Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) June 23, 2018
Yes, the expulsion says much more about the owner or staff than about her.
Trump has supported his spokeswoman by making you think about the possible dirt in the restaurant that should be more important for the owner than the hypothetical "dirt" of the consumers:
The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2018
She was harassed basically for being a prominent Trump supporters – but about 1/2 of Americans feel to be almost as strong supporters as she does, they just didn't get her job. This 1/2 of America is not deplorable in any way. They're largely the kind of people who have built America and its fame.
So I think it wasn't a big deal – it's unavoidable that there are some extreme whackos among restaurant owners as well – but I still find it obvious that almost all decent people stand on her side. For all purposes, she was just an ordinary woman who does a "not quite political" job in D.C. and who supports Trump like 1/2 of America. She went out to eat something and she was harassed in a situation which had nothing to do with politics.
Well, Sean Carroll wrote a text, On Civility, where he attacks civility much like other activists attack other values that have been considered precious for centuries. Beauty and civility suck, they have to be eradicated. No, they don't.
More precisely, Carroll says that he's among the most tolerant people in the world but the tolerance has its limits. When someone is politically incorrect or a Republican, for example, "they are just monsters, not respected opponents." So:
"You don’t have to let Hitler eat in your restaurant."Fine. In other words, about 1/2 of the Americans should be treated as "just monsters" who are "irredeemably dangerous/evil/wrong" and who are "Hitler". But otherwise, overlooking this "soon to be destroyed" one-half of his countrymates, Sean Carroll is one of the most tolerant people in America.
No, he's not. He's one of the most intolerant persons out there, a "nice man" of the kind that really want to bully you and harass you just because you appear in a restaurant and just because you have some common sense which he doesn't. On top of that, most of his far left-wing activism – his image of a hardcore left-wing verbal terrorist – is just a matter of an image. He isn't really this radical.
He is just a spineless slick man who wants to become an icon of the genuinely far left-wing fanatics because he has hypothesized that being a guru of this large herd of brain-dead losers may be very profitable.
Let me return to the Hitler sentence:
You don’t have to let Hitler eat in your restaurant.Well, one aspect of the sentence is that it is a widespread insult because the restrained gentle woman Sarah Sanders is being compared to Germany's most famous dictator and mass killer. But let's look beyond that triviality. In the sentence, Sean Carroll basically suggests that he would refuse to serve Adolf Hitler in his restaurant during the Nazi times.
Give me a break. Not to serve the Führer would be dangerous for the "rebel" and Sean Carroll would be among the last people who would do such a courageous thing. He would be much more likely to lick the Führer's aß, as much as two inches inside, simply because Sean Carroll is the kind of an opportunist who hasn't done a single courageous thing in his life. He has invariably sided with the powerful, with the bullies, with restaurant owners who just kick an unarmed woman out because "yes they can", who have supported the IRS' terror against the Tea Party groups or myself, who has supported a couple of aggressive fudge-gots who have attacked Ivanka Trump in the airplane and planned to fudge her child as well.
I am proud about the accuracy of my statements so I will surely not overstate anything, I will not say that he is a monster, or an Adolf Hitler. But Sean Carroll surely is a hypocritical petty self-serving scumbag.
OK, in his text supporting the restaurant owner, he proposes two answers to the question whether "we should be tolerant towards the intolerant" (the "intolerant" are supposed to include all the Trump supporters). Either the society defines the rules saying which groups "must be tolerated", or the individual decision is "left to everybody".
What a discovery. He has noticed that the society may adopt laws that say that it's impossible to refuse to serve someone somewhere because of some reasons. He's not far enough to understand the existence of courts where similar disputes may be resolved. (Well, even if something is illegal, you may still find people who will do it.) But he has already figured out that the individuals may decide about things that the society doesn't define.
It's a remarkable leap for him because if you read these far left servers (e.g. his blog posts), it's very clear that they think as a herd and they want to think as a herd. So there are sentences like
The issue becomes especially tricky when the category of “people who are considered to be morally reprehensible”...Note that some people "are considered" morally reprehensible. In his scheme of things, there's a universal truth saying who is morally reprehensible (it's the politically incorrect people). Ideally, that judgment should be made by Sean Carroll and adopted by everybody – everybody else belongs to his obedient herd of brain-dead leftists who are therefore "nice". But what happens if the society fails to work in this dictatorial way? What happens if 1/2 of America actually sees that it is the restaurant owner and the likes of Carroll who are reprehensible? I am asking because that's the world we find ourselves in.
The intolerance of these Marxists and especially neo-Marxists is rather amazing. Look 8 years into the past. It's 2010 and Obama is the U.S. president. Did you read about restaurants refusing to serve women just because they had worked for Barack Obama? Did you read apologies for such refusals written by right-wing cosmologists at the University of California?
Politics and ideology are important but there are places in the everyday life where they simply don't belong. When a waiter is acting ideologically, something is wrong. A waiter – or a restaurant owner, for that matter – isn't expected to be able to produce some perfect appraisals of the acts by the U.S. president or his spokeswoman. Their comparative advantage is to cook, bring the food and beverages to the consumers, and they're doing so because they're financially compensated for that.
If you decide not to serve the Trump supporters, your profits could drop by as much as 50%. The percentage drop will generally be lower because some of the missing conservatives will be replaced by extra liberals. But the drop will be huge. A sane, not fanatical, restaurant owner simply serves the people from the other party because it's not only a matter of civility. It's also a matter of his or her financial interests.
The extreme left-wing movement promotes the ideology everywhere, including restaurants, and one of the tools to do so is to spit on the natural financial motivations that people have to behave decently. But you know, it's simply true that much of the decency in the people's behavior is due to their desire to make profit, due to their desire not to lose consumers. There's nothing wrong about it. The desire to make profit is one of the forces that pushes people to act cooperatively with others and that's usually a good thing.
Sarah Sanders behaved as a decent lady which is a kind of a human being that a sane, not too ideological restaurant owner simply wants in her restaurant. That's why a sane owner will allow her to eat regardless of the political affiliations. On the other hand, when a restaurant with families and kids is visited by a couple of gays who make it really, really obvious that they're gays, some sane restaurant owners may want to ask the couple to leave. Why? Because it makes economic sense. They may have become a liability because they discourage other consumers. If there are laws that prevent restaurant owners from expelling gay clients who are fudging on the table, and these laws claim that it would amount to some "discrimination", they're laws that obviously worsen the situation in the industry because the behavior that is encouraged is a net negative for all the people that are involved.