Right winger religious bakers and pharmacists don't want to serve gays or women using birth control. Left wing secularists and gays and lesbians (who come in all political and religious flavors) don't like to serve right wing, anti-gay Fascists at restaurants. I get the difference, which is that gays are seeking civil rights to participate in the community, and this particularly high level Fascist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is judged more on her character and particular political positions than something she cannot control, such as being a heterosexual white woman. It is not like there is what the law calls "invidious" discrimination against Fascists in a presidential administration.
Still, I think this was a teaching moment for the restaurant owner and staff, and they may have decided instead to have served Ms. Sanders and her small group. Let's begin with the practical effect, and recognize there are far more places where left wingers--think, for example, Jane Fonda, will be kicked out of more bars or restaurants than welcomed. The restaurant employees could have shown more respect for the institution, i.e. the restaurant, and simply served Ms. Sanders and her small group. The restaurant owner could have easily taken over the service duty if a gay or lesbian server just could not bring himself or herself to serve someone anti-gay or anti-lesbian. I know, for example, many Jews who, if they were servers in a restaurant, would not want to serve David Duke or Richard Spencer. Me? I would have. And I would have let them know I'm a Jew and I'm taking care of their table for the evening. Let them be the ones to say they want to leave. Let them face the teaching moment, even though we know David Duke and Richard Spenser have no interest in change. To be willing to change would undermine their brand. But wouldn't it have been at least as effective to have served them, said what I am saying, "I'm gay, have transgender friends, but I am here to provide service to you tonight," and shown them a dignity that may have given at least one or more of the group some reason to pause--and then go to the social media platforms to say what happened?
At some point, we have to work through First Amendment theories, and decide when there is a true First Amendment moment. I, of course, sided with the gay couple against the baker in that now infamous Supreme Court case. I also recognize that, while Sarah Huckabee Sanders represents an administration that is truly reprehensible in multiple ways, we are not quite at the level where kicking her out of the restaurant was the only course available. It is one of those cultural moments where I would not say the restaurant owner was wrong, as in legally wrong. It was clearly, however, an awkward moment, and one fraught with potential constitutional implications, at least to some who may not be as well versed in First Amendment and civil rights laws. For laypersons, I just think, however, that as trial courts are supposed to find ways to avoid having to confront constitutional questions in given moments, perhaps, next time, it may be better to be a little more flexible with each other at a restaurant. Ms. Sanders is not long for this administration anyway, and I think she may have found another reason to leave had the staff been kind and helpful to her.
Oh, and the ethics guy? Overblown and bureaucratic: His first analogy about the ATF guy flashing a badge is not at all what happened with Ms. Sanders. She was acting as a private person and was not touting her status as a press secretary to the administration, at least from what I've read. When he got to the law regarding the use of official social media platforms, however, he was correct. As with Hillary Clinton, these public officials need to have separate social media and cellphone platforms and recognize more clearly the distinctions and limitations for what the official platforms and cellphones are for, and not for.
