Welcome to the Karma Cafe

[ex-khobar Andy]

Sanders was accused of ethics violations because she used an official govt communications account (her twitter) to go after an individual company, which is verboten.

As usual, Trump has upped the ante.

[Scooter]

Sure, but who is going to investigate/enforce it?

[Sue U]

Would you similarly say it was acceptable for a catholic owner of a restaurant to exclude someone who works in an abortion clinic, or is an outspoken supporter of abortion, because the owner believes that person "is a willing accomplice in actions which the restaurant owner believes to be detrimental to her employees, other customers and the country at large"? I wouldn't, even though I think they have a legal right to do so.

Again, my belief is that speech is only free if the sanctions are content neutral, and any attempt to try and influence it based on that content is not acceptable IMHO. In this case, I think a business owner is in business to serve the public and should put their personal views prejudices aside in performing that duty. Just as I think it would be wrong for a pharmacy to refuse to carry RU 486 or another abortion pill because the owner does not think abortion is right, I think that a restaurant should serve people who enter regardless of what political view he owner has.

Protection of "free speech" relates only to state action based on content; there is no protection from private-action consequences. That's pretty much the point of the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor -- if your ideas suck, people will let you know in all kinds of ways. And I don't see this as a speech issue anyway, except to the extent Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the mouthpiece speaking for the Trump administration. But when government "speaks," there is no First Amendment question at all.

And a business owner is in business to make money; to the extent any business is a "public accommodation," the only discrimination prohibited is that type of invidious discrimination based (generally) on "immutable" personal characteristics ("race," sex, etc.), not one's political views. If a business owner judges someone to be an asshole and refuses that asshole's business as a result, that's a perfectly legitimate economic choice; the business owner may lose a sale, but in doing so s/he can express to the asshole exactly what s/he thinks of the asshole's political views and actions. That's just the highly visible hand of the market guiding success and failure. Why do you hate capitalism?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Karl Popper, the philosopher who gave us the notion of 'falsifiability' as the hallmark of science, also wrote on the Paradox of Tolerance. This is the idea that a tolerant society, to which most of us aspire, eventually will fall to an intolerant enemy. Thus to maintain its status as a tolerant society, it must be intolerant of intolerance. That's the paradox.

I'm with Popper on this one (as I was when I first read The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1968). There are those who say that progressives should take the moral high ground and let Sarah Huckabee Sanders eat her tacos in peace. The rationalist in me says that maybe that's a good idea to avoid giving fodder to the 'deplorable' wing of the GOP; but the emotional side says - fuck 'em. There comes a point at which normal rules no longer apply; and these turds swept us past that point long ago.

[Big RR]

Would you similarly say it was acceptable for a catholic owner of a restaurant to exclude someone who works in an abortion clinic, or is an outspoken supporter of abortion, because the owner believes that person "is a willing accomplice in actions which the restaurant owner believes to be detrimental to her employees, other customers and the country at large"? I wouldn't, even though I think they have a legal right to do so.

Again, my belief is that speech is only free if the sanctions are content neutral, and any attempt to try and influence it based on that content is not acceptable IMHO. In this case, I think a business owner is in business to serve the public and should put their personal views prejudices aside in performing that duty. Just as I think it would be wrong for a pharmacy to refuse to carry RU 486 or another abortion pill because the owner does not think abortion is right, I think that a restaurant should serve people who enter regardless of what political view he owner has.

Protection of "free speech" relates only to state action based on content; there is no protection from private-action consequences. That's pretty much the point of the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor -- if your ideas suck, people will let you know in all kinds of ways. And I don't see this as a speech issue anyway, except to the extent Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the mouthpiece speaking for the Trump administration. But when government "speaks," there is no First Amendment question at all.

And a business owner is in business to make money; to the extent any business is a "public accommodation," the only discrimination prohibited is that type of invidious discrimination based (generally) on "immutable" personal characteristics ("race," sex, etc.), not one's political views. If a business owner judges someone to be an asshole and refuses that asshole's business as a result, that's a perfectly legitimate economic choice; the business owner may lose a sale, but in doing so s/he can express to the asshole exactly what s/he thinks of the asshole's political views and actions. That's just the highly visible hand of the market guiding success and failure. Why do you hate capitalism?

Well Sue, reasonable minds can differ, and I agree with you that the exclusion of Huckabee was legal (as assholes are not yet a protected class); but I do not support it personally for the reasons stated previously. The restaurant owner can do what (s)he wants within the bounds of the law, and there is no reason they have to take my opinion into account. Captialism? Sure the owner can make a chouice that might lose a sale (but then i thought Disneyland should have admitted Kruschev).

And Andy, what intolerance should be be intlerant of--that of Trump et al. or that of the restaurant owner? And how do we make that choice; I personally make it on supporing free speech of political ideas (no matter how deplorable that speech is). You are free to draw that line wherever you want

[Scooter]

So when this administration starts tattooing gay people and herding them into camps (and given the opportunity, they would), I as a gay restaurant owner should put my head down and serve the Secretary of DHS who would be implementing that, because, you know, "free speech".

[Big RR]

Paraphrasing Rick in Casablanca, why don't you ask me when that happens?

All kidding aside, right now we are talking about speech alone, are we not? And Huckabee was excluded because she expresses opinions in support of the Trump administration, not because she is siezing anyone or directing anything. There might well come a time when things get bad enough to spur me on to endorse violence against an administration as well because of what they are doing, but we will each have to make our minds up at that time. At the current time, while i share the owner's disgust with the actions of Trump et al., I do not condone what he did. Your results may vary.

