA Today. They laughed when I told them you were trying to hide behind their skirts. But they did say that if you contact them, they can give you the evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her!!!
Then you can come back here and triumphantly present it, after which you will have successfully talked your ass out of this shit.
It's so cute to see you repeating mockery, as if you're self-empowering yourself by reclaiming it for your people. But the joke's still on you and Baghdad Blob's ironic karma slap, and always will be. One colloquial "can't" can't change that.
You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit simply by parroting "You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit." Now live down to expectations, and say it again.
Well, at least you've finally given up trying to shift the responsibility for your actions onto USA Today. It must have been their laughter that accomplished that.
You can insist there's been "karmic irony" all you want, but if you're helpless to back it up with facts, no one is impressed, trust me.
I've done one thing here: cackle at the speed and completeness of Sanders' ironic plight. And at the two-faced snowflakes who cheered, then booed, such treatment.
You've tried to deflect away from the reality of the hypocritical whining about civility, and rights. That's what hypocritical whiners do. The Red Hen wasn't being religious! Liberals are tards! The Red Hen isn't being prosecuted, and whither Christian persecution, and "where is the evidence for [b]can't[/b]?" and "what about your girlfriend, Maxine Waters?" and impotently assigning responsibility for a word in a headline (never mind the article). And finally, a quixotic passion play in which the staff of USA Today takes your side against USA Today, laughs at nothing for no reason because you're unhappy being laughed at, while I do some stage business as an effeminate coward loser. Also, you demand facts. That is an A+ thesis.
Mine's a lot shorter: "Waaahh, I don't like being treated the same way I said other people should be treated."
And now it's time to laugh and shimmy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmcA9LIIXWw&t=0m44s
And on top of all that, these have been two of the worst weeks for Democrats that I can remember, so I know you've had other things on your mind than making a coherent argument to back up a reckless statement.
Whatever's at that link, I'm glad you've been able, in the midst of everything, to laugh and shimmy.
ME: The Red Hen wasn't being religious! Liberals are tards! The Red Hen isn't being prosecuted, and whither Christian persecution, and "where is the evidence for [b]can't[/b]?" and "what about your girlfriend, Maxine Waters?" and impotently assigning responsibility for a word in a headline (never mind the article). And finally, a quixotic passion play in which the staff of USA Today takes your side against USA Today, laughs at nothing for no reason because you're unhappy being laughed at, while I do some stage business as an effeminate coward loser. [TACK-ON BONUS TANGENTS! Supreme Court is inevitable bad news; Crowley is... bad news?; something else Democratic-bad from a week and a half ago but definitely not Donald Trump folding like a Trump Casino]
YOU: Sarah the Blob dared think that freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. How silly, when the Christian Baker mentioned "moral convictions" at some point, so that's what the Supreme Court based their ruling on, instead of religious rights. And then she had the gall to not like being thrown out of a restaurant, as if anything she doesn't like is illegal. Oh the irony! This is karma for her calling on bakers to not sell anything to gays. And her tweet was so unethical according to the unbiased, Trump-loving liberal Walter Shaub. Furthermore, I didn't put that USA Today headline there, THEY did! Make them defend it, not me! Also since you pasted it twice in your comments that makes you MORE responsible for it than ME, so shut up!
23 comments:
USA Today: Sarah Huckabee Sanders guide to refusing service: Christian baker can, Red Hen can't
This is what Sanders said during a White House briefing:
“We were pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. The First Amendment prohibits government from discriminating against the basis of religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for his religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights.”
...
She criticized a private business from the Twitter account @PressSec, which has more than 3 million followers. (I can only imagine the response from Republicans if President Barack Obama's press secretary Josh Earnest had done that.)
This is important to highlight because Sanders does have a personal account: @SarahHuckabee. So her action appears to have been deliberate. And if it weren’t, it was stupid, and I really don’t know which is worse. Beyond that, a former head of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, says Sanders' tweet violated ethics rules.
I don't recall the owner of the Red Hen citing her religious beliefs when she tossed Huckabee Sanders from her restaurant.
