Sarah Sanders and Dems' return to segregation

The Jack Phillips gay-marriage cake issue and Sarah Huckabee Sanders' recent restaurant incident aren't even remotely close to being the same.

The "whataboutism?" bandied about over the last few days on that bastion of erudite and august intellect known as social media was warp-speed insufferable.

Last week, Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of The Red Hen restaurant, in Lexington, Virginia, asked Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, to leave her establishment, after she and her party of seven others had been served appetizers. Sanders politely left. The Washington Post reported Wilkinson said the seven others were welcome to stay, but all departed with Huckabee Sanders.

The topic of whom businesses must serve made national news this month when the United States Supreme Court (correctly) ruled, by a 7-2 count, that the state of Colorado violated the constitutional rights of Phillips, when it sued and fined him for refusing, in 2012, to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding. Phillips, owner of the Lakewood, Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused based not in discrimination against gays, but in self-support of his First Amendment right to religious freedom. (I'll get to the legality of this in a bit). The legal premise of the case – whether the state could compel a business owner to provide a service for an event not in alignment with his religious beliefs – was laughably distorted in the DMIC: Democrat Media Industrial Complex.

I read the Phillips SCOTUS ruling, which, to be precise, was a ruling against Colorado, a state that spent six years dragging Phillips in and out of court while levying six figures in fines, after same-sex couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

TRENDING: 'So cool': Kathryn Limbaugh shares Rush's final moments

The SCOTUS' ruling was that Colorado was hostile to Phillips' religious beliefs and that the hostility amounted to compelled speech. Furthermore, the high court's majority opinion stated that Phillips was treated unfairly legally in the lower courts.

Are Democrats trying to resurrect segregation?

The Huckabee Sanders incident keeps the topic of refusal by a business in the national conversation. The reality of these "refuse to serve" cases is:Tthe same type of people who made death threats against Phillips, who said he lost about half his business, celebrated Wilkinson. Perhaps that is an unfair generalization, but if I'm wrong, am I really that wrong? Inequality equals equality when it benefits one's side. Huckabee Sanders did what any reasonable (albeit humiliated) person would have done: exited. Why spend money in a place one isn't welcome? And isn't it preferable to eat elsewhere than have the staff, which was "concerned" by the sight of Sanders, potentially spit in your food? Craig and Mullins, and Colorado, could have done what Sanders did, but that would have put chinks in the victim armor.

So, is the "whataboutism?" accurate? Is this a legal case of, what's good for the goose is good for the gander (or, in Huckabee Sanders's case, what's good for the hen)?

In Phillips' case, the public keeps focusing on the cake. That's not really legally relevant; what's legally relevant is that he refused an event, not an individual. A Supreme Court of nine Justice Antonin Scalias would have never sided with Phillips had he cited his religion as grounds to refuse service to gays. This was the principle buttressing one of the Democrats' finest inventions of the 20th century: segregation. Mostly white Democrats had the law on their side, which created water fountains for whites and coloreds and Rosa Parks at the back of the bus. Wilkinson essentially acted like a segregationist; she didn't refuse based on an event (working for Trump isn't an "event"), but based on the politics (or perceived politics) of the individual. Though I'm not an attorney (if I were, I'd emulate Joe Pesci from "My Cousin Vinny"), Wilkinson and Phillips legally appear to be opposites. Wilkinson even further qualified her segregation by calling Huckabee Sanders a "public official," instead of just any regular customer.

Did Wilkinson break the law?

Did Wilkinson break Virginia's public accommodations law? I'm unsure; the text, found here, states nothing about whether political beliefs are legally valid reasons for refusing service.

Was Phillips correct and Wilkinson wrong? Were both wrong? Were both correct? Some Democrats cheered Wilkinson's decision – just as many on the right had cheered the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Phillips.

Do Democrats want an America where ANY reason can be cited by a business owner to refuse a product or service? That America would look like this:

"Cops? We don't serve them, especially if they're Puerto Rican."

"Trump supporters? Go to Hell."

"Mixed race couple? Nope, get out."

"Gay? Bye-bye."

"Those who openly wear crucifixes need not enter."

Maybe the America that Democrats seem eager to usher back in is upon us; maybe the Huckabee Sanders kerfuffle is Exhibit No. 1,483,732 that the divide in the United States is unbridgeable. If President Trump wanted to MAGA, Make America Great Again, the Democrats want to MASA: Make America Segregated Again.

If the chasm is irreparable, at least small-business owners, such as myself, can take solace in the Masterpiece SCOTUS ruling, which offers some protection from onerous state laws that would require us to serve a product or service for events we disagree with. Saying "I won't serve blacks" is discrimination; but the precedent set in Masterpiece gives us solid legal footing to say, "I won't provide a service for a Black Lives Matter event," if one is so inclined. This is not a minor distinction.

Had Phillips refused to sell any product to a gay couple, that would have clearly been discrimination. I don't personally agree with what he did; I'll gladly sell to gays, because the lack of money is the root of all poverty. In Wilkinson's case, maybe her faux heroism lasts a few days, and she'll get back to wearing hats shaped like female genitalia (yes, she's worn one).

Welcome to the brave new world of "inequality is the new equality."