"Sanctuary Restaurants" - an idea for Louisville?

Back on the OP, and with no intention of getting into the political talk here, the "sanctuary restaurant" idea gives me a little pause. I understand and applaud its intent, but I worry that these kinds of moves have the unintended consequence of furthering the balkanizing of our society into hostile, polarized camps that are constantly at one another's throats. Putting up a sign that says "[X] Welcome Here!" is well-intentioned but, by default, says something about who that establishment identifies with, who might not be welcome, and about the intentions of neighboring restaurants who don't display the sign. It

Every restaurant should be a safe space for all comers because equal protection is the law and - more importantly - because we (should) expect basic civility and decency to be the bare minimum expectation for society. I realize that isn't the reality, but we should be working in that direction. It ought to be the case that folks of color and LGBT folks can happily eat and work at Bob Evans, and the most ardent Trump-supporting Tea Party rural folks can happily eat at lefty Bardstown Road indie joints, all without fear of harassment. And, as I said, I fear that the Sanctuary movement not only doesn't move us in that direction, it may actually move us farther away from it.

I freely admit I may be totally wrong in this analysis, and I'm happy to be corrected, but that's my take.

Ladies & Gentlemen:

"Welcome to the interactive Louisville Restaurants Forum, a civil place for the intelligent discussion of the local restaurant scene and just about any other topic related to food and drink in and around Louisville."

The Sanctuary Restaurant topic is about a possible trend in policy shifts by owners, employees and patrons of those possible establishments. Thus it is local restaurant scene topic. Regardless of whether you are with the rebellion or the evil empire they both exist and lines in the sand have been drawn. Those conversations are for a different type of forum. Civility must now be the catch phrase in person, online and in thought and deed. Without it we become what each side expects the other to be like thus perpetuating the cycle.

Please, don't disrespect each other or the darkness descends.

Thanks.

I return contempt for contempt. A natural response to those who hold me and mine in contempt.

Glad you've retreated from your disingenuous "Smug? Who, me?" act, then.

My contempt isn't addressed toward them. It is addressed toward upper class leftists and wannabes who want to gain their 'street cred' by directing their fine dining dollars"

The issue affects all kinds of people who go to restaurants. It affects all kinds of people who work at restaurants. It affects all kinds of people who own restaurants. The upper-class leftist hobgoblins of your brain are your own bizarre projection onto the issue. Personally, I want to push back against right-wing nativists any way I can, because they threaten my restaurant community, my neighbors, my friends, and my family. I don't need any further justification.

What do you call it when gourmands are fighting for social justice while denigrating half of America by making a public show of dining at certain restaurants? Patriotism? ::lol::

I don't care what you call it, but I believe pushing back against rabid nativism is good *everywhere* you can do it. Mocking and belittling my patriotism says more about you than anything else.

Ed, I wish our society weren't so balkanized. But I also think that an industry that so heavily depends on immigrants has an obligation to stand up and be counted when nativism makes an ugly comeback. Given that we can't even talk about something as banal as *welcoming people* without conservatives freaking out, I don't think there's any question that our support for these communities is badly needed.

[Robin Garr]

Plenty of forums where people can scream at each other about politics. I don't think we need to make another one here.

In principle I agree, Richard, and thanks. On the other hand, these are times unlike any of us have been in before, and to some extent, as was famously said in another context, "Silence = Death."

I seriously can't believe anyone would get upset over the posting of a "safe place"sign. As I said previously, if you find it amusing or unnecessary then count your lucky stars that you have been spared the harassment and ridicule that many have endured when all they wanted to do was have a meal. It's like all those people that got their panties in a wad because someone wished them Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. It's called inclusiveness. Why does that bother you UNLESS you really don't want to include others?

Every restaurant should be a safe space for all comers because equal protection is the law and - more importantly - because we (should) expect basic civility and decency to be the bare minimum expectation for society. I realize that isn't the reality, but we should be working in that direction. It ought to be the case that folks of color and LGBT folks can happily eat and work at Bob Evans, and the most ardent Trump-supporting Tea Party rural folks can happily eat at lefty Bardstown Road indie joints, all without fear of harassment. And, as I said, I fear that the Sanctuary movement not only doesn't move us in that direction, it may actually move us farther away from it.
.