And yet I do recall the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop citing their "moral convictions." (Direct quote.)
The Red Hen owner speaks!
"People have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals. We just felt there are moments in time when people need to live their convictions."
Hey, they're both obnoxious and wrong. That's why it's comical to see conservatives gnashing their teeth over the injustice of a private business deciding whether to provide goods or services in the manner they themselves choose, and in accordance with their principles. Starting this past Friday.
Of course, without some unconcealed hypocrisy, a conservative could barely get out of bed these days.
This is WHY I refer to the Left as "tards"!
"Sarah Huckabee Sanders guide to refusing service: Christian baker can, Red Hen can't",
So that's: "Christian baker can get prosecuted, Red Hen can't?"
Or did I get that wrong?- Is Sarah Sanders trying to get the Red Hen prosecuted, and I just missed it?
This is WHY I refer to the Left as "tards"!
The stupid, retarded Left must be the ones making phone threats and posting one-star reviews to the wrong restaurants!
https://mashable.com/2018/06/25/pro-trump-protesters-go-after-wrong-red-hen-restaurants/#NfPHfzD9nOq0
--------------
So that's: "Christian baker can get prosecuted, Red Hen can't?"
Or did I get that wrong?- Is Sarah Sanders trying to get the Red Hen prosecuted, and I just missed it?
I think what you're trying to say is that it should be legal to discriminate against an entire class of citizens, but not against one individual person. And that the moral basis for that discrimination should be their genetic makeup, but not their actions.
P.S. Sarah Huckabee Sanders can't get the restaurant prosecuted. Look up "bill of attainder" and get back to us.
But there's no need to lash out against your betters. After all, double standards are a kind of standard.
The right's inarguable and hilarious hypocrisy here recalls a line of dialogue from a film featuring another bad restaurant dining experience, Pulp Fiction: "You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit."
The stupid, retarded Left must be the ones making phone threats and posting one-star reviews to the wrong restaurants!
But apparently it's okay in your book for a major Democratic leader to urge her supporters to go out and harass political opponents...
So that's: "Christian baker can get prosecuted, Red Hen can't?"
Or did I get that wrong?- Is Sarah Sanders trying to get the Red Hen prosecuted, and I just missed it?
I think what you're trying to say is that it should be legal to discriminate against an entire class of citizens, but not against one individual person.
Let me help, by phrasing the point a little more directly: Show your evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her.
The stupid, retarded Left must be the ones making phone threats and posting one-star reviews to the wrong restaurants!
But apparently it's okay in your book for a major Democratic leader to urge her supporters to go out and harass political opponents...
Maybe the me inside your head thinks so, but I don't.
Maxine Waters is a yapping waterhead whose dumb, bitter opinions are correctly ignored, and so are you. Happy now?
Let me help, by phrasing the point a little more directly: Show your evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her.
You appear to have confused me with a USA Today opinion column headline.
And even then, Careful Reader, perhaps you’ll explain how one editor’s "guide to refusing service" turned into Sarah Sanders claiming a "legal right."
Between USA Today, me, Sanders, the restaurant owner and you, there’s only one party talking about your "direct point."
Alas, Sanders v. Hen will never reach the Supreme Court. There’s a reason I signed this post as Karma Electora instead of Legal Violation Electora. Karma can be a bitch. Karma can be hilarious. And karma this certainly is. Perhaps the Supreme Court in India will hear your grievance.
Correctly ignored by you, maybe, but at a bare minimum she's inciting people to harass people, it's not the first time she's done that sort of thing (Watts Riots), and we see how that escalates (Scalise). At least Schumer just came out against her bullshit.
And how does one ignore another's opinions by responding to them? Kinda counterintuitive, isn't it?
You appear to have confused me with a USA Today opinion column headline.
Yeah, no.
The USA Today opinion writer didn't come here and present the statement in bold:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders guide to refusing service: Christian baker can, Red Hen can't
Hmm. If the Red Hen "can't" refuse service to her, it can only mean it does not have the legal right to.
So again, please, show your evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her.
