Trump Watch 20180625

Back on Friday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House Press Secretary, was asked by the manager of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington Virginia, to leave the restaurant because she works for the current administration.

That whole "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign that we see in places may not be completely enforceable, but refusing to serve based on politics is apparently legal.  I'm not familiar with this sort of thing happening so directly to such a highly placed political figure.  I've heard of this sort of thing happening at more local levels, politicians being ostracized, losing friends because they implemented policies that their local voters didn't like (even if there was apparently no good choice).  Now since this event occurred, there has been much ado building up about it.

My first reaction is to consider this a distraction from more important matters.  A restaurant asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave because they didn't like her political actions so much, that they made an issue of it.  Sanders (and her dining companions) left without incident.  The police weren't called, and nos that the matter has become a matter of public record, people are upset, or they are cheering.  It appears that the side taken is based on political position, so I guess people that feel that service can be denied on religious grounds shouldn't have the ability to deny service based o political grounds.

But, since it is a story, it does bring up some questions.  First, is it fair to compare this to denial of service based on politics, or is this more specifically a denial of service based on specific actions that were taken?  Because SHS's celebrity is based specifically on her political position, either argument can be made but it seems pretty clear that the restaurant isn't trying to call out Republicans in general and deny them service.  If this was a case of seeking to deny service to Republicans in general, it certainly seems far less defensible.

However, if it is a decision based on her actions, actions that the proprietor find to be so distasteful that they would rather not serve that individual, is that acceptable?  Where is that line?  Who gets to decide where that line may be, and what a actions make that acceptable?

As an extreme example, we can consider the case of a man convicted of rape, who has been released (did his time), and goes to a service establishment owned by his victim.  It seems understandable, and even reasonable that said establishment would not want to serve that particular person.  Where the line is, and where the Law should step in regarding such behavior is tricky, particular when it comes to something like denying service to political figures, but it also seems important to note that political figures are for the most part not example of underprivileged individuals.  It can also be viewed as a "Truth to power" situation, where people who don't normally have the ability to really make their voices heard can do so.

Now given the passions that this administration inflames, there is another fundamental question here.  Is there a boiling point that this will reach where protests will reach the level of riots?  Do enough people think that the actions of this administration are so bad that such action is warranted?  Clearly we aren't there yet, but it seems pretty clear that some people are advocating that.  And to be fair, it's not like this administration hasn't advocated violence on the campaign trail, and some of their supporters seem eager for violence as well.

• Stormy Daniels
• Trump Charity lawsuit by New York Attorney General
• FBI investigation (it keeps being called a Russian Collusion investigation, but I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that at this point
• North Korea
• The Space Force
• The Border Wall
• Alien Children Detention/family separation
• Presidential Pardons
• Civil War Monuments
• Muslim Travel Ban
• China Tariffs/Trade
• Canada-G7 Tariffs/Trade
• NAFTA
• Puerto Rico response

Survivor White House watch.  Nothing really new today.

Giuliani still there as Lawyer
John F. Kelly still there as Chief of Staff
Jeff Sessions still there as Attorney General
Sarah Huckabee Sanders still there as Press Secretary, rumors continue to be denied.
Mike Pompeo - Secretary of State

John Bolton - National Security Advisor
Marc Short - White House Legislative Affairs Director - no denial of plans regarding his departure prior to the 2018 midterms.
Kirstjen Nielsen - Homeland Security Secretary
Joe Hagin - White House deputy Chief of Staff is resigning.- reported June 19th