Image 01 Image 03

Sarah Sanders Kicked Out of Virginia Restaurant Because She Works For Trump

Sarah Sanders Kicked Out of Virginia Restaurant Because She Works For Trump

Owner reportedly acted “out of moral conviction”

The #Resistance has become completely unhinged, unbearable, and downright dangerous.  This week alone, Peter Fonda suggested that the president’s 12-year-old son be sexually assaulted by pedophiles, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was chased out of a restaurant and was harassed by a pack of socialists at her home.

Last night, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was told to leave the Red Hen, a Virginia restaurant, because she works for President Trump.

Fox News reports:

White House Press Secretary Sanders was thrown out of a Virginia restaurant on Friday because she works for President Trump — the latest Trump official to be hounded out of a restaurant because of their political affiliation.

TMZ reported that she was kicked out of the restaurant — The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia — on “moral grounds” and cited a waiter who said that Sanders was served “for a total of two minutes before my owner kicked her out along with seven of her other family members.”

Sanders confirmed the events on Twitter, saying she was told to leave by the owner because she worked for the president.

The story broke when a server at the restaurant posted about the incident on Facebook.

The Daily Mail reports:

The incident first came to light when staff member Jaike Foley-Schultz said he was only able to serve Sanders for two minutes before the manager came over and kicked her out.

‘I just served Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a total of 2 minutes before my owner kicked her out along with 7 of her other family members,’ he posted on Facebook.

The post went viral after Brennan Gilmore, the director of nonprofit green group Clean Virginia, shared it on Twitter along with a handwritten note supposedly from the restaurant that read: ’86 — Sara Huckabee Sanders’.

People took to the Red Hen’s Facebook and Yelp! pages to post comments about the incident.   The ensuing social media storm apparently has made an impression on the owner who asked Sanders to leave because the server updated the post.

Apparently, there is a distinction between telling someone to leave a restaurant and “kicking her out.”  Perhaps they think it’s acceptable given that Sanders was not physically removed from the premises or literally kicked in the shin until she left?

The regressive left, of course, is self-righteously jubilant and are defending this restaurant owner’s classless, divisive decision.  They are even drawing comparisons between being a White House employee and holding elected office.

The #Resistance will not succeed in removing President Trump from office, but the damage they are doing to our country will not end well and will last for decades.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Someone remind me how this is different than refusing to bake a gay wedding cake?

    alaskabob in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 2:35 pm

    Also as judge recently ruled one can be ejected from a bar for political reasons. Freedom of association especially applies to the Left… others…. not so much.

    Max17 in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 2:40 pm

    hrhdhd, the Sanders family did not file a lawsuit to impose their beliefs on the restaurant owner. Big difference. Glad I could help.

    Milwaukee in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 3:10 pm

    hrhdhd: don’t ask questions unless you are willing and able to try to grasp the answer.

    Could it be the baker offered to sell anything else they wanted? The baker didn’t want to put his artistic creative ability into decorating something celebrating what he considered sacrilegious and profane. I understand that he felt decorating the cake would then have been interpreted as endorsing something he opposed. Anything else was for sale, cookies, other cakes, other goods. His creativity was not.

      RobM in reply to Milwaukee. | June 23, 2018 at 3:41 pm

      Plus, the gay couple has admitted they sought out the Christian baker on purpose.. as they did with the photographer and the pizza place. They actively seek out businesses to sue.

        RobM: “They actively seek out business” to use the power of the state to crush, punish and destroy a legitimate business.


        Here is the thing. If they wanted to use their own financial resources, pay for their own lawyers and sue in state civil courts, that would be different. Instead, they go complain before a sympathetic government entity (Colorado Human Rights Commission) and use the state’s resources to wage lawfare.

      hrhdhd in reply to Milwaukee. | June 23, 2018 at 5:24 pm

      No need to be patronizing, Milwaukee. I’m on your side.

      JoAnne in reply to Milwaukee. | June 23, 2018 at 11:13 pm

      And he had made them other things, but baking a wedding cake also means going to the venue to set it up. That was against his religious beliefs.

