Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
As I see it, this isn’t an issue for government and law, but for society and manners.
I don’t want Sarah Sanders having a legal right to demand service because she’s part of a “protected class”.
I want it to be unthinkable that a restaurant would refuse to serve someone because of his or her political views.
Or good economics. If I were the Red Hen’s banker, I wouldn’t like to hear that they are turning away paying customers for frivolous reasons. Or displaying bad manners in an attempt to drive away paying customers. Of course the owner should be free to do so, but I don’t want the bank regulators fining me if I decide that this woman is a bad risk because of her behavior.
This might be only tangential to the topic, but the issue I have the most difficulty with is the concept of “protected classes”.
I respect that there was once a moral need to establish the concept of a protected class as a counterweight to both legally-sanctioned and publicly-tolerated discrimination against blacks. But it certainly seems like the basic notion of a protected class flies directly in the face of equal treatment under the law – after all, by definition people belonging to this class are treated differently.
But regardless of whether there is a genuine legal basis for the existence of protected classes, the manner in which they are currently being expanded is nearly the perfect definition of a slippery slope. Each new group that is granted “protected” status is incrementally further from the original moral position of blacks in mid-century America, and moving more toward groups who are currently politically favorable and socially trendy. At some point, there will be little moral distinction between those who may legally be discriminated against and those who may not (and I know many here would argue we reached that point years ago).
I don’t care about theory anymore, or slipperly slopes. Out here in the real world, Christians are told they must take part in they ceremonies find sinful. A Pizza Company who has one worker who is not in support of Gay Marriage is shut down by the leftist mob. Families of ICE workers are doxxed. There is only a leftist mob, and it is winning in its mission to shut down speech it does not like, to destroy jobs and lives, and it will keep doing so.
Either government needs to protect people being attacked by mobs, or there need to be counter mobs. The only other outcome is the leftist mob will win.
They won’t. But they will stop bank rolling gun retailers.
This sums it up nicely.
In an immigration thread here I believe I read that the U.N. classifies among “refugees” as those fleeing persecution for their political beliefs. Seems to me that Ms Sanders is s refugee by this definition and the Red Hen’s ownership is guilty of a human rights violation.
The Left has become the new Brownshirts. This should be highlighted at every opportunity.
Sarah Sanders made the right to decision to leave the restaurant when she was asked to do so. Her use of her government provided social media account to name the restaurant presents an ethical problem, but it’s not a pivotal moment in the misuse of a government account. It’s a learning experience. What she described was certainly true, and the restaurant owner affirms her account of what happened.
The positive affirmation of those who support the manager asking Sarah Sanders to leave affirms the right of a baker to refuse to provide a product that would involve him/her in the perception that it violates their religious beliefs to do so.
There are of course those on the Left that will not see it this way, as there are those on the Right that will not see the correlation between the baker, restaurant owner, and the ejection of Sarah Sanders that way.
You can try to litigate manners, but unfortunately the supply of virtue signalers’, and to be honest your run of the mill jerk is endless.
I would not go back to a restaurant that was forced to serve me, food handlers have their own ways to get even.
The problem, FormerLawProf, is that now those formerly thought to be in that protected class, may be discriminated against because of their political actions. Because of the Democratic Party’s long term agitation to treat citizens as a member of a group and not as a group of individuals , certain ethnic or quasi religious groups now have a distinct political bias, which under the RedHen approach leaves them open to lawful discrimination.
In the other feed, I brought up the example of gays. While sexual preference has not formerly been adopted by Congressional action to grant them status as a protected class, much of the Judiciary now treats it as so.
Gays as a group, with very little complaint from within the gay community, have used reprehensible actions to attack the religious liberty of their fellow citizens and have largely succeeded in restricting that liberty. Religious people are rightly angry regarding Gays political actions. Do not then do gays under the RedHen approach fall also under the class of a biased political constituency, not a protected class, that can be discriminated against almost for any reason?
Because the Left now uses almost Gestapo like tactics to enforce strict obedience among those wanting to align with the Left, particularly among those groups like gays and blacks whom the Left thinks should always play the aggrieved victim in a very political way, the lines between protected classes and unprotected political classes have become horribly blurred, rendering enforcement of those discrimination laws a hoary nightmare.
Which is why I think actually asking someone to leave is more polite and dignified than spitting in their food in secret. It is ultimately healthier for people to be up front and honest about their refusal to associate with those whom they despise (whether justly or unjustly). You can’t make the Capulets and Montagues like each other and you shouldn’t feel obligated to try by force of law. As long as they are just mutually shunning each other and not spilling blood in the streets I think we can all be happy.
