Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 25 2018, @06:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the restaurant-with-bite dept.

BBC,

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant on Friday night because she works for President Donald Trump. A co-owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, asked Ms Sanders and her family to leave as a protest against the Trump administration.

She told the Washington Post that she decided to ask the Trump spokeswoman to leave the 26-seat, "farm-to-table" restaurant after talking to her staff. "Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," she said she told them. "They said yes."

The incident comes days after Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was booed at a Mexican restaurant in Washington DC. Critics of the Red Hen's decision said that it was discriminatory. However, others compared the restaurant's decision to a recent Supreme Court ruling in favour of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, in a case seen by many conservatives as a test for religious freedom.

WaPo - the owner of the Red Hen explains

[...] She [Ms Wilkinson (the proprietor)] knew Lexington, population 7,000, had voted overwhelmingly against Trump in a county that voted overwhelmingly for him. She knew the community was deeply divided over such issues as Confederate flags. She knew, she said, that her restaurant and its half-dozen servers and cooks had managed to stay in business for 10 years by keeping politics off the menu.

[...] It was important to Wilkinson, she said, that Sanders had already been served — that her staff had not simply refused her on sight. And it was important to her that Sanders was a public official, not just a customer with whom she disagreed, many of whom were included in her regular clientele.

"They offered to pay," Wilkinson said. "I said, 'No. It's on the house.' "

See also: A(ustralian)BC news


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Alfred on Monday June 25 2018, @06:53PM (68 children)

    by Alfred (4006) on Monday June 25 2018, @06:53PM (#698268) Journal
    A restaurant on private property...as the proprietor or manager sees fit they can ask anyone to leave and refuse service for any (non-protected) reason. If the potential customer gets excited over it, the manager can call the police. Sure the manager is a non-leader and staff are idiots but the manager is well within their rights to do this. Conservatives won't sue over this kind of thing. Trump people might though. If both sides weren't a bunch of babies this wouldn't be on the news anyway.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 25 2018, @07:07PM (55 children)

    You're absolutely correct. The thing the SJWs won't get is it's perfectly possible to protect someone's right to be a small-minded asshole while also disliking them for being a small-minded asshole. You just have to not be an authoritarian shithead.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday June 25 2018, @07:09PM (20 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @07:09PM (#698287) Journal

      I think SJWs realized it is now okay that certain individuals do not have to be served by a business such as a restaurant, or a cake baker.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday June 25 2018, @07:11PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @07:11PM (#698293) Journal

        Oh . . . but the business can still claim that "they serve everyone".

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @07:38PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @07:38PM (#698313)

        The general rule has always been that it's fine to discriminate against racists, but not races.

        Anything that a person inherently is, tends to fall under a protected status, like being a certain gender, a certain race, or, indeed, being gay. On the other hand, being an asshole is something that somebody could just choose not to be. So if you serve the public, you have an obligation to serve blacks, gays, jews, etc. But that shouldn't mean you have to serve an asshole, especially a liar like Sanders.

        • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:05PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:05PM (#698385)

          But we don't really know if being gay is a choice or if it runs deeper. And we've heard stories about biological factors linked to certain people being Democrats or Republicans. So maybe the fact that Sarah Sanders supports Trump is just as much a part of her as gay people being attracted to their own gender.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @10:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @10:05AM (#698675)

            Sure it's a choice; A choice between being out, an impotent husband to a miserable wife, celibate, or dead.

            Honestly, pacifists died for less.

