Author Topic: Trump: 'Dirty' restaurant that refused to serve Sanders 'needs a paint job'  (Read 8669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,954
    • I try my best ...

The Hill
BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE
06/25/18 07:46 AM EDT

President Trump said early Monday that the Virginia restaurant that refused to serve White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is "dirty" and "needs a paint job."

“The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders," the president wrote on Twitter.

"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!"

(more)
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/393900-trump-dirty-restaurant-that-refused-sanders-needs-a-paint-job
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,954
    • I try my best ...
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.

The administration had the Solicitor General file a friend of the court brief in support of the Colorado baker who believed he had the right to decide who he would serve.  Yet they attack this restaurant for the same reason.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Jesus. I swear he wants to get sued.

Offline goodwithagun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Gender: Female
Did his mother not hug him enough? This was being handles so well on social media. All he had to do was sit back and watch the shit show unravel. But no, by the clicking of his thumbs, something stupid this way comes.
I stand with Roosgirl.

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
The administration had the Solicitor General file a friend of the court brief in support of the Colorado baker who believed he had the right to decide who he would serve.  Yet they attack this restaurant for the same reason.

Trump's tweet reported here is stupid, and personally I believe the owners of this restaurant have the right to deny service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose.  A customer is free to refuse a transaction for any reason he wishes, in my opinion a vendor should have the same freedom.

But the Colorado baker did not assert the right to decide *whom* he would serve.  He asserted the right to decide *what* he would serve.  As has been discussed here at length, the baker offered to sell the homosexual couple anything already in his shop, but he would not prepare a wedding cake for them.  The "progressive" left is quick to claim hypocrisy against anyone who supported the baker and does not support the restaurant, but in fact the baker did not attempt to exercise the right which was actually asserted by the restaurant owner.

Having said that I'll confess that I'm ignorant of the Trump Administration's Friend of the Court brief; perhaps the Solicitor General did argue there that the baker could choose *whom* he would serve, in which case I'll agree that the charge of hypocrisy against the Trump Administration has merit.
James 1:20

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Quote
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!"

I agree 100%.

He tweeted the truth and I see nothing wrong with him doing so.   
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
But the Colorado baker did not assert the right to decide *whom* he would serve.   He asserted the right to decide *what* he would serve.
The "*what* he would serve" was based on who they were.  If a cake is an expression of his art then is a fine meal any different?

As has been discussed here at length, the baker offered to sell the homosexual couple anything already in his shop, but he would not prepare a wedding cake for them.  The "progressive" left is quick to claim hypocrisy against anyone who supported the baker and does not support the restaurant, but in fact the baker did not attempt to exercise the right which was actually asserted by the restaurant owner.

Oh please.  The baker refused the serve the gay couple based on who they were.  The restaurant did the same.

Having said that I'll confess that I'm ignorant of the Trump Administration's Friend of the Court brief; perhaps the Solicitor General did argue there that the baker could choose *whom* he would serve, in which case I'll agree that the charge of hypocrisy against the Trump Administration has merit.
At lease we agree there.

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Jesus. I swear he wants to get sued.

Now that is funny I don't care who you are! 

Good One!
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
The "*what* he would serve" was based on who they were.  If a cake is an expression of his art then is a fine meal any different?

Oh please.  The baker refused the serve the gay couple based on who they were.  The restaurant did the same.

To defend this position you'll have to provide evidence that the baker refused to sell the homosexual couple anything and asked them to leave his shop.
James 1:20

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
One step forward, two steps backward.  It has become The Pattern.   Trump's Pattern.  Well established. 

He has a tendency to 'step in it' via his tweeting.  He would have done much more toward the cause of being pro-Sanders and anti-Red Hen by simply saying that what they did, drive her and her family out of the restaurant mid-meal, was (or should be) beneath most adults in DC.  Sadly and unfortunetly, however, since he has weighed in in this manner, there will be much more examples NOW of the same bigotry against anyone that works for him in any capacity.

Heckuva job, Trumpy!
No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.

