It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Restaurant Bans Gay Couple Because ‘We Do Not Like Fags’

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

you need to accept that they are people just like you and me.
I am not saying you need to accept them into your home and be best friends with them
But you do need to accept they have every single right that you do.
If you need a law then look up anti discrimination laws, shouldn't be to hard for you to find

NO!!!! I don't have to accept anyone in any manner.
I acknowledge they have the same rights and freedoms as I do, everyone.


originally posted by: Sremmos80
The fag comment was taking out of context only in the wording.
They didn't say we don't like fags, just that they don't serve fags.

And if it was a Gay based eatery, and they stated "We don't serve straight people" I still wouldn't have a problem.
The business is not owned by the public, nor is it owned by the Gay couple. They don't get to dictate how a business is run, just like the business doesn't get to dictate as to how the couple act behind closed doors.



originally posted by: Sremmos80
And it was not after the fact, it was said to them.

Cheney’s admitted his daughter told the couple the restaurant does not “like fags.”

Either way, it is still a jab at their sexual orientation....

So what..
I don't see where it is illegal to make a statement like that.




originally posted by: Sremmos80
And how was their liberty not infringed? They are not allowed back into that restaurant, so they do not have the liberty to make the choice to eat or not eat there
They got banned for their lifestyle choice that makes them happy...


The restaurant is private property. Just as a business can ban anyone from there, this can be applied.
There is no freedom infringed upon. People do not have the freedom to enter private property without permission.

Very simple really.




posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Grimpachi

Cause I refuse to believe he kicks out men and women for rubbing legs.
If the PDA( Public display of affection) was so outrageous then why not release the video of it?
The couple denies the claims that it was inappropriate.


Because they don't have to.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

So you wouldn't have any objection to a sign that says "no military allowed as you are a killer"?

I highly doubt it.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I already said I didn't know. Or at least eluded to it. Each state is different and it does depend if he had audio. Maybe you could find out the specifics of Texas and the laws pertaining to businesses.



Surveillance Laws

Most camera surveillance is legal in the United States. The majority of surveillance laws concern the invasion of privacy with the use of covert video surveillance. The use of covert surveillance is particularly controversial in areas in which a high level of personal privacy is expected, such as: locker rooms, dressing rooms, bedrooms, and bathroom stalls. There are some general guidelines to follow to ensure the legality of your camera surveillance system.

Covert surveillance is illegal when: Audio surveillance is also taking place, without the consent of those being monitored and the person being monitored by the video surveillance has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Covert surveillance may be illegal when: The video surveillance encourages an illegal activity and the subject under video surveillance has a right to counsel, as when being questioned by law authorities and the person in charge of the premises have not given permission for video surveillance.

If you opt to incorporate a covert video surveillance system into your home or business, consult with a lawyer or your local law enforcement agency to ensure your compliance with local, state, and federal video surveillance laws.

Many independent studies in the United States and United Kingdom have suggested that video surveillance acts as a powerful deterrent, stopping crimes before they happen. Studies also show strong evidence that video surveillance systems can be an extremely effective tool in detection and prosecution.

Ralph Winn has over 35 years of education and experience in the security industry. Are you one of the many Americans who have begun to look into improving their home security? This is an important matter and the Home Security Store offers the best protection against burglary and vandalism.



Article Source: EzineArticles.com...



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: macman
nm read wrong
edit on thFri, 30 May 2014 15:42:45 -0500America/Chicago520144580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So if you don't know then why did you say you already answered why he wouldn't release it?
And your answer was legal reasons....



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: macman
Ya if you are just going to snip everything then me and you are done, good day



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: HandyDandy
a reply to: Grimpachi

So back to your "special" comment then.

How is that gay people wanting the same is "special" when everyone else is already "special"?

Or is it that Christians just don't want gay people to be "special" like them?



How is it not expecting special treatment when it has been clearly stated they wouldn't tolerate their behavior from anyone?

Are you saying that because they are gay they should be able to get away with things others can't in their establishment.

If so isn't that the definition of special treatment?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Daz3d-n-Confus3d



It also goes on to describe the meaning of all persons. Sexual preference is not included in that.

