Trump: 'Dirty' restaurant that refused to serve Sanders 'needs a paint job'

[Suppressed]

I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.

Sure it does.  It helps the restaurant get more business with its target clientele.

And makes Sanders look bad for choosing such a "dirty" restaurant.

Trump’s Attempt to Bully Restaurant Is Going to Backfire Hilariously
By Jonathan Chait  @jonathanchait   July 25, 2017
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-attempt-to-bully-red-hen-restaurant-will-backfire.html

[...]

But the larger issue here concerns restaurant economics. If you’re a national politician, net positives matter a lot. It’s hard to win national office if large numbers of people loathe you. The restaurant business is quite different. You don’t need to win plurality national support to profitably operate a small entity in Lexington, Virginia. You only need an extremely tiny percentage of the public to support you. Whether the remainder of the public is indifferent or hostile to the prospect of ordering a $25 Shenandoah Lamb Co. braised leg of lamb with harissa-spiced Wades Mill Polenta and a side of Fennel & Dill Salad matters not at all.

The name of the game in the restaurant business is getting on the map. If Trump’s social media abuse was wildly successful, and it created 100 new Red Hen haters for every one new Red Hen fan, it would still be a big win for the Red Hen, which at this point probably now has a waiting list for reservations longer than Trump’s term in office.

[HoustonSam]

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.

I understand your argument to be that the restaurant denied service not because of who Sarah Sanders is, but because of something she chooses to do.  That's a good distinction and a very fair point.

However the baker took a far less assertive position with the homosexual couple; he never asked them to leave and offered to sell them anything else he had available.  He simply would not support one particular thing they chose to do, which was to hold a wedding ceremony.  Short of supporting that one particular thing they chose to do he was happy to engage in business with them.  That's very different from the position taken by the restaurant owner.

Had the restaurant owner refused to cater a pro-Trump banquet but agreed to serve Sarah Sanders a routine meal, or had the baker refused to do any business with the homosexual couple and asked them to leave, the cases would be the same.  However neither of those things happened.

From prior experience debating this with others I can see that you and I are not going to get any closer on how we view the issue of the baker.  I appreciate your sincerity @RedHead and look forward to agreeing with you on other threads.

[thackney]

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

He offered to sell them other products already in the store.

He didn't care who they were, it was what they wanted him to make.

[txradioguy]

The baker refused to make a cake because of personal beliefs about the LGBTQYXZ crowd.

The Red Hen's owner/manager made the decision after several servers became upset because of the Trump administration's Transgender's in the military ban...and the fact the eatery employs members of the LGBTQXYZ crowd.

[Hoodat]

Sure it does.  It helps the restaurant get more business with its target clientele.

There was a case several years back where a Radford, VA bakery refused to bake cookies for a Democrat event featuring Vice President Joe Biden.  It proved to be a huge windfall for the baker because Conservatives are willing to back their convictions with their dollars.   On the other hand, liberals do not share this characteristic.  They are only willing to back their convictions with other people's money.  It's what makes them liberals.

So no, I don't foresee any economic boom for this restaurant.  Just as with AirAmerica, liberals had their golden opportunity to fund liberal talk radio.  Yet they failed.  Sure, they were willing to use taxpayer money (i.e. other people's money) to fund it.  But when it came to their own money, they let it go bankrupt instead.

[Hoodat]

He offered to sell them other products already in the store.

Actually, he took it a step further by offering to bake something for them.  Not just what was on the shelf, but something to be made from scratch - birthday cake, cupcakes, cookies, etc.  He simply did not make the cake they requested.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump's tweet will probably make it business, frankly. I would assume that after Sanders was slightest, a lot of angry Trump fans were going after it on yelp. Now that the President has singled it out, it will piss off a lot of liberal, and they will probably patronize it, and will be motivated to leave better reviews.

[XenaLee]

There was a case several years back where a Radford, VA bakery refused to bake cookies for a Democrat event featuring Vice President Joe Biden.  It proved to be a huge windfall for the baker because Conservatives are willing to back their convictions with their dollars.   On the other hand, liberals do not share this characteristic.  They are only willing to back their convictions with other people's money.  It's what makes them liberals.