[Scooter]

No, we're not talking about "speech". We're talking about an administration official who was a willing participant in administration policies i.e. actions that this business owner found to be repugnant and dangerous.

[Big RR]

Well, obviously you and I see the situation differently.

And in any event, I am not going to cry for the way she was treated--even if I don't condone the actions of the owner.

[Sue U]

No, we're not talking about "speech". We're talking about an administration official who was a willing participant in administration policies i.e. actions that this business owner found to be repugnant and dangerous.

Exactly. I (and I hope anyone) would refuse service to Joseph Goebbels, too, on the same principle.

[Big RR]

No problem with Goebbels--serving the dead would likely be a health code violation.

[Sue U]

Someone please teach me how to post tweets here; in the meantime, here's one from Time's Carcass (@_Jack_Graham_):

If Sarah Huckabee Sanders came to *my* restaurant, I'd show her to a table, take her order, wait an hour, and then bring her the bill. I'd then insolently insist, in an aggrieved tone, despite all evidence to the contrary, that she'd been served a meal. See how she likes it.

[Scooter]

[Big RR]

We're talking about an administration official who was a willing participant in administration policies i.e. actions that this business owner found to be repugnant and dangerous.

Scooter and Sue--one other question--is your condmenation limited solely to employees of the administration, or would it extend to others who defend the same actions in columns or speeches. I think it is pretty rare that speech is far removed from action, so would you similarly say a private citizen apologist for Trump (or a journalist or PAC leader doing the same) is also not just enngaging in speech. What about someone just voting for Trump and saying (s) did so. Where do you draw the line?

[Burning Petard]

We now have a country that is run like a tv show. So yes, I would exclude customers based on anything at all--except the specifically listed protected classes.

For Seinfeld demonstrated, with the 'soup nazi' scenes, that such arbitrariness is the sign of quality.

snailgate

[Big RR]

But the Soup Nazi wasn't arbitrary, he directed his abuse at those who took too long and held up his line, likely losing him customers who would go elsewhere because the line was too long. All he wanted was for people to plaace their order and pay in a rapid and efficient way; sometimes when I am waiting at a Dunkin Donuts for coffee, I would welcome that.

[Sue U]

Scooter and Sue--one other question--is your condmenation limited solely to employees of the administration, or would it extend to others who defend the same actions in columns or speeches. I think it is pretty rare that speech is far removed from action, so would you similarly say a private citizen apologist for Trump (or a journalist or PAC leader doing the same) is also not just enngaging in speech. What about someone just voting for Trump and saying (s) did so. Where do you draw the line?

Everyone has to draw a line (or not) based on their individual morals and tolerances. All over social media I see people demanding that others "unfriend/unfollow me" if they support this politician or that party or some particular policy. As a rule, I don't shun people because of a difference of political opinion; I am generally much more interested in why they think the way they do and what leads them to their views. However, this administration has plunged to a depth of depravity that no person with a functioning moral compass could be expected to tolerate: hurting children and tearing apart already desperate families in order to score points in some sort of half-assed political game is not simply a difference of opinion. It is a revolting and evil cruelty. I am not being hyperbolic or overly dramatic when I say that if we can't stand up to evil and call it what it is, we have lost our humanity. People who promote or justify such a policy should not get a pass for their wickedness.

[Big RR]

Well Sue, while I don't agree with the result of your conclusion, I do think it makes sense. And, as you say, we must each decide where to draw the line.

While I won't join you in cheering the banning of Trump supporters from restaurants or other busiensses, I will join you and others who seek to unseat this abomination who is called president, and will join in the decrying of the policies, and to raise that point as much as I can.

Especially with the way the SC upheld the travel ban today (another point of shame for the US), we must get rid of this ass.

[Scooter]

Scooter and Sue--one other question--is your condmenation limited solely to employees of the administration, or would it extend to others who defend the same actions in columns or speeches. I think it is pretty rare that speech is far removed from action, so would you similarly say a private citizen apologist for Trump (or a journalist or PAC leader doing the same) is also not just enngaging in speech. What about someone just voting for Trump and saying (s) did so. Where do you draw the line?

That's going to be one of those "that depends" questions. Like Sue, just because someone has a different political philosophy doesn't spur me to exclude them from my life. There are people who believe tax cuts for the rich are the answer to any economic problem, for example, and while I obviously disagree, most do not hold such a position out of any desire to do harm to the poor, but rather misguidedly believe that the poor will somehow magically be lifted out of poverty through such a policy. There are others, however, who, in the service of the interests of the rich and powerful, deliberately support policies intended to do damage to the poor and the marginalized, and/or make villains out of them. Such people are evil incarnate, period, and I would not countenance having such odious wastes of oxygen in my life.

For example, it would be bad enough if this administration's disgusting approach to immigration were motivated by dog whistle politics. But as more and more evidence emerges that operators of private prisons with ties to the administration are profiting from the warehousing of children in concentration camps, the entire affair takes on an even more sinister significance. I would not shed a tear if anyone voicing support for the current policy were to be hacked to death with blunt machetes on the air as they tried to defend it.

[Econoline]

• • I saw her today at the reception
    In her glass was a bleeding man
    She was practiced at the art of deception
    Well, I could tell by her blood-stained hands

(BTW, apparently Trump is still using this song at his rallies, despite repeated requests from Mick Jagger and the Stones to stop doing so.)