I appreciate your take and, once upon a time, perhaps last year, I might have agreed with you. But not now. When we have a president that brags about sexual harassment and thinks it is funny, when he mocks the handicapped, when he fills high ranking cabinets with ...not just known but an out and proud white supremacist, then it's time to come out and remind ourselves and others how to be civil. If this unbridled hatred and just downright meaness is not met and outed at every opportunity then it'll become acceptable and commonplace.

I seriously can't believe anyone would get upset over the posting of a "safe place"sign. As I said previously, if you find it amusing or unnecessary then count your lucky stars that you have been spared the harassment and ridicule that many have endured when all they wanted to do was have a meal. It's like all those people that got their panties in a wad because someone wished them Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. It's called inclusiveness. Why does that bother you UNLESS you really don't want to include others?

Totally agree. So these people get mad when a church says "come as you are?" The logic that welcoming all=balkanizing is hard to wrap my head around. These are just reactionaries looking for something to stoke their perpetual outrage. Personally I would post the original safe space statements like these and leave the truly divisive snake/rapist rhetoric to the president:

Luke 10:27 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. ALL ARE WELCOME HERE.

Or maybe:

Hebrews 13: 1 Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. ALL ARE WELCOME HERE.

Also back to the OP....

I'm going to assume that a place is safe until I learn otherwise. i.e., I still wouldn't stop in a Cracker Barrel because, decades ago, they openly fired gay employees for "not displaying heterosexual values". I guess that means they aren't grabbing <ahem> like some people? Anyway, I will always give a place the benefit of the doubt and assume justice until injustice is revealed.

The article was about protecting the employees, and I think that an owner can reassure employees privately without making (potentially) a political statement to the customers. Such a window sign would not lead me to patronize (or not) a restaurant, even though it is probably meant to appeal to my political leanings.

Glad you've retreated from your disingenuous "Smug? Who, me?" act, then.

I don't know exactly what you mean. I've pretty much owned my opinions in this thread.

But, could you possibly mean something like the creation of "Sanctuary Restaurants" while disingenuously leaving it unsaid from whom sanctuary is needed?

Stones, glass houses, etc.

Shot:

The upper-class leftist hobgoblins of your brain are your own bizarre projection onto the issue.

Chaser:

Personally, I want to push back against right-wing nativists any way I can, because they threaten my restaurant community, my neighbors, my friends, and my family. I don't need any further justification.

Psychological projection, perhaps?

I don't care what you call it, but I believe pushing back against rabid nativism is good *everywhere* you can do it. Mocking and belittling my patriotism says more about you than anything else.

For you, patriotism is not working toward a consensus about the nature of immigration that all Americans can accept, but it is denigrating half of your fellow citizens as deplorable nativists for having different ideas about it than you. This is closer to oikophobia than patriotism.

Ed, I wish our society weren't so balkanized. But I also think that an industry that so heavily depends on immigrants has an obligation to stand up and be counted when nativism makes an ugly comeback.

Which could be translated as: an industry that heavily depends on immigration to keep wages down by exploiting the most vulnerable is obligated to pursue the cynical politics of anti racism and free immigration to keep the flow of cheap labor coming.

Given that we can't even talk about something as banal as *welcoming people* without conservatives freaking out, I don't think there's any question that our support for these communities is badly needed.

This isn't just a conversation about 'welcoming people", it is a conversation about how to welcome some while excluding others. You do realize that Orwell's 1984 is supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a how to manual, right?

And exactly who (whom?) does the sanctuary sign exclude?

Luke 10:27 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. ALL ARE WELCOME HERE.

Or maybe:

Hebrews 13: 1 Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. ALL ARE WELCOME HERE.

But they didn't say something like that, did they. And you accuse me of disingenuousness.

But, It would be fun to see the cultural firestorm ignited if restaurants started posting scripture. Maybe you should suggest that to the sanctuary restaurant movement?