          • (Score: 1) by Newander on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:53PM

            by Newander (4850) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:53PM (#698810)

            She wasn't thrown out for being a Republican, or supporting Trump. She was thrown out for working as a member of the Trump administration to spread his lies.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by choose another one on Monday June 25 2018, @09:32PM (4 children)

          by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @09:32PM (#698402)

          Interesting that you missed out "religion" as a protected status. Particularly since it is something that sometimes leads directly to being an asshole, and is something that somebody could just choose not to be.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:41AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:41AM (#698487)

            Lots of religions are an opt in, excommunication or bodybag out exercise, if you are following the strict fundamentalist teachings. And while we're a lot better than the past, losing access to your community in the wrong part of the country can be akin to death, as you now have no jobs, the local cops, and the community in general against you.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:19AM (2 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:19AM (#698613) Homepage
              Yes, in unenlightened bronze-age shitholes. Are you saying the US is an unenlightened bronze-age shithole, as that's the legal system we're talking about here.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @10:31AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @10:31AM (#698678)

                Yes, in unenlightened bronze-age shitholes.

                During most of the bronze-age freedom of religion was a given. The problem was that you were also required to worship the king as a deity. Most sane religions just thrown in a cutesy prayer/BBQ once a year. Only a few of the Judeo-christians had issues with it.

                The Quakers had similar issues with sworn testimonies up until a century or two ago. Similarly anarcho-christians and Hasidic Jews won't serve dual lords so they generally refuse to acknowledge national authorities in most forms let alone serve in armed forces or take positions in governments. And there's the whole drafting of pacifists thing that had the Army sending soldiers to combat without a rifle up until the last century...

                • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday June 26 2018, @08:04PM

                  by Freeman (732) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @08:04PM (#698944) Journal

                  Here's a fine upstanding Conscientious Objector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss [wikipedia.org] "The feature film Hacksaw Ridge, based on his life, was produced by Terry Benedict and directed by Mel Gibson."

                  --
                  Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:06PM

          by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:06PM (#698701)

          Does a cake baker serve the public? Do they in fact not serve private individuals providing cakes in exchange for currency? I'm not saying I'm in favor of choosing not to serve someone because they are gay, but I think there should be a distinction between someone who serves the public (hold office) and people who provide services for money.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @09:07PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:07PM (#698386) Journal

        I think SJWs realized it is now okay that certain individuals do not have to be served by a business such as a restaurant, or a cake baker.

        You've got a card-carrying-liberal right here.

        Wouldn't it be more fun to debate me than your imaginary friend over there?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:00PM (#698787)

          *crickets chirping*

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by julian on Monday June 25 2018, @10:54PM (6 children)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @10:54PM (#698428)

        It's still illegal for bakers (or anyone else) to refuse to serve customers because they are gay. That's not what the case was about. The victory that the baker achieved was that he didn't have to exercise his artistic expression in service to an event that goes against his religious convictions. His artistic expression was the creation of a custom decorated cake. If that gay couple had just asked to buy an already made cake, and been refused, the baker would have lost. The simple transaction of money for cake isn't protected artistic expression.

        And I actually agree with the ruling. Political beliefs are a totally different matter. Outside of DC they are not a protected class. Sarah Sanders could, any time she wants, resign and issue an apology for the harm she's done to the country as Press Sec. for this dishonest administration. She could immediately begin rehabilitating her reputation...if she cared to. You can't stop being gay, by contrast.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:47AM (#698492)

          Just find masculine women with facial hair and small tits into reciprocal anal and oral sex.

          See how easy that was? Must like just finding a job or not being an sjw/racist cupcake, it is just that easy to stop being gay. After all, plenty of us guys imagine are wives are hot women while we are fucking them and they imagine we are hot ripped hunks with that hurricane tongue or huge cock. So if those gays really wanted to they could find a man or women and pretend just as hard as the rest of us that they weren't gay. Being gay is a choice not a commitment, just like being a republican, a democrat, a pig, or an American.

          Do your part to buck the trend and imagine a different you today!

