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."
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/07/2017|
From a rainbow-coloured White House to... this. In a year. This will never stop being shocking to me.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/07/2017|
Coming soon, separate drinking fountains.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/07/2017|
And so it starts!
Everyone better get up off your asses and vote these horrible people out of the majority in 18.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/07/2017|
This woman is ugly as sin.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/07/2017|
R4 beat me to it. Love how they always manage to snag the most unflattering picture of her.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/07/2017|
Get over the fact that she’s ugly! Of course she’s hideous! Inside and out! GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/07/2017|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/07/2017|
Ugly white trash cunt! I fucking hate this nasty whore!
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/07/2017|
Trump likes his bigotry out in the open.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/07/2017|
Beat me by a minute, r9. Kudos.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/07/2017|
So .. it'd be OK for gay-owned businesses to discriminate against evangelical conservative crackpot Christians?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/07/2017|
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!
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/07/2017|
Only if the discrimination is fueled by a deeply held religious belief, R15.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/07/2017|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/07/2017|
Wasn't Trump going be the greatest friend of the gays ever??
Peter Thiel, what's your take on this?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/07/2017|
Slavery being moral was a deeply-held religious belief too.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/07/2017|
Shorter Sanders: More cake for me!
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/07/2017|
Those businesses are owned by some very fine people.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/07/2017|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/07/2017|
[quote]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.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/07/2017|
I want an anti-pig sign whenever a photo of Sarah Hogcallabee Swineders comes up.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/07/2017|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/07/2017|
R18, why is it okay for you to deny service to these people but not for bakeries to deny service to the gays?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/07/2017|
I am an artist not a shop keeper, R32. I am protected by the 1rst Amendment.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/07/2017|
And i refuse to serve bloated, bigoted, side-mouth-talkin’ cows. so no full-fat tofutti for you, toots!
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/07/2017|
So, is there any response from the “Log Cabin” nitwits?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/07/2017|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/07/2017|
I wonder if her face hurts
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/07/2017|
[quote] So, is there any response from the “Log Cabin” nitwits?
Yes, just the usual...
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/07/2017|
I like my homophobes out in the open. Please post signs in your window so I know not too give you my business.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/07/2017|
So by that logic, atheists can hang "We don't serve Christians" signs?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/07/2017|
R42 Yes, they will have to address that one eventually.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/07/2017|
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
"Any gay or lesbian bent out of shape about this is a fascist. "
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/07/2017|
Nice try, r46. This isn't about spaces. This is about equal treatment.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/07/2017|
R47 = totally senseless reply. But "nice try".
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/07/2017|
R46 Then don't start a public business, go be an ant-gay bible thumper and move on.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/07/2017|
And black people should have been happy with their own bathrooms and diners and schools, right, r52?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/07/2017|
[quote]go be an ant-gay
Ok, but I'm gonna need some help with that thorax part.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/07/2017|
Hell, why don’t we make it easier for the bigots? Let’s wear pink triangles.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/07/2017|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/07/2017|
"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?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/07/2017|
Is there a way to get a flattering picture of her?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/07/2017|