Join the Bitchfest >>

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: Trump OK With Businesses Hanging Antigay Signs

President Trump's press secretary said her boss would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers.

Hours after oral arguments concluded in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — where a Colorado baker argued to the Supreme Court that his religion allows him to refuse service to gay people — Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was confronted on legalized discrmination during today's White House press briefing.

"The lawyer for the solicitor general's office for the administration said today in the Supreme Court if it would be legal, possible for a baker to put a sign in his window saying we don't bake cakes for gay weddings," The New York Times's Michael Shear asked. "Does the president agree that that would be ok?"

"The president certainly supports religious liberty and that's something he talked about during the campaign and has upheld since taking office," Sanders replied.

When pressed on whether that included support for signs that deny service to gay people, Sanders responded: "I believe that would include that."

Watch below:

--Anonymous
replies 62Dec 7, 2017 5:56 AM +00:00

From a rainbow-coloured White House to... this. In a year. This will never stop being shocking to me.

--Anonymous
replies 1Dec 7, 2017 5:59 AM +00:00

Coming soon, separate drinking fountains.

--Anonymous
replies 2Dec 7, 2017 6:01 AM +00:00

And so it starts!

Everyone better get up off your asses and vote these horrible people out of the majority in 18.

--Anonymous
replies 3Dec 7, 2017 6:02 AM +00:00

This woman is ugly as sin.

--Anonymous
replies 4Dec 7, 2017 6:04 AM +00:00

R4 beat me to it. Love how they always manage to snag the most unflattering picture of her.

--Anonymous
replies 5Dec 7, 2017 6:08 AM +00:00

Get over the fact that she’s ugly! Of course she’s hideous! Inside and out! GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

--Anonymous
replies 6Dec 7, 2017 6:36 AM +00:00

Hell, I think businesses that don't serve gays should be mandated to install signs saying so. The social media onslaughts against them will cripple the vast majority of them.

--Anonymous
replies 7Dec 7, 2017 6:40 AM +00:00

Sanders is awesome. For the GOP that is. Pity the Dems don't have a fighter like her - - even remotely - like her on their side.

--Anonymous
replies 8Dec 7, 2017 6:43 AM +00:00

Remember all those assholes who insisted that Trump loved the gays and gay-discrimination had been eliminated and gay rights were settled law, so we should all vote for Trump?

--Pepperidge Farm
replies 9Dec 7, 2017 6:52 AM +00:00

Ugly white trash cunt! I fucking hate this nasty whore!

--Anonymous
replies 10Dec 7, 2017 6:53 AM +00:00

Amen, r1. I think back to all the Bernie Bros on this site (many of whom voted for the Orange Asshole out of spite) trying to calm the blatantly obvious fears that gay rights would be fine under a Trump presidency. "He's a New Yorker! And he's not even a Republican!" Blah..blah...BLAH. Votes and elections have consequences, sometimes dire.

--Anonymous
replies 11Dec 7, 2017 6:53 AM +00:00

Trump likes his bigotry out in the open.

media.npr.org
--Anonymous
replies 12Dec 7, 2017 6:54 AM +00:00

Beat me by a minute, r9. Kudos.

--r11
replies 13Dec 7, 2017 6:55 AM +00:00

R9, I was just posting nearly the same thing. It was sad to hear younger gay people saying we had no worries because gay marriage was legal now, and things would never regress. No one listens to old people of 40 anymore.

--Anonymous
replies 14Dec 7, 2017 6:56 AM +00:00

So .. it'd be OK for gay-owned businesses to discriminate against evangelical conservative crackpot Christians?

--Anonymous
replies 15Dec 7, 2017 6:56 AM +00:00

Me too! I don't wanna give my money to any cunts. If they could politely hang a sign in their window letting me know they are cunty, I'll happily shop at their competitors.

Any gay or lesbian bent out of shape about this is a fascist.

How come we never see anybody making a fuss at Muslim owned bakeries? They wanna throw us off the roof!

--Answer: cognitive dissonance.
replies 16Dec 7, 2017 7:15 AM +00:00

Only if the discrimination is fueled by a deeply held religious belief, R15.

--Anonymous
replies 17Dec 7, 2017 7:17 AM +00:00

I won't make wedding dresses for bigoted botches. I've returned 2 deposits after finding out they were homophobes. No, you do not get to call us names and expect us to do your bidding. I wish all hairdressers, florists, pastry chefs, etc. who are gay to refuse to help the evangelicals. I realize $ is money, but I like to imagine them all in David's bridal monstrosities with self done hair, and make up by a frau who hates the brides.

--Anonymous
replies 18Dec 7, 2017 7:27 AM +00:00

*bitches

--catty couturier
replies 19Dec 7, 2017 7:28 AM +00:00

r17 -- We don't have a religious test in tis country -- you don't have to belong or ascribe to ANY religion if you don't want to. Equal protection under the law, and all that jazz.

That said, I religiously shun Conserva-Crank™ Christian assholes.

