Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drvoke

I own the restaurant that asked Sarah Sanders to leave. Here is what I learned from it...

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I will look into this at another time. I need more evidence than the opinion of a stranger. 

 

 

OK..    fine.   You will see that I am correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

yes it  is her right  to be  deranged  liberal ,  but  it is  Big Lie that Sanders is a  liar.    Same with Trump.

 

I think Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a class act, and the crap she has to put up with because she speaks on behalf of Trump who the media hates.

I commend her for a job well done, when you had idiot press secretary like Josh not so Ernest lying to the american public like it was an olympic sport but of course Obama was the media darling.


Truth is the Media was afraid of Obama because if they criticize him harshly they would be seen as racists and the obama drones through social media would harass the media, but Trump is the perfect scapegoat, a white man , successful with some baggage so its like the media cage door is open and now they let loose and Mrs Sanders is just another target for their insane lust for taking Trump down

 

The restaurant owner has her rights, just like I have my rights when I walk by that place and yell out " you suck, your characterization of Mrs Sanders suck" and eat at their competition and promote them

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EltonJohnson said:

No pal.     I  was right.   it  is  just a fact.

 

Who do you think you are?  Boss Tweed?

 

2 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

You are an  idiot.   Barr  did no such thing.      thanks for  making my day.    You are my  window  into  liberal insanity

 

Barr is not acting as AG of the US.  He is performing as Trump's personal lawyer.  But you fail to see this.   Only a buttplug like you would deny what is common knowledge.

 

(Watch folks - He ran out of arguments and is now merely refuting everything with an opposite version, made up on the spot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

I'm not drawing a conclusion and Im asking a simple question, which boils down to 

why is a political affiliation a reason for discrimination ?

 

 

 

Why are you asking me? I've never said anything like that.

 

Are you confused again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bludog said:

Who do you think you are?  Boss Tweed?

 

 

Nope.   just a well informed citizen debating a deranged leftist

 

4 minutes ago, bludog said:

Barr is not acting as AG of the US.  He is performing as Trump's personal lawyer.  But you fail to see this.  

 

 

No, you are out of your mind.    Barr is doing what the law says.   Your side committed crimes  trying to   oust a  duly elected  POTUS,  covering up for  Hillary and  spying on candidate Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bludog said:

Only a buttplug like you would deny what is common knowledge.

 

(Watch folks - He ran out of arguments and is now merely refuting everything with an opposite version, made up on the spot.)

 

 

you are the one  who  doesn't know  common knowledge.

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DemoMan said:

 

Why are you asking me? I've never said anything like that.

 

Are you confused again?

never mind, my question was answered 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

I do not accept it.    It is a lie that Sanders lies.

 

If you re-read my post you may notice I was careful to say "Sanders is believed to have lied ...."

 

Good luck with your unquestioning acceptance of Trump's tweets and comments. You may find that people don't take you seriously because of it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

you are the one  who  doesn't know  common knowledge.

 

LOL

 

Ha ha ha ha ha.  This is funny.  He has nothing of his own to say.  Can't refute anything with an argument.  Simply says the opposite of what he heard last.  What a pathetic putz.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

But its the owner of the restaurant perception and her restaurant 

I may not agree with the owner decision or perception but it still her restaurant and her right.

 

If the owner and I haven't read all the stories started kicking out all republicans or those that sport MAGA paraphernalias, then yeah I would question it

but Mrs Sanders who I believe is a good person and doing her job and isnt liked because she is Donald Trump spokesperson is being targeted , then its not cool but then its a private business and that owner has the right to do what she feels is best.

 

Just like I have the right to boycott it because I don't agree with the owner decision.

 

 

 

 

I agree.  The small business owner is an individual and individuals freedoms apply. That applies to this business owner, as well as a cake shop owner who is uncomfortable providing services to certain ceremonies. 

 

Corporations are different. They should be prohibited from policies that refuse service to individuals or groups. Corporations are not real people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Good one. It is similar to my attitude towards violence.

 

You get violent to what you perceive as violent ?