    Mercyneal in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 5:49 pm

    Um, hello? The baker did not turn the gay couple out of his baker. He offered them many cakes in his bakery. They wanted him to make a gay wedding cake. He said he could not do that because of his religious beliefs

    The owner of Red Hen, Stephanie Wilkinson arbitrarily kicked out Sanders because of who she worked for. Discriminatory and possibly illegal. Do your homework, pal

      hrhdhd in reply to Mercyneal. | June 23, 2018 at 6:15 pm

      Sigh. nm.

        I got what you were saying, hrhdhd, and I agree that there is a vast difference between the two and that the #Resistance comes out of this looking hateful, intolerant, and not a little deranged. The hypocrisy is stunning, particularly so given the valid reason the baker refused to bake a wedding cake but offered any other type of bakery goodness.

      Milhouse in reply to Mercyneal. | June 24, 2018 at 3:00 am

      On what grounds could it possibly be illegal?

      I’m astonished at how many supposedly intelligent people believe there is some law forbidding businesses from turning down customers. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. Never has been, and probably never will be. Everybody has the right to discriminate on any grounds they please, except those specifically prohibited by law. As far as I know nowhere in the USA is there any law prohibiting discrimination on grounds of the customer’s employer.

        Connivin Caniff in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2018 at 6:43 am

        I agree, but my problem with all this is that the restaurant gave no prior notice of their loathsome policy, and actually seated these people to eat, without objection. It seems wrong to me to turn the customers out at that point without politely serving a meal. Having extended your hospitality services, and accepting the customers, but then ejecting and embarrassing these seated customers who have done nothing wrong and who present no threat is very bad manners. It is in fact repugnant. It could also constitute a breach of contract. If you want to tell the customers after the meal of your hitherto secret policy, OK, but the owner is still a jerk. Also, I am now worried that these libtards will also feel fully justified in “adulterating” the meals of unsuspecting patrons. If so, the restaurant business is a public danger and on the road to extinction. Trump Administration people beware.

          Milhouse in reply to Connivin Caniff. | June 24, 2018 at 9:11 am

          Being jerks is not against the law. But really, how would the owner have known who was coming early enough to warn them before they sat down? Do you expect the owner to be standing there at all times scanning people the minute they walk in the door, and recognize them instantly? Put yourself in their shoes: suppose you found out, to your horror, that the person who just sat down at Table 3 in your restaurant is Valerie Jarrett, or Sean King. Would you not want to exercise your legal right to refuse to deal with them?

          malclave in reply to Connivin Caniff. | June 24, 2018 at 2:18 pm

          The owner should publish the restaurant’s policy of who will be allowed to eat there.

          Right now, it’s up in the air. Are any employees of the executive branch allowed in?


          Do you expect the owner to be standing there at all times scanning people the minute they walk in the door, and recognize them instantly?

          Depends on the size of the restaurant/club and the owner…
          Some owners, (and I’ve known many) stand by the door and greet everyone who enters…especially if the owner is the “personality” of the joint!

          Other owners are more hands-on and do whatever needs to be done (cook, run the cash register, bus tables, ect)

          This current environment has become soooo tiresome…
          Personally, if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn’t care who came in…as long as they had…MONEY!
          I guess the days of Micheal Jordan’s, “Repubs buy shoes too” are over!

          I’m sure we will start to see more “Trumpers not allowed” or “Libs not allowed” signs posted in restaurant front windows.
          In fact, that will become part of your social media marketing.

          Welcome to the world of niche marketing 2018….

    Sanddog in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 7:14 pm

    The baker didn’t refuse to sell them a cake, he refused to design a custom order cake under contract. That’s not even remotely the same. I’ve refused contracts in the past and will in the future for a multitude of reasons.

    Milwaukee in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 8:33 pm

    Does the left only do this for women?

    Neo in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 10:40 pm

    History marches on …

    February 1, 1960 … a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina

    June 22, 2018 … a Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia

    Both cases, discrimination by White Democrats.