--Anonymous
replies 20Dec 7, 2017 7:30 AM +00:00

R17 But who will decide what constitutes a "deeply-held religious belief"? Will we have panels of theologians for every denomination possible who will decide what belief is deep enough? And how will they measure this? Will it be expressed in percentages? What's the cutoff point between a "deep" and "shallow" belief?

--Anonymous
replies 21Dec 7, 2017 7:31 AM +00:00

R21, In the Trump White House and Supreme Court a "deeply-held religious belief" will be whatever the bigots say it is. They won't even have to explain it, just claim it, for their right to discriminate against us.

--Anonymous
replies 22Dec 7, 2017 7:34 AM +00:00

Wasn't Trump going be the greatest friend of the gays ever??

Peter Thiel, what's your take on this?

--Anonymous
replies 23Dec 7, 2017 7:35 AM +00:00

Slavery being moral was a deeply-held religious belief too.

--Anonymous
replies 24Dec 7, 2017 7:36 AM +00:00

Shorter Sanders: More cake for me!

--Anonymous
replies 25Dec 7, 2017 7:36 AM +00:00

Those businesses are owned by some very fine people.

--Donald J. Trump
replies 26Dec 7, 2017 7:38 AM +00:00

I’m no constitutional scholar, and I can certainly look this up, but can anyone here say where religious liberty guaranteed in the Constitution? Is this language meant to undermine the supposed separation of church and state so broadly?

--Anonymous
replies 27Dec 7, 2017 7:42 AM +00:00
But who will decide what constitutes a "deeply-held religious belief"?

Therein lies the dilemma for the S.C. justices. I suspect that they'll try to keep this decision as narrow as possible, but I still think it's still bound to have far-reaching implication.

--Anonymous
replies 28Dec 7, 2017 7:42 AM +00:00

I want an anti-pig sign whenever a photo of Sarah Hogcallabee Swineders comes up.

--Anonymous
replies 29Dec 7, 2017 7:52 AM +00:00

Also OK:

NO FAT CHICKS signs.

--DJT, looking at YOU, Sarah
replies 30Dec 7, 2017 7:52 AM +00:00

But I thought Masterpiece was arguing from a First Amendment, free speech position --that they are "artists," their cakes are "art,"and as such are protected under the freedom of speech clause?

--So again, BLOTUS shows his hand ....And NO ONE in power GAF.
replies 31Dec 7, 2017 8:00 AM +00:00

R18, why is it okay for you to deny service to these people but not for bakeries to deny service to the gays?

--Anonymous
replies 32Dec 7, 2017 8:02 AM +00:00

I am an artist not a shop keeper, R32. I am protected by the 1rst Amendment.

--Anonymous
replies 33Dec 7, 2017 8:04 AM +00:00

And i refuse to serve bloated, bigoted, side-mouth-talkin’ cows. so no full-fat tofutti for you, toots!

--Anonymous
replies 34Dec 7, 2017 8:14 AM +00:00

Wutacunt.

--Anonymous
replies 35Dec 7, 2017 8:16 AM +00:00

So, is there any response from the “Log Cabin” nitwits?

--Anonymous
replies 36Dec 7, 2017 8:22 AM +00:00

Can a business owner refuse to provide a service because the customer is straight? I guess we don't have a constitutional right to a wedding cake lol. What if someone asked a baker to make a birthday cake for someone's first birthday, and learns that the child's mother is an unwed mother? Or make a birthday cake for a 90-year-old woman who is an atheist?

--Anonymous
replies 37Dec 7, 2017 8:23 AM +00:00

I wonder if her face hurts

--'Cuz It's Killing Me!
replies 38Dec 7, 2017 8:30 AM +00:00
So, is there any response from the “Log Cabin” nitwits?

Yes, just the usual...

media.giphy.com
--Anonymous
replies 39Dec 7, 2017 8:30 AM +00:00

Sadly, every one of these set-backs opens the door for the crazies to be openly hostile and violent towards Gay people. This is a frightening benchmark.

--Anonymous
replies 40Dec 7, 2017 8:39 AM +00:00

I like my homophobes out in the open. Please post signs in your window so I know not too give you my business.

--Anonymous
replies 41Dec 7, 2017 8:44 AM +00:00

So by that logic, atheists can hang "We don't serve Christians" signs?

--Anonymous
replies 42Dec 7, 2017 8:49 AM +00:00

R42 Yes, they will have to address that one eventually.

--Anonymous
replies 43Dec 7, 2017 8:57 AM +00:00

The problem with the "We don't serve Christians" signs is that the bigots are quite happy to have a business owner do that, because they know damn well that the business owner will be out of business in very short order.

--Anonymous
replies 44Dec 7, 2017 8:58 AM +00:00

Part of me would be in favor of businesses being mandated to hand signs in their windows, but that also makes it look like I'm OK with the idea that they can discriminate. Also, in any small town with limited options, where does a gay couple go then?

"The social media onslaughts against them will cripple the vast majority of them."

