So the recent Press Secretary's refusal of dinner service at the Red Hen, in your mind, is the same as Biden wanting a publicity/campaign stop:

Mr. McMurray said the Biden campaign approached him to ask if the vice president could drop by his cookie shop while campaigning, and he replied, “Nothing personal, but I just happened to disagree with the president and the vice president on a few things.”

Yeah, these events are totally the same thing - someone call the hypocrisy police!

It’s not the same thing. Biden asked permission. : )

Huckabee Sanders should not have to ask permission to dine in any public restaurant. Could you imagine some Parisien restaurant refusing to serve Imelda Marcos or some so-called "Swiss cafe" refusing to bring a stein of hot chocolate to Eva Braun?

Perhaps restaurant staff were concerned that they could not adequately service Sanders, as bugia was not a menu item.

In all fairness, I wasn't impressed to see this in my news feed today. Seeking a photo o p vs. someone having dinner like any other customer in the restaurant isn't comparable. It's a bad look when some are trying to make it into something it isn't.

“Nothing personal, but I just happen to disagree with the president and the vice president on a few things.’’

That was his reasoning so in that sense it is exactly the same thing. This idiot said he was particularly upset about Obama's "you didn't build that" remark that was taken out of context and the entire Right Wing world played stupid on purpose just to use it as a political weapon.

Now when it happens to the Queen of Lies, Conservatives suddenly find outrage that anyone would be denied service because of their Right Wing views. Because, you know, hypocrisy. Except Sanders was likely denied not for her political views, but because she is constantly lying to the country and is complicit in Trump's dismantling of American democracy.

Turns out he went out of business in 2016, so he really didn't build anything.

The Onion has some useful tips for how to address propagandists for child interment camps in a civil manner in order to maintain the decorum of our pluralistic society.

https://www.theonion.com/tips-for-stayi ... 1827147411

You're not at all making the case that public accommodation laws should include discrimination on the basis of political actions or views, nor are you making the case that failing to do so will lead to collapse of accommodation laws on the basis of other classes, nor are you making the case that such a comprehensive forced accommodation would be a good thing. It is true that my view that businesses should be allowed to deny service on the basis of race is a radical position, but my view that Jews shouldn't be forced by the government to give Nazis massages if they want to remain in business is anything but a radical position. Your slippery slope argument aside, that's your position and you ought to explain why it is a good thing.

Massage parlors aren't listed under establishments where public accommodation is protected in the Civil Rights Act. Eating establishments are. Again. I think you are missing a lot in your argument and it isn't following necessary legal outlines to even begin to make the case you are asserting.

What the heck happened to your slippery slope argument? Refusing to serve Sanders was legal. Again, it is not illegal. Not even a little bit. You are arguing, philosophically, that if you allow any refusal of service then all exceptions that exist in public accommodations will fall. This isn't an argument about the current state of the law, but how that law will change at some point in the future based on logical commitments. This same approach applies to all services provided by businesses open to the public. It's difficult to tell where you think the slippery slope begins and ends since you've given zero basis to think it exists.

Finally, if you prefer, you can add your desire for government agents to force Jews to serve Nazis calling for their extermination in establishments covered under the Civil Rights Act. This is not a popular view, so you probably shouldn't marshal what would have public sentiment behind it as a point in your favor.

It isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an argument that refusing service based on moral judgments is of a class with other arguments where a person would refuse someone else service where precedent protects the right to public accommodation and equal treatment. I don't think it's going to lead to problems. It's problematic in and of itself. The civility debate is around parties on two sides of an argument over judgment calls on just how bad or culpable Sanders might be. My argument is that both sides of that debate are misguided and the question needs to be answer as to how one could reasonably refuse Sanders service from a position of neutral, equal treatment. I don't see that being reasonably defensible and those on the left who applaud the restaurant are being naïve.

If that's your argument, then why bring up that spas aren't covered under the civil rights act? On what basis do you think a spa should be able to refuse service to a Nazi, but not a restaurant? I think you are moving freely between what is the law and what is morally proper without coherence.

If we shun a propagandist defending this by refusing to serve them in a private restaurant, then this will lead to the outcome of ________ because ________ which is bad because ______?

The point is that public accommodation laws can't be treated as a bludgeon for enforcing one's personal moral views without undermining the arguments for equal protection. You use examples that aren't within that argument, apparently because you seem very intent on focusing on the emotional moral argument against Sanders as a spokesperson for Trump. Because the Christian whose sincere belief a literal divine all powerful being has sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman is clearly inferior in their judgment, we need not concern ourselves with the quality of the position supporting refusing Sanders service. We merely need to remind one another that she defends an awful person.