So no, I don't foresee any economic boom for this restaurant.  Just as with AirAmerica, liberals had their golden opportunity to fund liberal talk radio.  Yet they failed.  Sure, they were willing to use taxpayer money (i.e. other people's money) to fund it.  But when it came to their own money, they let it go bankrupt instead.

Excellent and spot-on point.

[Restored]

I don't think the Radford bakery is there anymore. The owner's dad had a stroke a while back and I don't know if it was related to that.

[RedHead]

@RedHead

That is asinine.

Why?

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.

How do you refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding without involving the sexual orientation of the bridal couple?

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.

I've read it.

[RedHead]

Actually, he took it a step further by offering to bake something for them.  Not just what was on the shelf, but something to be made from scratch - birthday cake, cupcakes, cookies, etc.  He simply did not make the cake they requested.

Well I doubt he needs to worry about that.  People go where they're wanted and avoid where they are not. 

[Hoodat]

I don't think the Radford bakery is there anymore. The owner's dad had a stroke a while back and I don't know if it was related to that.

That's a shame.  They were a really nice couple.  I had the pleasure of stopping at that store while traveling up I-81 in the midst of that brouhaha.  They hired a group of local kids there on standby who would make deliveries to hospitals, schools, and local organizations to diligently fulfill all the orders phoned in from across the country.

[Hoodat]

Why?

Because there is no rational connection between the two.

How do you refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding without involving the sexual orientation of the bridal couple?

If you had read the court papers, you would know that this was about a same-sex wedding - not a gay wedding.

I've read it.

Really?  Yet here you are offering a false account of that record - the same record you now claim to have read - with the expressed intent of deceiving others.  There's a word for people who do that.

[jpsb]

I see all the NTers are having another hissy fit over Trump telling it like it is. Keep up the good work
Mr President.

FYI Conservatives are not a protected group so no one is saying the dirty eatery did not have the
right to deny service to Mrs Sanders.

[Hoodat]

Well I doubt he needs to worry about that.  People go where they're wanted and avoid where they are not.

Normally, that is the case.  But not here.  These customers knew in advance that this baker did not make same-sex wedding cakes.  They chose to exploit this situation hoping to set a legal precedent in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriage.  They lost.  The Constitution won.

[RedHead]

I understand your argument to be that the restaurant denied service not because of who Sarah Sanders is, but because of something she chooses to do.  That's a good distinction and a very fair point.

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the distinction.  In both cases the business owner chose to discriminate and used their moral beliefs to support their decision.

However the baker took a far less assertive position with the homosexual couple; he never asked them to leave and offered to sell them anything else he had available.  He simply would not support one particular thing they chose to do, which was to hold a wedding ceremony.  Short of supporting that one particular thing they chose to do he was happy to engage in business with them.  That's very different from the position taken by the restaurant owner.

Not really.  Had Sarah Sanders not been Trump's Press Secretary then the restaurant would have served her without issue.  Had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked them a cake. 

Had the restaurant owner refused to cater a pro-Trump banquet but agreed to serve Sarah Sanders a routine meal, or had the baker refused to do any business with the homosexual couple and asked them to leave, the cases would be the same.  However neither of those things happened.

I don't agree that's relevant.  In the first place, I've seen nothing to indicate the restaurant caters so we don't have any indication that they would provide a service to one party while denying it to another.  We do have that with the baker.  The continued claim that the baker would have served them anything else is also irrelevant.  Had the baker, for example, said that they would not bake a cake for a mixed race couple wishing to marry but would be open to selling them a cookie then would that be alright?

From prior experience debating this with others I can see that you and I are not going to get any closer on how we view the issue of the baker.  I appreciate your sincerity @RedHead and look forward to agreeing with you on other threads.
[/quote]

[ABX]

I see all the NTers are having another hissy fit over Trump telling it like it is. Keep up the good work
Mr President.

FYI Conservatives are not a protected group so no one is saying the dirty eatery did not have the
right to deny service to Mrs Sanders.

"telling it like it is"

So then you know for a fact the restaurant is dirty and unclean? Or did he just make a rabid, reactionary post with no factual evidence behind it in order to fire people up? 

This is beyond saying they were wrong. He was actually commenting on the health and safety of a business that I assume, he hasn't visited. IE, unless he has some demonstrable evidence, he was lying and setting himself up for legal liability.

