It is, indeed, unfortunate that Sarah Sanders was denied service at that restaurant in Virginia.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the business owner who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in Colorado. The basis of the Court's decision was that our First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. Now business owners may feel justified in exercising that freedom.

Asking Sarah Sanders to leave a restaurant is particularly sad because the poor woman already has the burden of a terrible job: spokesperson for a truth-challenged president!

Dorene Becker,

Show Low

(4) comments

Russ_in_WML

only when you libs say it is per the first amendment are things like this ok. However you guys sure freak out when a baker denies to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it would be against his religious beliefs.

You libs just want the first amendment to serve your own ideology, not anybody with an opposing viewpoint.

BTW Trump is doing an awesome job! MAGA

Tired

Get another glass of kool aid madam.

ronzim

"The basis of the Court's decision was that our First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. "Now business owners may feel justified in exercising that freedom."

COMMENT: This is all incorrect. In 'Masterpiece', the court did not reach any such conclusion. The issue was not freedom of expression, but a claim of religious objection as a justification for homophobic discrimination. The court, however, did not reach that issue because it found that one of the Colorado Civil Rights commissioners made public comments which were hostile to religion, thereby invalidating the commission's ruling against the owner. The court's ruling was careful to specify that it pertained only to that one business owner. The court still has not ruled on whether or not business owners, in general, who operate any public accommodation may refuse service to someone based on a claim of religious exception.

I prefer that they not do so because that opens the door to all manner of discriminatory conduct on the mere assertion of religious exception. Could I refuse service to Catholics, Jews, Rosicrucians, Bonesmen, bra-less women, fraternity brothers, marines, cops, Alex Jones, etc? Could an HBO comedian be denied service because he uses language offensive to the owner? Would exceptions be to limited creative services only(a gay couple could buy anything off the shelf but the baker would not be required to create anything unique for them). What proof would be required that the objection is purely religious and not just bigotry? If a gay couple wanted a cake depicting two men copulating, I sympathize with any baker who might find that offensive. Suppose, however, that the baker is an atheist? Absent a religious objection could service be denied on mere personal offense?

Russ is right in his claim of hypocrisy on the part of some parties. In my view, any business operating under the aegis of a public accommodation must serve everyone with just a few exceptions on the basis of religious injury which must be specified in a court ruling. It will not do simply to dislike the patron, no matter how intensely.

ArizAl

Sarah Sanders not only represents pathological liar Trump, but is also truth challenged herself....but then so are all republican politicans. Still waiting for the republican healthcare plan that gives more Americans better healthcare benefits than Obamacare's 22 million americans.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.