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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.