True, but only in areas where a large % of the populace is liberal enough to boycott. And even then, I would guess heteros would only boycott if there's a similarly or lower-priced alternative. They're not going to pay more just on our account. In predominantly conservative areas, the signs will be applauded - don't forget Chik Fil-A didn't exactly suffer financially from their anti-gay stance. Quite the opposite.

--Anonymous
replies 45Dec 7, 2017 9:07 AM +00:00

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

"Any gay or lesbian bent out of shape about this is a fascist. "

THIS^^

Enough already with the self-righteous fascism. If a private business doesn't want you, good riddance. Grow up and grow a thick skin, and move on. And do you want the government to force US to let anyone into our spaces that we don't want?

--Anonymous
replies 46Dec 7, 2017 9:20 AM +00:00

Nice try, r46. This isn't about spaces. This is about equal treatment.

--Anonymous
replies 47Dec 7, 2017 9:21 AM +00:00

R47 = totally senseless reply. But "nice try".

--Anonymous
replies 48Dec 7, 2017 9:23 AM +00:00

I won't spend my money at a business who thinks that my mere existence is an affront to nature...why should I?? The law says you have to serve/sell or rent to me, so in other words, you hate me and you get to take my money too? No.

--Anonymous
replies 49Dec 7, 2017 9:27 AM +00:00

R46 Then don't start a public business, go be an ant-gay bible thumper and move on.

--Anonymous
replies 50Dec 7, 2017 9:28 AM +00:00

Why senseless? You make no argument and you call me senseless?

When you open a business, you serve everyone. There are no such thing as businesses that are our personal "spaces." The nature of businesses is to be open to the general public.

--Anonymous
replies 51Dec 7, 2017 9:31 AM +00:00

I don't know if anybody has asked what I think is an obvious question: Why would any person want to take a bite from a cake that was made by somebody that person knows hates them? To the bakery owners' defense, (though I do think they are reprehensible), at least they refused to make the cake and admitted their prejudice. They could have said nothing, held their hatred and views to themselves, made the cake, and spit in it.

If I were a member of the company, I would have dismissed it and gone to another bakery. Or the local Ralphs supermarket for Christ sake.

--Anonymous
replies 52Dec 7, 2017 9:35 AM +00:00

And black people should have been happy with their own bathrooms and diners and schools, right, r52?

--Anonymous
replies 53Dec 7, 2017 9:38 AM +00:00

R52 Admitting your bigotry doesn't make the bigotry right or legal. They are not suing to have that cake baked much less eat it, but because of the illegal discrimination.

--Anonymous
replies 54Dec 7, 2017 9:41 AM +00:00

What many of the righteous ghetto dwellers above are missing is that this is about the ability of THE MAJORITY to use an avowal of deeply held religious beliefs to discriminate against minorities.

In real life lesbians, unmarried mothers, gay men and the like, generally don't get to call the shots. We're only a few percentage points. Still business owners generally follow the law.

If you're exhausted and far from home on the Interstate, what good is your "hear me roar" bravado, when the only hotel for miles legitimately refuses to rent their room with a single double bed to two men, due to the owners' deeply held religious beliefs? The owners might never have dreamed they could get away with that crap, if courts hadn't "blessed" it.

--You'd better hope the SC does the right thing.
replies 55Dec 7, 2017 10:05 AM +00:00

R55 If these people want to sue, you think your "logic" will convince them not to. Bigots will always put up road blocks to defeat the spirit of nondiscrimination laws. Gay people will always need to keep pushing because of that. Never get comfortable in having just enough to live under the thumb of the majority.

--Anonymous
replies 56Dec 7, 2017 10:21 AM +00:00
go be an ant-gay

Ok, but I'm gonna need some help with that thorax part.

--Anonymous
replies 57Dec 7, 2017 10:24 AM +00:00

Hell, why don’t we make it easier for the bigots? Let’s wear pink triangles.

--Anonymous
replies 58Dec 7, 2017 11:12 AM +00:00

Of course, R56, genuine bigots will use any pretext to discriminate against gays. But most people aren't that rank.

They may be prejudiced, perhaps because that's how they were taught or because "that's the way it's always been," but history shows most will follow the law rather than act on their prejudices in public business settings without your having to litigate.

Thousands of local restaurants, that routinely refused to serve food to black people, changed their tune when the law changed. Sure, some did (and a few still do) need to be sued. But the overwhelming majority got with the program. That change in behavior would less likely have occurred if the courts had given them a ready made excuse to justify their Prejudiced behavior.

--Life's more complicated than black and white - R55
replies 59Dec 7, 2017 11:46 AM +00:00

If it's a controversial topic she usually says something like, "I have not had that conversation with the President". Apparently they talked about this in depth.

--Anonymous
replies 60Dec 7, 2017 1:29 PM +00:00

"Love how they always manage to snag the most unflattering picture of her."

If an administration called you and your profession 'lying liars who say fake things' on a daily basis- are you going to be one of her fans?

--Anonymous
replies 61Dec 7, 2017 1:32 PM +00:00

Is there a way to get a flattering picture of her?

--Besides using a paper bag?
replies 62Dec 7, 2017 1:35 PM +00:00