      Milhouse in reply to Neo. | June 24, 2018 at 3:06 am

      The big difference is that turning down customers because of their race was generally recognized even in 1960 as morally wrong, and is now illegal. Nobody thinks it’s immoral to turn someone down because the owner doesn’t like them, and it’s certainly not illegal.

    SDN in reply to hrhdhd. | June 23, 2018 at 11:05 pm

    Well, the biggest difference is that the restaurant owner won’t be compelled by the state to attend “tolerance training”. And fined 100k+.

    Milhouse in reply to hrhdhd. | June 24, 2018 at 3:04 am

    It’s very different. The baker was in a place where it happens to be illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. We can dispute whether he really did so, but that at least was the allegation. To the best of my knowledge there is no place where it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of working for the president, so there’s nothing to even discuss.

Two words.

Gay. Cake.

    Mercyneal in reply to Tiki. | June 23, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    nope, not the same at all. The baker offered to sell many other cakes to the couple. The restaurant refused to serve Sanders at all. Do your homework

“I’m doing a search of entertainment conservatives who celebrated a Virginia bakery who refused to serve Biden and are condemning Red Hen for not serving Sarah Huckabee Sanders and having a 100% success rate so far.”
…but I’m unable to include even one name.

    alaskabob in reply to Max17. | June 23, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    If you refuse to serve a Prog, you won’t have to worry about serving anyone after that….

    puhiawa in reply to Max17. | June 23, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    The bakery did not refuse service to Biden. It was asked to host a campaign even to the exclusion of doing business and declined. It had nothing to do with politics. It just felt it could not afford the disruption, clean up etc.

liberal businesses might as well get it over with and post signs:

“Conservatives Not Served Here”
“MAGA Free Zone”
“Deplorables Not Welcome”

This is a dangerous path to start down.

    alaskabob in reply to UJ. | June 23, 2018 at 3:10 pm

    Afraid it is now a well worn path

      oldgoat36 in reply to alaskabob. | June 23, 2018 at 6:38 pm

      Yet they don’t see the fascism in their actions, probably because the definition of fascism was changed to the progressive definition which make out as if it is a right wing movement.

    Sanddog in reply to UJ. | June 23, 2018 at 7:16 pm

    It’s dangerous to them, not us. All they’ve done is posted a big target on their back and alienated a lot of potential customers.

      Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | June 24, 2018 at 3:08 am

      It depends on where they are. In some places they’ll gain customers from this, and if so they’re 100% right.

Hope the restaurant goes under

    txvet2 in reply to gonzotx. | June 23, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    Not likely. Not many conservatives around there. They’ll probably be overwhelmed with business from happy leftists.

nordic_prince | June 23, 2018 at 2:56 pm

So…you can refuse service to someone based purely on political bias, but you cannot refuse service to someone whose perversion you do not countenance (e.g. B&B owners who don’t want cohabitating and/or same-sex couples in their private establishment, bakery owners, wedding photographers, etc)?

Okay. Good luck trying to thread that needle.

Actually, I am in favor of private businesses serving whom they wish, and refusing service to whom they wish. What I object to is the freaking double standards that the Left constantly promotes.

It’s the Leftist Progressives who are the hypocrites.

    That’s the part that gets me, too. If this were a female member of the Obama admin, the left would be shrieking from the rafters and rioting in the streets about right-wing misogyny.

    (Frankly, if I were Sanders, I’d rather leave than eat their food, too, who knows what they’d do to it. Shudder.)

    Milhouse in reply to nordic_prince. | June 24, 2018 at 3:12 am

    So…you can refuse service to someone based purely on political bias

    Yes, except where the law says otherwise

    but you cannot refuse service to someone whose perversion you do not countenance

    If you happen to be where the law says so.

    Actually, I am in favor of private businesses serving whom they wish, and refusing service to whom they wish.

    Then you will be happy to learn that this is indeed the case, except on grounds specifically prohibited by law. You seem to think that if the law bans discrimination on one ground it must automatically ban it on all other grounds. Why? That’s like saying if the law bans one kind of sex it must ban all kinds.


I am old enough to remember that violent Democrat Party institution – KKK. This is the same behavior as back then except the excuse was race rather than the current leftist politics. In both cases, it was “He/she is not one of us.” No logic. No argument. Just control.