Ho, ho who is taking a leap off the old Nazi comparisons now? How long was it since people were arguing that the left had gone too far in doing this? Just so easy to do isn’t it? I know, I know this time its different, and they really are just that mean….
If the armband fits…
The actual Brownshirts’ purpose was to drive the opposition from the streets so that the only voices heard were those they favoured. To disrupt opposition meetings so that they could not organise or recruit. And to attack the leadership of opposing parties. Those are the tactics now on display … to hound opposition into silence. The comparison is apt.
In many instances, the concept behind the regulation of public accommodations is no longer viable. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, we had segregation in significant parts of the country. The country itself was less developed, so it was possible for some businesses to exercise monopoly power (a rare event today). Moreover, the court of public opinion was not nearly as forceful, generations before the advent of social media.
Was it actually less forceful or just more localized?
This. If one is allowed to discriminate against Republicans then it applies equally to Democrats.
The latter is true, but the generators of public opinion–social media and 24 hour news–did not exist. So I’d say both.
Right, and actually there’s a good argument to be made for it. Even at will. Employees can’t be fired for refusing to engage in political avtivity the owner directs. Violates public policy, not cuz being a member of a political party is a “protected class”, but because the important Right of freedom of speech and expression is implicated.
I agree with this. Let leftists ban everyone they like from their private enterprises. Let the right ban who they like. We’ll see which side is more driven by fear and hatred.
In the meantime, maybe Starbucks can give the Red Hen some pointers on inclusion. They could close the store for a day…
Just this weekend, I saw in a restaurant this sign:
We Reserve the Right To Refuse Service to Anyone
How would any state with an anti-discrimination statute allow any public accommodation to post that sign? Isn’t that sign illegal, and wouldn’t the owners of the establishment be open to lawsuits?
Of course this is not something we can measure. I think the benefit of the past is that because it was more localized you could escape it more easily by moving. Now social disapproval will follow you forever on the internet, and can be googled.
I agree with this view, but I still have serious reservations about the legality of Sarah and her party’s ejection from the restaurant, a public accommodation.
Religion is a belief system, and the anti-discrimination laws make it protected. However, is not having a political party affiliation also a belief system? True, the Republican party or conservatism don’t have churches or a Pope they can point to, but I believe in conservatism, and I would be greatly offended and seek legal redress if a restaurant owner overheard me talking about how much I like Trump over dinner, then throwing me out.
Hypothetical examples:
“I didn’t throw the Muslim family out of my restaurant because they were Muslim. I threw them out because I overheard them saying “Death to America.”
“I don’t mind serving a gay couple, but the sight of two gay men holding hands disturbed the Christian family seated next to them. On top of that, they were discussing militant action, and I’m against gay militants politically.”
Naw, I’m in favor of the stinking government going to bat for Sarah here . . .
Je suis Sarah Huckabee Sanders. We need armbands and hats.
Most large corporations abide by progressive values in their policies and PR. They permit political and religious expression from one side while denying it from the other among employees. It is normal now for corporations to needlessly antagonize half their customers by endorsing progressive politics with “Pride month” displays and whatnot.
To the Left, politics is life — all of it, because omnipotent government and totalitarian culture are their goals (though delusionally imagined as freedom and kindness). The Right justifiably wants politics to be only a small part of life, but defense against such aggressive tyranny cannot be. Either the Right accepts that the lawless, intolerant Left is unwilling to respect boundaries or the Left will win with hardly a fight.
Protected classes are incompatible with equality under the law. Identifying essential services requires prudential judgments. Prudence among officials is an inescapable necessity of any system.
The Civil Rights Act should be repealed. Beyond that, I am more concerned that conservatives should find their courage and stop assenting to the tyrannical fads and censorship of statists in business, academia, and other supposedly non-political arenas.
That is usually posted in relation to alcoholic beverage sales. Since bartenders/servers can be held liable for under aged or over served patrons, they are given the right to ‘cut off’ anyone at any time.
You are simply ceding the force of law to the other side and as a result you are guaranteed to lose. The Left thanks you.
If some idiot left wing restaurant owner wants to post a big sign out front that says ‘No Trump supporters welcome’, or a right wing owner ‘No Hillary Supporters welcome’, they should have that right.
I understand why racial segregation caused the current state of protected classes and laws banning that kind of discrimination. But it was never intended to mean a business owner couldn’t pick and choose whom they do business with.
If vast numbers of business start discriminating against Trump supporters or his administration employees, it might get so bad as to require anti discrimination laws, but until then, lets just go eat somewhere they don’t hate us!
I for one wouldn’t want to eat at the Red Hen even if they didn’t throw me out for my political views.
It should be interesting to see how the business customer base reacts, if there are any reports.
It’s also used for inappropriate dress, behavior, etc.
I agree. But they should still serve them . . .