It doesn't have to cover sexual preference the words all people does that.



Remember recently the boycott of Chic-Fil-A ? It actually strengthened their sales if I remember correctly.

The CEO finally said it was a mistake to oppose same sex marriage. Mainly because several cities said that Chick-fil-A wasn't allowed to open stores in their cities. It looks like they finally revealed who their real God was and that God is money.
Chick-fil-A CEO admits it was a 'mistake' to oppose same-sex marriage



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I gave a plausible explanation IMO if you think otherwise that wouldn't surprise me.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

No you asked why i ignored you answer to why he would not release the video stating that privacy reasons prevented him from doing so.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You missed the point altogether.

White, male Christians are already in the "special" category.

White = race

male = gender

Christian = religion

Can not discriminate against = "special" in the lower IQ'd population.


edit on 30-5-2014 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: HandyDandy
a reply to: Grimpachi

So back to your "special" comment then.

How is that gay people wanting the same is "special" when everyone else is already "special"?

Or is it that Christians just don't want gay people to be "special" like them?





How is it not expecting special treatment when it has been clearly stated they wouldn't tolerate their behavior from anyone?

Are you saying that because they are gay they should be able to get away with things others can't in their establishment.

If so isn't that the definition of special treatment?


Please show an example of a straight couple being asked to never return to this establishment for the same. Otherwise it is all just hot air being blown up someones backside.
edit on 30-5-2014 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: HandyDandy

That is the thing isn't it?

There would be no story if it was a strait couple. Funny how that works.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: HandyDandy

That is the thing isn't it?

There would be no story if it was a strait couple. Funny how that works.



That's speculation on your part. In the real world evidence is what is needed to come to facts.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: HandyDandy

I have plenty to say about the Christian right, but this isn't the thread.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HandyDandy

Can you provide evidence that they wouldn't bar a strait couple for doing the same.

See that goes both ways.

You know I have said it more than a few times in this thread that a strait couple should go in there and test that theory. Like I have said before it would be then and only then it could be proven one way or another if there was discrimination.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You know I have said it more than a few times in this thread that a strait couple should go in there and test that theory. Like I have said before it would be then and only then it could be proven one way or another if there was discrimination.



But then it would be argued that the establishment was "targeted".

Why is ok for straight couples to test a theory but not gay couples?

See how it works?
edit on 30-5-2014 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Lol....You crack me up.

No, I'm not a legal expert in the area of when it's ok to release video footage to the media. But I know for a fact that The Media do have legal experts to handle that stuff so they don't get sued over it.

Your theory that Big Carl isn't releasing the video because the legal ramifications is just silly. Whatever news outfit it was released to would be responsible for it being viewed publicly so it would no longer be Carl's concern.

IMO, the fact that you are trying so hard to cling to such arguments while coming up with ways to rationalize some defensive argument for this whole thing seems really desperate.

Like some others here you seem to want to convince everyone that these two guys are actually Militant Gays with an agenda to attack this business and instead of just going there to have breakfast they actually went there to sabotage Big Carl's Bait and Tackle BBQ. Meanwhile, trying to persuade everyone to the idea that Big Carl is some totally unbiased guy who's doors are open to everyone and he's not a closet bigot. Even though he's got a sign in the window stating what he classifies as a Real Man and Woman and how they should act. Plus raising a daughter who is obviously bias against gays to the point where even while on the clock doesn't have the common respect to not call some Gay Customers who she just served and had just paid for there meal, "Fags".

That's what you want everyone to believe right??? That Big Carl and his Daughter are just poor victims here against the vicious Gay Agenda being covertly used by these two secret militant gay men regardless of all the other details which are available.

Good luck with that.....I don't believe it, but may others will buy that BS, who knows....



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You know I have said it more than a few times in this thread that a strait couple should go in there and test that theory. Like I have said before it would be then and only then it could be proven one way or another if there was discrimination.



But then it would be argued that the establishment was "targeted".

Why is ok for straight couples to test a theory but not gay couples?

See how it works?


Please explain to me how having another gay couple go in and do the same thing that the last gay couple did will test if they were thrown out for their actions or their sexual preference? Because you are not making any sense to me now.







 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join