The reason Trump does this is to put his opponents off balance.  While not a fan of this tactic, I must admit that it has been working for quite sometime.  When your opponent becomes unhinged because of statements like this, then their entire pre-frontal cortex shuts down, and they are unable to process effectively.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
To defend this position you'll have to provide evidence that the baker refused to sell the homosexual couple anything and asked them to leave his shop.
To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.

The baker can justify his position any way he wants.  The fact is that had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked the cake for them.  He denied them service based on who they were as much as what they wanted.  The restaurant did the same.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
The reason Trump does this is to put his opponents off balance.  While not a fan of this tactic, I must admit that it has been working for quite sometime.  When your opponent becomes unhinged because of statements like this, then their entire pre-frontal cortex shuts down, and they are unable to process effectively.

He does drive them to distraction. I gotta say its fun to watch.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
The administration had the Solicitor General file a friend of the court brief in support of the Colorado baker who believed he had the right to decide who he would serve.

@RedHead

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  It was never about who he served.  It was about what he served.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
When your opponent becomes unhinged because of statements like this, then their entire pre-frontal cortex shuts down, and they are unable to process effectively.

There isn't a whole lot hinged about the text in question. 

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
He does drive them to distraction. I gotta say its fun to watch.

Correctamundo!
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
@RedHead

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  It was never about who he served.  It was about what he served.

You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.

@RedHead

That is asinine.


The fact is that had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked the cake for them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  First of all, the sexual preference of the customer was never brought into issue, nor was the sexual preference of a heterosexual woman who made the same request.  The FACT of the matter is that the baker refused to make a cake that he does not make, regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.

I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read the Colorado decision for yourself and learn the facts instead of repeating the same false liberal talking points that have been debunked again and again and again on these boards.



If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".

Why not?  The two are not the same.  Not at all.  Only someone totally devoid of reason and critical thought would suggest that 'who' and 'what' are synonymous.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".

I believe the baker also denied the same product to one of the gay couples mother, who was heterosexual. So yes, in that case you can separate the what from the who.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,819
What part of "The baker refused to create a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual customer" do you not get?

And what part of "The baker offered to bake any other product he makes to the homosexual customer" eludes you?

Stop lying, already.  It is clear that we have read the case.  And it is equally clear that you have not.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This instance is a bit different than his other trumpertantrums. In this case, he targeted a specific business with specific statements about health and safety which he likely does not know first hand. Those statements were not made in good faith (ie he didn't make the statement about the cleanliness from first hand experience witnessing this) but to impact this restaurant's business.

Along those lines, about a year ago, a photographer sued bloggers for making false statements about her business on social media. The photographer won one million dollars. I think this restaurant would actually have more of a case because Trump wasn't even a customer who visited their facility.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/08/01/couple-allegedly-destroys-wedding-photogs-reputation-business-125-dispute-judge-makes-regret-520605

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
This instance is a bit different than his other trumpertantrums. In this case, he targeted a specific business with specific statements about health and safety which he likely does not know first hand. Those statements were not made in good faith (ie he didn't make the statement about the cleanliness from first hand experience witnessing this) but to impact this restaurant's business.

Along those lines, about a year ago, a photographer sued bloggers for making false statements about her business on social media. The photographer won one million dollars. I think this restaurant would actually have more of a case because Trump wasn't even a customer who visited their facility.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/08/01/couple-allegedly-destroys-wedding-photogs-reputation-business-125-dispute-judge-makes-regret-520605

If you're right Yelp is in a heap of trouble.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
What part of "The baker refused to create a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual customer" do you not get?

And what part of "The baker offered to bake any other product he makes to the homosexual customer" eludes you?

Stop lying, already.  It is clear that we have read the case.  And it is equally clear that you have not.

I believe it was even a bit more nuanced than that. The baker wouldn't take part in the ceremony. He offered an undecorated cake they could take.

Part of being a baker for weddings is to go and set up the cake. For weddings with elaborate cakes, this isn't like picking up a birthday cake in wal mart.  The baker goes to the ceremony and helps set up and take down. They are part of the ceremony vendors like a photographer or florist.