I thought the right wanted business owners to have the freedom to bar whomever they want, so why such a sudden outrage here? Or is that just the libertarian right and not far right conservatives?
Nobody is questioning her right to deny service, just the hypocrisy of doing it over the intolerance of someone else's views, and opinions. Nobody is trying to deny her the right to do so.
The owner wrote a long response to this situation. She explained that her employees included gays, immigrants, Muslims and others the administration is against. Those people felt oppressed and serile having to serve someone like Sarah who backs up every one of Trump's policies. She showed respect for her employees. I no problem with what she did.
The current administration....isn't against gays. It was against transsexuals in the military, not gays. It is against the financial responsibility for covering the costs of gender transition, which is expensive and such transitions are often not successful to the individual, mentally. The suicide rated among such people doesn't reduce once they've had their change. As for Muslims, he only put limitations on a very few Muslim nations, ones in which it would be difficult, if not impossible to properly vet the individuals wanting in.
The people you are mentioning (immigrants), if they aren't here via legal methods, aren't IMMIGRANTS. The technical term for them is: Illegal migrant. His administration has absolutely NO problem with anyone coming over the border, LEGALLY! It doesn't matter to his administration what the people look like, only that they are properly vetted to ensure that we are not getting drug cartel members, known criminals (even fleeing criminals can have families and thus they need to be sorted out).
As for those who tearfully say that the people coming over are "refugees," those coming from the Central American countries aren't refugees. An actual refugee is supposed to go only to the closest country that is safe for them. Let us take Hondurans for example, and we'll say, a woman with a child in fear of her husband, there are about 30 cities in that country. She could simply slip into one of the other cities in the country. If she didn't feel safe in Honduras at all, just to the immediate west of Honduras is...El Salvador. That nation speaks her language, there are 15 major cities with a population over 100,000 and another 22 towns and villages. All in which she could feel "safe."
If she doesn't like El Salvador, the immediate country to her north is, Guatemala...guess what, they speak Spanish there as well and she would have no trouble communicating with them and there are 101 cities and towns in which she can disappear into. To he northwest is, Belize. The language is......guess what....Spanish. No trouble communicating there. They have 9 cities and towns and another 109 villages. It's actually a very friendly nation. Then of course, to the north of those is none other than good old, Mexico. Guess what language they speak....Spanish. Also there are 188 large cities with a population of 100,000 or more. Her abusive husband would never find her there. So, an actual refugee from Central America can drop into any adjoining nation, fit right in and find a job....and....be safe.
Each year, our government sends each of those Central American nations, millions of dollars for aid to their people, and the amount each nation gets is way in excess of the actual population of their nations, yet they for some reason, the aid doesn't get to them, they just send their people up here and keep the money. We could effectively just go down there and hand each and every human in those Central American nations about 5 million dollars and we will have saved vast sums of money, while making each one of them a multi-millionaire.
It's time our government informed those nations that we will no longer send them so much as one dime unless they stop sending people up here and agree to use the money for their people and make sure that it's verifiable.