        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:53AM (3 children)

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:53AM (#698605) Journal

          I almost completely agree with you. I only write to correct you that it is only illegal not to serve gays in some jurisdictions. The federal Civil Rights Act actually does not make sexuality a protected class. Colorado did, but, in Texas, for instance, you can actually throw gays out of your restaurant all you want.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:25AM (2 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:25AM (#698616) Homepage
            You can always use, what's it called?, parallel construction. Throw the gays out because their campness was disturbing other customers. Blacks you want to turf out? Their shirts were too loud and didn't meet your dress code. A sufficiently bigotted bigot can always find something non-protected to claim it's about.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:32PM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:32PM (#699309) Homepage Journal

              Which kind of makes me want to do away with protected classes all together. I prefer my racism honest and up-front so I can more easily shun it.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 27 2018, @03:01PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday June 27 2018, @03:01PM (#699325) Homepage
                Total agreement there.

                The existence of protected classes just creates a new discrimination between the protected and the non-protected, and if you're non-, then fuck you, you've got no rights! Over time, more and more distinguishers will have factions that fights to be included in the protected set, and will succeed, which will create more Goddy-gay-cake fiascos, as the protected classes battle against each other for superiority to see which class is more equal than the other.

                Eventually the only non-protected classes will be those that can't find a loud and obnoxious lobby to fight for their rights, and people who primarily identify as members of the groups making up those non-protected classes will be the victims of discrimination from all sides, as every other class knows that they can always win every battle because The Law(tm) says so.

                Yes, I know that's a slippery slope argument, but look at the situation as it currently is - it's at an incline and drenched in soapy water - this is as safe a predition as any I've seen.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:21PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:21PM (#698728) Journal

          I actually agree with the ruling. Political beliefs are a totally different matter.

          Political beliefs are not the reason Sarah was asked to leave. Her specific actions and support for Trump and his immoral policies were. There is no evidence that this restaurant refuses people with a certain set of political beliefs.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday June 25 2018, @07:35PM (32 children)

      by edIII (791) on Monday June 25 2018, @07:35PM (#698312)

      This has nothing to do with SJWs though. Running concentration camps for kids is what this is about, and sorry, but the US and the Trump administration in general is LOSING on this position. Big Time, all across the world. You, along with some others around here, are acting like complete fucking fools conflating this situation with SJW hysterics, or Open Borders supporters. It's NOT. I actually support Trump incarcerating them TOGETHER. My entire problem with it is centered around the CHILDREN. Putting them in concentration camps is dark black smoking pock mark on our honor, but separating a young child from the mother deserves an eternity in hell. The only excuse is for the woman to be abusing or neglecting her child, and NO, her trip to the US, crossing illegally, and attempting to provide asylum to herself and the child is not grounds for "social services" to take care of the child instead. We would never treat a child in this country the same way, and we should not treat any child from another country differently.

      Even better is the program with a 97%+ success rate in keeping track of immigrant families in the asylum process without incarceration. You don't need to incarcerate them all like that. Too expensive and they've demonstrated that they're perfectly willing to be tracked, and have a high level of cooperation with the authorities in said programs. Even better, I'm all for housing them on military bases surrounded by troops till we decided if they stay or go back. This is all about the children, and them suffering the alleged sins of the parents. It's not a sin to try and escape horrible violence in your own country by fleeing to another. Keep the child with the mother. PERIOD.

      Some bring up the ridiculous notion that we are only empowering criminals to use them as shields. That's fucking bullshit and I think you know it. It's not incredibly difficult to catch them at the border, process them together, but from the start provide safety for the child until it can be proven. A bunch of hardened criminals using children as shields isn't hard to see. You can ask the child questions you know, and can even perform genetic tests, and contact their government for more information. IF it is a criminal, then start giving out 30 year minimum sentences for having trafficked a child into the US. We can find the real parents, or God forbid, show some compassion and put the child in an orphanage here. All of that being better than separating them into concentration camps.

      As for the discrimination here, it's a slippery fucking slope when you say that one group can be legally discriminated against based on religious views. It's entirely possible to construct religiously based objections to the people involved with such heinous policies. This is not whataboutism here, but fair play. Now that the religious idiots have found a way to make discrimination legal again, they need to accept that it means we can discriminate against them too. What's good for the Goose....