This isn't 'telling it like it is', this is like an internet troll spamming restaurant reviews saying their are roaches in the food.

[txradioguy]

"telling it like it is"

So then you know for a fact the restaurant is dirty and unclean? Or did he just make a rabid, reactionary post with no factual evidence behind it in order to fire people up? 

This is beyond saying they were wrong. He was actually commenting on the health and safety of a business that I assume, he hasn't visited. IE, unless he has some demonstrable evidence, he was lying and setting himself up for legal liability.

This isn't 'telling it like it is', this is like an internet troll spamming restaurant reviews saying their are roaches in the food.

QFT

[edpc]

DONALD TRUMP SLAMS RED HEN, BUT MAR-A-LAGO RESTAURANT HAS 'DIRTY' HISTORY OF HEALTH VIOLATIONS

But if cleanliness is one of Trump’s rules, it’s one he has a history of breaking. In November, Trump’s exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort and club was hit with 15 health code violations that stemmed from its two main kitchens. Among the violations were milk stored at 49 degrees and hot dogs placed on the ground of a walk-in freezer.

In January 2017, the same kitchens were found to have sushi that wasn’t treated for parasites and various foods stored in broken down freezers. The report found four basic violations, three intermediate violations and three high priority violations

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-red-hen-mar-lago-health-993790

[Restored]

I can't believe our news media is focusing on this stuff. The BBC must be laughing their butts off at us.

[ABX]

BTW, the last health report they had showed no violations.

http://healthspace.com/Clients/VDH/VDH/web.nsf/module_healthRegions.xsp

[ABX]

I can't believe our news media is focusing on this stuff. The BBC must be laughing their butts off at us.

It doesn't help when the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces focuses on this stuff and acts like a 12 year old internet troll.

[HoustonSam]

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the distinction.  In both cases the business owner chose to discriminate and used their moral beliefs to support their decision.

Not really.  Had Sarah Sanders not been Trump's Press Secretary then the restaurant would have served her without issue.  Had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked them a cake.

The cases are the same in that each business owner asserted the right to operate in accord with his own conscience.

I don't agree that's relevant.  In the first place, I've seen nothing to indicate the restaurant caters so we don't have any indication that they would provide a service to one party while denying it to another.  We do have that with the baker.  The continued claim that the baker would have served them anything else is also irrelevant.  Had the baker, for example, said that they would not bake a cake for a mixed race couple wishing to marry but would be open to selling them a cookie then would that be alright?

The cases are different in that the restaurant owner refused to do any business with Sarah Sanders, while the baker selectively refused to perform a particular service and welcomed the would-be homosexual customers for any other business they might wish.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory in arguing that a conscience-based selective refusal to perform a specific service is different from a conscience-based blanket refusal to do any business.  In fact the former policy respects the would-be customer much more than the latter.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

[XenaLee]

DONALD TRUMP SLAMS RED HEN, BUT MAR-A-LAGO RESTAURANT HAS 'DIRTY' HISTORY OF HEALTH VIOLATIONS

But if cleanliness is one of Trump’s rules, it’s one he has a history of breaking. In November, Trump’s exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort and club was hit with 15 health code violations that stemmed from its two main kitchens. Among the violations were milk stored at 49 degrees and hot dogs placed on the ground of a walk-in freezer.

In January 2017, the same kitchens were found to have sushi that wasn’t treated for parasites and various foods stored in broken down freezers. The report found four basic violations, three intermediate violations and three high priority violations

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-red-hen-mar-lago-health-993790

This is the problem with Trump.... rather than attempting to diffuse a situation.... or rather than (gasp!) just not saying/tweeting anything about it (can't have that!)....  Trump does his employees and supporters a disservice by "weighing in" on stupid crap like this. 

He basically (apparently) just loves to throw gasoline on an already flaming fire.  Really, REALLY stupid, IMO.  Especially since somebody IS probably going to end up dead as a result of all of this deliberately ramped up hatred and rhetoric AND actions.

Not the kind of maturity (as in adult vs. brat) and restraint that "I" want to see in our Commander In Chief.   Just sayin....

[ABX]

Someone set up a gofundme for the restaurant and they blew past the fundraising target in a few hours. Over 5 thousand in donations already.
https://www.gofundme.com/rewarding-red-hen039s-courage