Why Is Justice Department Allowing Discrimination Against Working-Class White Women?

On the one hand, I submit that the owner of the Red Hen Restaurant did Sarah Sanders and her family a favor by “denying her service” at their pissior. Why would Sarah want to give a rat-hole like that the gravitas of her presence? Food is prepared supposed to be prepared with love; when it comes to miserable hate-filled people like the restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson, it can be argued that they are not generally known for proper personal hygiene much less a clean kitchen.

However, that’s not the point I wish to make. I want to know if it would be permissible for Wilkinson to tell a black person they had to leave?

I want to know what would happen if a few “baby’s daddies” walked in with their pants hanging off their behind to the point that each of them had to hold their pants up by grabbing a fistful of material around the crotch. Say they were wearing throwback baseball jerseys unbuttoned, with bright colored sleeveless tee-shirts, wearing Timberland boots untied and Air Jordan’s with all of the bling, fake dreadlocks and some with their hats turned sideways and the others with their hats on backwards. And just to spice it up a bit, let’s say they came through the door with a ghetto swagger being quasi-loud complete with Ebonics as their principle language.

I want to know if Wilkinson would have had the guts to throw them out. And before some homeboy with a gold-tooth accuses me of stereotyping, let me note that I not long ago witnessed just such a group of young black men while we were dining with friends in Philadelphia, PA. If Wilkinson had the nerve to ask such persons to leave, how long do you think it would be before Al Sharpton, et al would be in front of cameras screaming racism and civil rights violations? If it had happened while “golf-bag Barry” Obama were in office, his Attorney General Eric Holder would have the Justice Department all over it.

But let’s not use the extreme example. Let’s say that I walked into the restaurant by myself or with a small group of friends wearing my MAGA (Make America Great Again) ball cap. Would Stephanie Wilkinson have had the “cojones” to throw me out?

Is that what this has come down to? It is permissible to refuse service to a woman and her family because you do not like her employer, but it is not permissible to refuse service based upon skin color? Has it come down to the point that restaurant owners can refuse service to anyone they like simply because they do not like the person’s employer, but it is not permissible for a devout Christian to refuse to bake homosexuals a wedding cake? And just for a laugh, imagine if two homosexuals walked into a Muslim bakery in Oregon and asked them to bake a cake for their homosexual wedding. Do you think those bakers would be sued if they refused based upon religious dogma? But here again, I digress.

I want to know why it isn’t and how it isn’t a violation of Sarah Sanders’ Civil Rights for her to be refused service because of her place of employment?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the Act as follows: “An Act: To enforce the Constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect Constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. … The Act was intended to put teeth, if you will, into the 14th Amendment.”

I would argue that there is no greater violation of a person’s Civil Rights than to be denied service at a restaurant. Adding to that, I would argue that Sarah Sanders is a member of a Federal Protected Class: She is a woman and she was denied service because she is a woman working for an employer the restaurant owner hates. Federal Protected Classes are: Race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, and veteran status.

I argue it makes the violation even more egregious because Sarah Sanders and her family were discriminated against because of her place of employment. Am I to believe it is perfectly permissible to inflict such emotional distress based upon discrimination?

Allowing this treatment of Sarah Sanders and her family to go unaddressed by the Department of Justice, makes the bold statement that it is legitimate and permissible to discriminate against white working-class women but it is not permissible for Christians to honor their Christ-centered convictions. The Justice Department’s not addressing the Civil Rights’ violation against Sarah Sanders unequivocally sends the message that black criminals like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin have rights that working-class white women do not have.

This is the argument that we should be making. We should be pointing to blatant violation and abrogation of Civil Rights laws by the very branch of government created to protect people from same. We cannot permit this grievous injustice to go unaddressed. We elected President Trump and it is up to us to relentlessly make our dissatisfaction with Republican Congressional “sissy-boys” and RINOs known.

We must demand action against those businesses and their owners like the Red Hen Restaurant and Stephanie Wilkinson. Either force them to pay so they can see the error of their ways or throw out the ruling against the Oregon bakers who refused on religious grounds to bake homosexuals a wedding cake; and return all their legal fees and the monies they were fined, as well as giving the bakers punitive damages for their excruciating pain and suffering.