      If you really don't like it, then support the repeal of the cake maker decision. Until then, discrimination is now legal again, and the supporting arguments still just as weak for it.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @07:39PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @07:39PM (#698316)

        Running concentration camps for kids is what this is about, and sorry, but the US and the Trump administration in general is LOSING on this position. Big Time, all across the world.

        Wrong! [threadreaderapp.com]

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 26 2018, @07:34AM (1 child)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 26 2018, @07:34AM (#698636) Journal

          So you feel that quoting a few tweets is the same as knowing what the world press is actually saying about this? Certainly the UK, France, Germany and Australia have been quite public about their condemnation of this strategy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @11:35PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @11:35PM (#699027)

            Australia had terrible problems with boat people. Sadly, some people were actually in need of help.
            It took years for those in camps Australia interned them in to admit the reasons for entering Australia were more about other reasons than personal safety. Medical. Money. Bringing islam to the world. Revenge.

            Australia spends billions to keep these people out. Come here uninvited and you may spend years on an island prison.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @07:39PM (7 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @07:39PM (#698317) Journal

        This has nothing to do with SJWs though

        Exactly. Buzzard can't refute anything the actual liberals are posting here so he resorts to arguing with a figment of his imagination. SAD.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 25 2018, @07:56PM (6 children)

          Was I arguing? I didn't think I was. I thought I was supporting their right to do as they did while disapproving of what they did.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @08:42PM (3 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @08:42PM (#698366) Journal

            Was I arguing?

            "The thing the SJWs won't get is it's perfectly possible to protect someone's right to be a small-minded asshole while also disliking them for being a small-minded asshole."

            You invented a straw man that doesn't get something and then called him out for not getting it.

            Being a small minded asshole isn't illegal and nobody has proposed that it should be. Except for that fictional SJW, of course.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 26 2018, @02:58AM (2 children)

              That's not an argument. That's just a statement. And you really need to get out more if you haven't noticed how deeply SJWs hate and fear free speech.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:20PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:20PM (#698830)

                The hilarious part is that you are always telling other people to suck it up and deal with criticism, but any criticism or disagreement with you gets labeled SJW censorship over fear and hatred. You are such a hypocrite.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:41PM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:41PM (#699312) Homepage Journal

                  Precisely what reality are you living in? Do they have good coffee there? Do the Hooters waitresses wear green shorts instead of orange?

                  Both parts of that statement are the exact opposite of what I do. I believe people should be criticized at every opportunity and should use that criticism to change or refine their position if said position is not vindicated. The entire reason I argue on the Internet is to crowdsource additional devil's advocate positions for my own views. I'm sure as fuck not going to change a mind like yours that mentally rejects the existence of anything that doesn't suit their narrative. And I wouldn't care enough to try even if it were likely because you don't matter to me.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @08:43AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @08:43AM (#698661)

            SJW! SJW! Moar SJWs! Too Many SJWs to handle! It is almost like, they are the majority?

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by frojack on Monday June 25 2018, @07:43PM (4 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Monday June 25 2018, @07:43PM (#698322) Journal

        Running concentration camps for kids is what this is about,

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/05/28/democrats-blame-trump-for-photo-children-separated-border-illegal-aliens/ [breitbart.com]

        Suddenly you found religion? You were fine with this in 2014.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by edIII on Monday June 25 2018, @07:54PM

          by edIII (791) on Monday June 25 2018, @07:54PM (#698333)

          How do you know I was fine with it? Are you playing the Obama card with ME? Try again mother fucker. There wasn't a whole lot that I ever agreed with in that administration, and YES, you are most correct that it didn't start with Trump. He made it worse, but it didn't start with him. FFS, just look at some of my older posts and see how much I really supported Obama, or blindly at that.