 

Yeah, that makes sense ... NOT !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

If you re-read my post you may notice I was careful to say "Sanders is believed to have lied ...."

 

 

 

That belief is based upon a  mass neuroses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

Minor quibble: Sanders was not refused service over her political affiliation. She was refused service over her actions.  Specifically, Sanders is believed to have lied repeatedly to the American people. 

 

That isn't minor at all - it is entirely the point.
Th con stooges have been ordered to LIE that it was because of affiliation, so they can play victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Ha ha ha ha ha.  This is funny.  He has nothing of his own to say.  Can't refute anything with an argument.  Simply says the opposite of what he heard last.  What a pathetic putz.

 

 

 

 

You're deranged,  I refute things al the  time.    You are citing YEARS OLD  garbage,  when  SPYGATE  and Obamagate are common knowledge  now for  months      You are calling  the AG   the  President's  personal  atty... right out of  Nancy Pelosi's  mouth.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

I agree.  The small business owner is an individual and individuals freedoms apply. That applies to this business owner, as well as a cake shop owner who is uncomfortable providing services to certain ceremonies. 

 

Corporations are different. They should be prohibited from policies that refuse service to individuals or groups. Corporations are not real people. 

 

no argument here, well said 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bludog said:

This is funny.

 

 

What is funny  is how  you are one of the libs who still clings to  Trump Russia Collusion … look at your signature.   Even the dolts took theirs down.    You're the lone Brainiac 

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JinnMartini said:

 

You get violent to what you perceive as violent ?

 

Yeah, that makes sense ... NOT !

 

 

I don't 'get violent'. That implies anger. I have no anger management issues. Violence can be dispensed without emotion. I have felt obligated to do this on a few occasions when I have witnessed violence against others. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

I agree.  The small business owner is an individual and individuals freedoms apply. That applies to this business owner, as well as a cake shop owner who is uncomfortable providing services to certain ceremonies. 

 

Corporations are different. They should be prohibited from policies that refuse service to individuals or groups. Corporations are not real people. 

 

 

This sounds reasonable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Unless it’s the intolerance of a SNOWFLAKE who cannot accept that people disagree with them.

That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, up until the 1980's,  restaurants, especially privately owned ones often had a sign declaring:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.

\This was often construed to mean "no n*ggers, no Mexicans, no dogs".

After the Reagan years a lot of such places had gone out of business, as fast food places had better food and prices. Now privately owned restaurants are less common, and the sign has been replaced with another, stating "No SHOES, NO SHIRT. NO SERVICE", which the barefoot and shirtless  have not managed to get the ACLU to support.

I don't want to worry about stepping on bare toes or eating while forced to look at Cuzzin Delbert's tattoos, so I am certainly cool with this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DemoMan said:

I said nothing even remotely close to that, you braindead mental case.

 

Maybe not here, but that's what you've been pressing in the Chick-fil-A thread for three days now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

The right to refuse service to anyone is legal

 

Oh yeah? Try refusing to serve a "person of color" and prepare for your establishment to catch fire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

Correct.    You  should  have stopped there.

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

Oh yeah? Try refusing to serve a "person of color" and prepare for your establishment to catch fire...

I am pretty sure that if any restaurant chain-- McDonald's, Starbucks, Waffle House, etc. were to announce that "after the first of next year, we will no longer be serving (name any group: Blacks, Whites, Boy Scouts, Blackwater mercenaries, electricians, gays, heterosexuals)", there would be a lawsuit and that lawsuit would be lost. 

I think you can argue that refusing the serve  the mendacious Huckabee was a violation of her rights. On the other hand, it also made sense for her to go elsewhere, rather than attempt to enjoy her meal; in a place where she was unwanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

Oh yeah? Try refusing to serve a "person of color" and prepare for your establishment to catch fire...

True. Except that banning/refusing to serve all persons of color is a bit different from refusing service to a relatively few individuals for whatever reason. Besides, all actions have consequences. Word of mouth and the spread of technology are a bit__.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×