So apparently no such evidence exists. Or maybe it's that you found yourself unable to talk your ass outta this shit?
Hi, Roger!
I won't make equally fake demands based on the fact that you've posted the same "can't" headline twice, thus giving you twice the total, existential ownership of it. If you really care-- and you don't-- you should take your fake pedantic demand here:
USA Today
Letters to the Editor
7950 Jones Branch Dr.
McLean, VA 22108
P.S. The instant karma that has befallen Baghdad Blob is STILL hilarious!
I did contact USA Today. They laughed when I told them you were trying to hide behind their skirts. But they did say that if you contact them, they can give you the evidence that Sarah Sanders said the Red Hen did not have the legal right to refuse service to her!!!
Then you can come back here and triumphantly present it, after which you will have successfully talked your ass out of this shit.
It's so cute to see you repeating mockery, as if you're self-empowering yourself by reclaiming it for your people. But the joke's still on you and Baghdad Blob's ironic karma slap, and always will be. One colloquial "can't" can't change that.
You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit simply by parroting "You ain't talkin' your ass outta this shit." Now live down to expectations, and say it again.
Well, at least you've finally given up trying to shift the responsibility for your actions onto USA Today. It must have been their laughter that accomplished that.
You can insist there's been "karmic irony" all you want, but if you're helpless to back it up with facts, no one is impressed, trust me.
I've done one thing here: cackle at the speed and completeness of Sanders' ironic plight. And at the two-faced snowflakes who cheered, then booed, such treatment.
You've tried to deflect away from the reality of the hypocritical whining about civility, and rights. That's what hypocritical whiners do.
The Red Hen wasn't being religious! Liberals are tards! The Red Hen isn't being prosecuted, and whither Christian persecution, and "where is the evidence for [b]can't[/b]?" and "what about your girlfriend, Maxine Waters?" and impotently assigning responsibility for a word in a headline (never mind the article). And finally, a quixotic passion play in which the staff of USA Today takes your side against USA Today, laughs at nothing for no reason because you're unhappy being laughed at, while I do some stage business as an effeminate coward loser. Also, you demand facts. That is an A+ thesis.
Mine's a lot shorter: "Waaahh, I don't like being treated the same way I said other people should be treated."
And now it's time to laugh and shimmy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmcA9LIIXWw&t=0m44s
And on top of all that, these have been two of the worst weeks for Democrats that I can remember, so I know you've had other things on your mind than making a coherent argument to back up a reckless statement.
Whatever's at that link, I'm glad you've been able, in the midst of everything, to laugh and shimmy.
ME: The Red Hen wasn't being religious! Liberals are tards! The Red Hen isn't being prosecuted, and whither Christian persecution, and "where is the evidence for [b]can't[/b]?" and "what about your girlfriend, Maxine Waters?" and impotently assigning responsibility for a word in a headline (never mind the article). And finally, a quixotic passion play in which the staff of USA Today takes your side against USA Today, laughs at nothing for no reason because you're unhappy being laughed at, while I do some stage business as an effeminate coward loser.
[TACK-ON BONUS TANGENTS! Supreme Court is inevitable bad news; Crowley is... bad news?; something else Democratic-bad from a week and a half ago but definitely not Donald Trump folding like a Trump Casino]
YOU: Well, YOUR argument's incoherent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINW6OKOZrA&t=0m6s
YOU: Sarah the Blob dared think that freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. How silly, when the Christian Baker mentioned "moral convictions" at some point, so that's what the Supreme Court based their ruling on, instead of religious rights. And then she had the gall to not like being thrown out of a restaurant, as if anything she doesn't like is illegal. Oh the irony! This is karma for her calling on bakers to not sell anything to gays. And her tweet was so unethical according to the unbiased, Trump-loving liberal Walter Shaub. Furthermore, I didn't put that USA Today headline there, THEY did! Make them defend it, not me! Also since you pasted it twice in your comments that makes you MORE responsible for it than ME, so shut up!
ME: Now THAT'S coherence!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
YOU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ7GHhI67lA
Post a Comment