That's ridiculous, EAllusion.

Shunning or otherwise exercising one's right to freedom of expression is not a blanket point in this issue. It's narrowly about the fact the restaurant owner chose to refuse service in an establishment where Sanders had the right to expect normal service afforded to anyone under normal public accommodation.

If we refuse service to a person based on our moral beliefs about them in a place of public accommodation, we undermine the argument that public accommodation is a universal right rather than merely a tool of convenience. It's not a slippery slope as in if we allow this one thing that may be ok it will lead to things that aren't ok. It's just plain not ok.

Biden's staff specifically asked him if he would sell him cookies and they would make it into a photo opportunity for the VP. He was asked if he would participate in a political act and he said no because he wasn't supportive of that political side. Biden didn't just show up to buy some cookies and was refused service. It's not the same thing and to argue it is makes it clear there is a big gap in your understanding as to what was going on in both cases.

I don't believe that public accommodation is a universal right, nor is this notion enshrined in law. In fact, I think it is important that private business owners retain the right to refuse service to people in their private businesses. Arguments that argue for limited exceptions to this on the basis of protected class don't generally challenge people's freedom of association or property rights entirely. It's not an argument to merely assert that is a universal right. That begs the question in the context of what you are replying to. You have to explain why it ought to be a universal right. And while you're doing that, the justification should explain the contours of that right better than you currently are doing.

Up thread I made the point that to argue the restaurant was in the right to refuse service to Sanders because of her culpability in acts deemed immoral is to create a gatekeeper role similar to that of the religious arguments overturned during the last century that hinge on the implied shared understanding any decent person would similarly agree with the gatekeeper's prerogative. While there are plenty of accepted and established reasons for a business to refuse someone service in a place of public accommodation, basing it on their moral standing as defined narrowly by one group of people has already been debated and lost. The detail of whether one uses religion or politics to define morality is not so far apart nor demonstrated in precedent to be a reasonable claim there is a meaningful difference. Certain jurisdictions have acknowledged by law that political affiliation should be included as deserving equal treatment. That's where most federally recognizes claims started. I'm not inventing an argument here.

You want to convince me that the restaurant owner didn't do harm to a fundamental concept within liberal democracies? Make this into an argument that shows how the decision to refuse service can be framed in neutral terms that would apply to all potential customers at that restaurant. If the only argument for neutrality is general libertarian discard for protecting a right to public accommodation, then I guess that is the best evidence to give to those who might agree with refusing Sanders service and also feel a cake maker in Colorado ought to supply wedding cakes to all comers regardless of whether their marriage is between a man and a woman or some different legal form of marriage. And I would hope that would give them pause.

Largely true, but that doesn't stop people from falsely claiming the moral high ground on the flimsiest of pretexts when trying to justify screwing over someone else.

Moral high ground? How can you expect, given your position, moral high ground? You seemingly have this notion that morality is ambiguous, subjective, and blurry. I mean is not such proclamations like "moral high ground" in this context nothing more than "my way or the highway"?
So, whose moral high ground are you guys talking about? The Christian ground? The Atheist ground?....for guys that insist that science is all we really need, you seem to spend more time wishing people were religious/spiritual....granted, you wish they were "your kind" of religious/spiritual but c'mon....

Every single reason short of physical impossibility for refusing service or being allowed to refuse service is grounded in moral justification. It is inherent to the claim. "You ought not to be served" or "I ought to not have to serve you" just are fundamentally moral statements regardless of the reasons supplied to justify them. This includes things like No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service and kicking out rude customers. Kicking out someone for being a jerk is refusing service on the basis of moral standing.

I don't think it is self-evident that if you allow some moral justifications for removing a person them you must accept all. That's an argument to be made and I don't think you can successfully make that argument. That's why you continue to assume it. And even if you successfully made that argument, it does not follow that the choice is to demand everyone be accommodated by private business owners. That's also an argument to be made. That businesses should be forced by the government to serve everyone regardless of who they are or what they're doing isn't self-evident even if this is a logical prerequisite to preventing racial discrimination. And again, that's an argument to be demonstrated that does not reflect our current legal culture.

If instead you try to argue that only moral justifications that would enjoy universal agreement can be allowed, this again is an argument to be made rather than something to be asserted. It has a serious flaw in that there are no justifications that enjoy universal agreement. Someone is going to be told that they're wrong.