          Don't play that card with me, or dare to assume I supported something because you also dared to fucking assume I'm a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat, nor a liberal, nor a SJW, nor a Trumpanzee.

          Try again, mother fucker :)

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @09:02PM (2 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:02PM (#698383) Journal
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @09:05PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:05PM (#698384) Journal

            Fact check: Did Obama administration separate families? [nbcnews.com]

            This is inaccurate — there was no widespread Obama-era policy of separating parents and children — but it's a common talking point for Republican commentators and members of the president's administration.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:28PM (#698400)

              Fact check: is there a paper trail detailing Obama's involvement in human trafficking?

              True [threadreaderapp.com]

              Fact check: Is human trafficking a form of modern slavery?

              True [humantraffickinghotline.org]

              Fact check: is DeathMonkey on the side of slavers?

              True [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @08:22PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @08:22PM (#698348)

        Mom and Dad in the front, and the kids in the back of the car. Mom and Dad drive by someone's house, say "hey, they must have some stuff in there that we want. And we are going to break in and take it, because it is something we want / the owners are racist / fuck them."

        Police come, arrest the parents, take the kids away to a holding facility. Has it ever been any different?

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by vux984 on Monday June 25 2018, @08:35PM (6 children)

          by vux984 (5045) on Monday June 25 2018, @08:35PM (#698358)

          Scale always matters.

          You can't treat a lone jaywalker the same as you'd treat a 500,000 people marching in a protest. A police officer can issue a jaywalker a ticket quickly and efficiently. What are you doing to do with 500,000 people jaywalking together, put them in a holding camp for a year while a handful of officers get's around to writing each one a ticket?

          This problem at the border was just that; a zero-tolerance policy coupled with a lack allocated resources in terms judges and courts to handle the numbers of people involved speedily and efficiently. This rapidly devolved into people being rounded up into camps to wait their turn; and in the process the detention became inhumane and out of proportion to the crime.

          Same as the concentration camps for jaywalking would be if it was suddenly enforced with zero tolerance in the middle of a massive protest, without adequate planning to process the people caught in the net.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 25 2018, @09:44PM (3 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:44PM (#698412) Journal

            You can't treat a lone jaywalker the same as you'd treat a 500,000 people marching in a protest. A police officer can issue a jaywalker a ticket quickly and efficiently. What are you doing to do with 500,000 people jaywalking together, put them in a holding camp for a year while a handful of officers get's around to writing each one a ticket?

            Add to that the fact that you must be inside the US in order to apply for asylum. [uscis.gov]

            So you're REQUIRED to commit that jaywalking if you don't want to die in your home country.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @10:12PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @10:12PM (#698417)

              So you're REQUIRED to commit that jaywalking if you don't want to die in your home country.

              Wrong. There's an embassy and 9 US consulates in Mexico where non-US citizens can apply for asylum without risking arrest by illegally crossing the border.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday June 26 2018, @05:05AM (1 child)

                by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @05:05AM (#698607) Journal

                US embassies and consulates can't process asylum applications: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-obtain-protection-us-embassy-consulate.html [nolo.com]

                You can, however, apply for asylum at an official US border crossing. Lawyers advise not doing that, though, because then the one border official you happen by chance to speak to gets to decide whether you live or die.

                You have a stronger chance if you apply for asylum after getting into the US -- either with a visa, or by illegal entry. So of course asylum seekers are going to commit the misdemeanor to get the better chance.

                • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:47PM

                  by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:47PM (#698842) Journal

                  Parent is correct, asylum applications aren't processed there. Instead you apply there for refugee or parole status which can allow you legal entry.

                  This seems like an easy thing to fix too, if we were going to touch this law.

          • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:40AM (1 child)

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:40AM (#699082) Homepage Journal

            They said, "Sir, we’d like to hire about five or six thousand more judges." Five or six thousand? Now, can you imagine the graft that must take place? I know you can’t imagine a thing like that would happen. We're essentially the only Country that has judges for immigration. And by the way, when we release the people, they never come back to the judge, anyway. They're gone. Do you know if a person comes in and puts one foot on our ground, it's essentially, "Welcome to America, welcome to our country." You never get them out because they take their name, they bring the name down, they file it, then they let the person go. Like 3% come back. 3%.

            When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with NO JUDGES or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order!!!

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by vux984 on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:51PM

              by vux984 (5045) on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:51PM (#699459)

              You know, that was all fact checked, and unsurprisingly its all bullshit.

              "sir, we'd like to hire about five or six thousand more judges"

              The US currently has 334 immigration judges. The bill asking for more judges would have authorized 225 more.

              "You never get them out because they take their name, they bring the name down, they file it, then they let the person go. Like 3% come back. 3%."

              The DOJ reports that 25% of cases are decided in absentia -- meaning that 75% of of the time they do show up; or 3 out of 4, not 3 out of 100 (3%). The DOJ however didn't breakdown cases involving border crossings and cases inolving aliens detained inside the country; so the figures are not necessarily entirely reliable. However, no evidence supporting 3% for border crossings has been provided; and it doesn't pass the smell test. The DOJ also estimates that only 1% of the applications are fraudulent.

              "We're essentially the only Country that has judges for immigration."

              Also false. Does this even need to be addressed? Of course other countries have judges who specifically hear immigration and refugee claims; hearings, appeals, etc. You have better odds of finding a country that doesn't.

              "Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order!!!"

              The system definitely has flaws, for example, the fact that that it's legally advantageous to make your asylum claim after illegally crossing for example should be corrected -- give the advantage to making the claim at a legal border crossing and illegal crossings would drop like a stone as soon as the word got out.

              But the president is a mockery to democracy and common decency.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 25 2018, @09:42PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:42PM (#698411)

          Where is the "-1 : total analogy fail" mod ?

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday June 25 2018, @09:51PM (2 children)

          by edIII (791) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:51PM (#698413)

          What a dumb fucking argument. You're trying to equate social services, foster parents, and orphanages with abandoned Wallmart's, steel fences, concrete floors, ARMED GUARDS, and instructions to not speak to, or hug a child. I've seen this argument before, and it's the stupidest fucking argument possible. You've constructed some straw man argument where the parents, after getting caught, are forcing the child upon us to be raised. You are somehow the victim in all this, because *gasp*, you're now partially responsible for the child afterwards. Selfish fuck. Of course, being the shithead you are, you really don't see a difference between foster care and a Wallmart with steel fences, and armed guards.

          It has sure as fuck BEEN DIFFERENT. That difference is in how we treat the child, and that's ONLY if the parents have committed a crime so grave as to cause us to lose all confidence in the parental abilities. Again, a woman fleeing domestic violence in her home country, and coming here with a child IS NOT GROUNDS to take away the child. It is grounds for us to incarcerate the mother and child together, until such time we decide to let them stay, or let them go. Operative word here being, "TOGETHER".

          So to answer your question, yes, it has sure as fuck been different in the past. We don't take away children from domestic violence victims (that are also citizens), we never have, and we never will.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:23PM (#698832)

            It is shocking you have to explain the basics of being humane. So many lizard men around here.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:45PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday June 27 2018, @02:45PM (#699315) Homepage Journal

            Let's see, can you spot the part where you go from advocating for humane behavior and run screaming into authoritarian shitheadery?

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by stormreaver on Monday June 25 2018, @08:41PM (3 children)

        by stormreaver (5101) on Monday June 25 2018, @08:41PM (#698364)

        As I understand the Supreme Court decision, they were only saying that the baker did violate Colorado's law as it existed at the time the offense occurred. That whole lawsuit was governed by the laws of Colorado as they existed at the time the baker refused service to the gay couple. The offense occurred before gay marriage was legalized across the U.S.