And exactly who (whom?) does the sanctuary sign exclude?

So, If I were to go out and buy a 'Make America Great Again" shirt, and wear it to a sanctuary restaurant, it is your position that I would be welcomed?

And exactly who (whom?) does the sanctuary sign exclude?

So, If I were to go out and buy a 'Make America Great Again" shirt, and wear it to a sanctuary restaurant, it is your position that I would be welcomed?

Yes. It is. I think most people would simply ignore you.
Unfortunately for many Muslims , or blacks or openly gay couples that is not the case. Harassment is often something you must endure. And I won't even start about unescorted women that simply want to go out for a beer and their safety.

All this has turned into nothing more than white guy backlash.

>"I don't know exactly what you mean. >I've pretty much owned my opinions in >this thread."

First you denied being smug, only to back off and admit you had contempt for liberals. I appreciate you coming clean about that.

>"But, could you possibly mean >something like the creation of >"Sanctuary Restaurants" while >disingenuously leaving it unsaid from >whom sanctuary is needed?"

"All are welcome" is clear as day. If you feel like you can't accept it, that's on you. Personally, I take it to be push-back against nativists, white nationalists, sexists, xenophobes, and Donald Trump in particular.

>"Psychological projection, perhaps?"

Nope. Direct observation of the president and the freaks I've encountered in real life and the internet. Just yesterday I got in an argument with a Louisville alt-righter who thinks Jews conspire to control world events and so on.

>"denigrating half of your fellow citizens as deplorable nativists"

God, your strawmen are weak. Where did I say half? There are way too many evil people on the right that have been emboldened by Trump, though.

>"For you, patriotism is not working >toward a consensus about the nature >of immigration..."

Blah blah blah. I'm happy to discuss ways the immigration system could be improved, but in the context of right-wing ethnic demagoguery from our president, talk of consensus building is dishonest. You can't build consensus with someone who thinks you're a snake.

>"Which could be translated as: an >industry that heavily depends on >immigration to keep wages down by >exploiting the most vulnerable is >obligated to pursue the cynical politics >of anti racism and free immigration to >keep the flow of cheap labor coming."

Hey, if Paul Ryan wants to create a path to citizenship so that the cabbages get picked and the horses get tended, I'm all for it. The system is definitely broken.

>"This isn't just a conversation about >'welcoming people", it is a >conversation about how to welcome >some while excluding others. You do >realize that Orwell's 1984 is supposed >to be a cautionary tale, not a how to >manual, right?"

You have fallen down a rabbit hole again. Walk me through your logic: when a church says "Come as you are," who is being excluded?

>"But they didn't say something like >that, did they. And you accuse me of >disingenuousness."

You were disingenuous to pretend you weren't acting smug, yeah. I'm all for restaurants posting inclusive scripture.

>"But, It would be fun to see the cultural >firestorm ignited if restaurants started >posting scripture. Maybe you should >suggest that to the sanctuary >restaurant movement?"

Sure, why not this:
Deuteronomy 10: 19 You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

>"So, If I were to go out and buy a 'Make >America Great Again" shirt, and wear it >to a sanctuary restaurant, it is your >position that I would be welcomed?"

It is my position that all should be welcomed, yes. But you would also be in the position of being made to know that the restaurant wasn't owned/operated by nativists or white nationalist monsters. If that level of cosmopolitanism makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you toughen up.

As an aside: that rhetorical "shot/chaser" thing and the "Orwell how-to manual" are both recycled, right? Why don't you try writing in your own original voice, see how it feels to escape the dittohead hive mind?

Yes. It is. I think most people would simply ignore you.

Isn't this what happens 99 44/100% of the time for everyone? So why the need for any sanctuary restaurants for anybody?

Maybe we need sanctuary airlinesnow?

Unfortunately for many Muslims , or blacks or openly gay couples that is not the case. Harassment is often something you must endure. And I won't even start about unescorted women that simply want to go out for a beer and their safety.

All this has turned into nothing more than white guy backlash.

So, now it's only white guys that will be excluded from sanctuary?