One can easily see why such a sociopath who only rules a restaurant could kill millions of “counter-revolutionaries” if given sufficient authority.

If anyone ever had any doubt that these totalitarians must be defeated, this incident should end the doubt.

    oldgoat36 in reply to TX-rifraph. | June 23, 2018 at 6:44 pm

    Though the KKK was established as anti-Republican, in those days blacks were typically Republicans till Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill which would never have passed without those darned Republicans.

G. de La Hoya | June 23, 2018 at 3:23 pm

I would be willing to bet the owner has personal issues with alcohol. I would also be willing to bet she just put her restaurant on the radar for a myriad of inspections and audits. Unlike Roseanne, there will be no saving spin-off for her employees that are hard working 🙂

    Tom Servo in reply to G. de La Hoya. | June 23, 2018 at 3:26 pm

    What would be fun would be to see someone go in there each night, someone different so it isn’t obvious, and let loose a little Box’A’Cockroaches under one of the tables at peak dining time each night. Do that for a couple weeks, that place will get a reputation.

    Even more fun to let a mouse or two loose, but that’s a little bit more difficult. Not impossible, though.

    That’s the Antifa solution. That’s the Occupy solution. That’s the Obama solution. That’s single-payer, single-minded. We could follow the capitalist course, and expect that she loses around half her customers. Let the market’s prestidigitation guide the outcome.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to n.n. | June 24, 2018 at 12:00 am

      I offer the concept that in a civil war, you use the most effective tactic, even if it is stolen from the enemy. Especially if they enemy has no defense against their own tactics. The tactic needs to fit the situation. For food service outlets, being subject to health inspections [although I grew up in the restaurant business and never have seen a health inspector who did not want bribes] is a vulnerability. At the very least, you reduce the food service outlet’s profits by the amount of bribes necessary.

      Other enemies can be attacked in other ways.

    We live in interesting times. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should respond in kind, with broad sweeping strokes. Maybe we have passed the threshold of civil treatment. They do it with shocking regularity and enthusiasm.

Sanders is feminine female strong, Trump’s political equal, with the backing of at least half of the People. She’ll be fine.

Well, speaking only for myself, I’d much prefer that the restaurant “kick me out” than do strange, unusual and unsanitary things to my dinner order.

Is there a Chick-Fil-A in Lexington?

    elliesmom in reply to snopercod. | June 23, 2018 at 5:06 pm

    Unfortunately, the closest Chik-fil-A is 4 hours away from Lexington, but Lexington is not as liberal as you might. It’s home to Virginia Military Institute and Washington and Lee. The restaurant has forfeited some of its customer base, for sure.

It would have been a shame if she accidentally knocked their table over on the way out.

Comanche Voter | June 23, 2018 at 4:53 pm

But the civility! Too danged bad that Sarah Sanders is not a transgender black woman.

This stuff is going to backfire, especially if violence results.

Politics should never be made personal. What we are seeing is not just disagreement with political views and policies, but personal attacks against people who do not share one’s own personal views.

What we have here is a petty tyrant who denied a person service in establishment opened to the public because that person works for the US government. This is no different than denying service to a person because of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity. It is petty discrimination and the owner of the restaurant would be screaming the loudest if something similar happened to him or one of his family. I wonder how he would feel if his suppliers decided not to service his restaurant, because of this action?

DieJustAsHappy | June 23, 2018 at 6:42 pm

Well, the name of the place sure fits. “red” hen.

The Friendly Grizzly | June 23, 2018 at 6:42 pm

Time for Asian gang tactics. Flood the place with customers who, each, order coffee. Just coffee.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 23, 2018 at 6:48 pm

    We can think o the 1,001 ways we’d like to respond. But, then, there is the civil and gallant ways of Sarah Sanders that gives up second thought. I think she’s an extraordinary role model for young women.

    Sure would like to send her, as a sign of support, a bouquet of roses. However, I’m uncertain how to go about it without resulting in a visit from th Secret Service!

