Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.
I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.
I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.
Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.
The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.
It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.
How about Obama for locking unaccompanied Guatemalan kids in cages if we're looking for a true 1:1? (Still not 1:1 because SHS is just a mouthpiece who no one will give a shit about once she resigns. See: Spicer, Scaramucci, et al)
No one gave a shit and if a restaurant used that to specifically deny him service, GAF/RE would have been on Obama's side and called the restaurant racist.
I mean I'd be fine with Obama being denied whatever for all sorts of shit he did. I have no love for the American government. And I don't really care what liberals on Resetera would think about that situation since I'm not a liberal.
Back to the cake thing for a second, I think there was some confusion here because of my use of "should". When I say should, I'm not referring to legal punishments that the government must enact, I'm just saying should in the moral "ought" sense. I actually agree that bakers shouldn't be forced to make cakes with messages on them that they disagree with/find offensive regardless of how stupid or wrong they are. The gay couples trying to buy cakes shouldn't be treated that way, but legally it has to be allowed. What can't be allowed is bakers refusing to provide services to a gay person for being gay, just like a diner shouldn't be able to refuse service to a black patron.
If a black person wanted a cake that said Black Power but the baker refused to make it because they are stupid and think that's racist or something, they should be able to do that. But they shouldn't be able to bar a black person from getting a cake in general. You have the right to be treated equally, but the content of a particular service demand may not need to be fulfilled. So long as the baker can prove they have a genuine issue with the particular service and not the person requesting it, that's "fine". But realistically that baker is probably still a shit head who should be protested.
This differs from the SHS situation, which is that she is being refused service based on her actions, not based on her gender, race, religion, sexuality, or so forth.