        At the same time, they were saying that the Colorado law will likely not survive a Constitutional challenge that is focused on the modern legal landscape.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 25 2018, @09:55PM

          by edIII (791) on Monday June 25 2018, @09:55PM (#698415)

          Thank you for that clarification.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday June 25 2018, @10:04PM

          by Spamalope (5233) on Monday June 25 2018, @10:04PM (#698416) Homepage

          The Supreme Court punted on that case. There are several other similar cases that I suspect they view would make better law.

          In the recent case, they found that the store owner had the right to unbiased enforcement and that the Colorado folks had demonstrated clear bias. They sent the whole thing back for reconsideration. Legally the law likes finality so it takes a ruling like this for mistakes to get fixed. The end result may be the same for the shop owner. The court only addressed the bias in enforcement.

        • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:23PM

          by stormreaver (5101) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:23PM (#698831)

          I just realized I left off an important word in my posting. It should have been:

          "...the baker did NOT violate Colorado's law..."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:03AM (#698503)

      So you mean like every liberal except the few asshats punching nazis? Ok thanks for finally owning up to reality.

      You lot cry like babies with "muh oppressssssionnnnnnn" but in reality you just can't handle criticism. Compared to conservatives the liberals are saints. The worst you might get is a tongue lashing oooooooooh!

      Go build a snowoman you thumbless fucktard.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @09:22PM (#698397)

    It would be a bigger deal if it happened in DC, because you can't discriminate in DC based upon political affiliation.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 26 2018, @02:17PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @02:17PM (#698765)

      Maybe, but it doesn't sound like the Red Hen refuses to serve other Republicans, so it'd be hard to make the case that they were discriminating based on political affiliation, rather than simply refusing to do business with someone who has voluntarily chosen to be an especially soulless, bald-faced liar aiding the current administration in perpetrating even its most heinous acts.

  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:43AM (#698525)

    A restaurant on private property...as the proprietor or manager sees fit they can ask anyone to leave and refuse service for any (non-protected) reason. If the potential customer gets excited over it, the manager can call the police. Sure the manager is a non-leader and staff are idiots but the manager is well within their rights to do this. Conservatives won't sue over this kind of thing. Trump people might though. If both sides weren't a bunch of babies this wouldn't be on the news anyway.

    How the fuck do you think those "protected" classes became protected? Since you SJW types seem to be tone deaf on self awareness, I'll give you a hint. It's because people used to have no problem justifying shit like this. You fuckwits have become the exact thing you claim to hate.

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:51AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:51AM (#698528) Journal

    That whole "protected class of persons" thing is shit from start to finish. It's just part of the elevation of everyone else over Whitey.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:28AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:28AM (#698580)

    It's okay to kick out a white women and her party.
    What if they kicked out a black person?

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:33AM

      by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:33AM (#698619) Journal

      Thats different. Some people are more equal than others.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 1) by Newander on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:59PM (1 child)

      by Newander (4850) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @03:59PM (#698812)

      She wasn't kicked out for being white. She was kicked out for being an asshole.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @04:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @04:06AM (#699120)

        If she was muslim there may have been rioting and death over this

  • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:31AM (3 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:31AM (#698618) Journal

    No shirt?
    No shoes?
    MAGA hat?
    No service

    Sounds like freedom to me.

    Did the owners try to say it was due to the SC ruling? If so they better have their lawyer justifying chicken wings as an artistic statement.

    I hope someone sues here so we can get the SC to rule that small business owners are constutitionally allowed to be as retarded as they want when it comes to discrimination.

    Funny how the left is all "see see shoes on the other foot" and the right doesnt give a crap because they respect the rights of business. At least one group is consistant.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:27PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:27PM (#698836)

      Are you paying zero attention? All I'm seeing is bitching from your counterparts. You are the first to say it was OK to kick her out.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @04:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @04:04AM (#699118)

      I put on my hat and robe. . .