      I know just how you feel, DJAH, and I went ahead and sent a fangirl tweet to her @PressSec in response to the embedded tweet in the post. The whole feed seemed to be focused on bashing her, and I couldn’t stand it. She’s a dignified, awesome person, and like you, I wanted to show my support. I think, though, that you can send some roses to her care of the White House. She’d love that, I’m sure. (Heck, I know I would!)

This swine is morally superior to Sarah???? Delusional liberals,sigh.

Somebody should set up an easel on the public sidewalk in front of the restaurant with a big sign – “Conservatives not welcome here” – and a copy of this story.

    C. Lashown in reply to Rusty Bill. | June 24, 2018 at 12:33 am

    It’s a little podunk town in the south, the cops would be along in less than 10 min. telling you to roll up and head out. Even if a local were to try something like that, the cops would be showing up. Getting a business to be successful in a small town is important, it keeps people from moving away.

DieJustAsHappy | June 23, 2018 at 8:12 pm

I’m glad you showed your support of Sarah. She, as well as others in the administration, need to know that we appreciate and support the difficult tasks they’ve undertaken, often facing vitriolic adversity.

Thanks for your gentle encouragement about sending some roses to Sarah. And, in lieu of sending some to you, I simply say that you yourself are, as is Sarah, like a flower* midst the strife and ugliness we seem to encounter with such frequency these days.

* “Flowers always make people better, happier and more helpful; they are sunshine, food, and medicine to the soul.” ~ Luther Burbank

    Aw, thank you so much, DJAH, you made my day. I love that Burbank quote, and it’s so so true. When I feel gloomy, fresh, beautiful flowers snap me right out of it. That goes for flowery prose, too, it seems. 😉

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | June 23, 2018 at 8:35 pm

      You’re welcome. And, thank you for all your valued contributions here at LI.

      BTW, over at Powerline, John Hinderaker has an article about this matter with an amusing title, “She Should Have Asked Them to Bake Her a Cake.”

The local Walmart probably has a better deli section, with better customer service and ambiance. Lexington is a nice area, too bad it is defiled by a merchant of hatred and malice.

Bon appetit, fish mongers, may this episode set you back at least a half-million American dollars.

Be a good little hen and go pluck yourself.

Freedom of association is for me but not for thee. The SCOTUS already established judges get to decide who does and does not get to practice freedom of association and for which reasons. Don’t question it. It’s not for you to question. Just do what you are told and shut up about it. If you don’t like it too bad.

It’s the law. Principled conservatives always obey the laws of the land.

    Milhouse in reply to forksdad. | June 24, 2018 at 3:16 am

    Freedom of association is for me but not for thee. The SCOTUS already established judges get to decide who does and does not get to practice freedom of association and for which reasons.

    No they don’t. Legislatures do, and that has always been the case.

Personally I think it is a big yawn and distraction. Who cares. Better Sanders did not go there and they then spit in her food.

Karma is a beautiful thing.

Remember the golden rule……

I have a suspicious mind. I think this could be a desperate publicity stunt for a business that is already in a hole.

A prosperous business owner is too busy doing business to worry about his customer’s political leanings. If the business is not prospering, and the owner isn’t too bright, the owner might conclude that a political kerfluffel could be free publicity, especially if she can claim victim status.

The problem is, leftist drones don’t have any money.

Since when did virtue signaling become moral conviction?

G. de La Hoya | June 24, 2018 at 10:51 am

I will be following the news intently to see how far Red Hen’s paranoia progresses 🙂

Folks, the media is trolling the heck out of this. I say “who cares” on it. Sarah will do just fine tomorrow or the next day no matter what.

Drudge is stirring things up:

“Maxine Waters wants more people to harass Trump administration officials in public spaces.”

Let’s just step away from their drama and the snow flakes will melt.

Remember the one talking the most is usually the one not in power.

So, the gay employees wouldn’t take an order from someone who works for an administration that they think doesn’t support gays in the military.

In the military, members don’t get to pick and choose which orders to follow.

These gay people obviously put their sexual expression over their national identity.

Americans are asking the LGBTQ community are you with us or against us? Why should Americans put national security in the hands of those who will refuse orders?