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

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.

To make it more simple......

If the straight couple went in and acted like that......it would be considered targeting the establishment.

Where did I say ANYTHING about another gay couple? I ment that when this thing happens the response from most people is "they (the original gay couple) targeted the establishment". Which has been stated a few times in this thread.

Does that make more sense?

a reply to: mOjOm

Well as to the scenario of video footage being legal to release or not you have stated your opinion. You seem very certain about.

Let us see how your other opinion that I am trying to convince people that Big Carl isn't biased holds up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Opps...that seems to be my first post on the matter. Seems your theory didn't hold up.

Could it be you are a bit blind when it comes to issues such as these. At least to some extent because that is the third post on the first page of the thread.

a reply to: HandyDandy

In your mind, however I never said they targeted the establishment.

I did however offer a way to make a case if it was because they were gay or if it was for their actions. Maybe you didn't understand.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: HandyDandy

In your mind, however I never said they targeted the establishment.

I did however offer a way to make a case if it was because they were gay or if it was for their actions. Maybe you didn't understand.

I understand completely.

What you are not understanding is that is what is usually said (not by you) when these things come up. That the militant gays went there just to target the establishment.

This makes me sad, there are 29 States in "America" the land of the free? where you can get fired just for being Gay. i don't know how many have these discrimination laws where you are allowed to refuse service because of your sexuality.

i would like to know how many straight couples they have refused service based on Public Displays, claiming they do it is one thing, but i would like to know the true amount.

you know, i understand people don't think these Civil issues, and Gay Rights Issues are important, it's easy to say "America has more problems" but we are people too, we are people that make "America" just because our Sexuality is not what is considered "Normal Heterosexual" doesn't make us less of a person.

a reply to: HandyDandy

In the future please don't try to attribute positions I have neither expressed nor endorsed to me because I can't nor will I try to defend positions that I do not believe in.

I tend to believe in this case that the establishment has a set of rules they require their patrons to follow. I do think they ae biased, but I believe they are capable of separating their bias from their code of conduct.

They say they would have bared anyone for the couples actions and I tend to believe them.


You know people can and have been able to separate their personal feelings from their business practices before. I have. Are they able to? Well there is a way to test them. It will not be me but if someone really wanted to they could.

I guess I am just giving them the benefit of doubt which is why I am not part of the witch hunt. This time.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I guess I am just giving them the benefit of doubt which is why I am not part of the witch hunt. This time.

So, you give an establishment the benefit of the doubt even though they admit to calling them "fags"?

Pretty telling if you ask me.

a reply to: HandyDandy

As I have stated over and over through the thread people can feel however they want towards any group or person. You may not like it but be glad for it otherwise you better be ready to die by the sword you wield.

Were you or were you not railing against Christians earlier?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their prejudices. Personally I don't give a flip what people think but I do care about how they act. A business owner can hate me but as long as he treats me like any other customer it doesn't matter at all.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Look, if I judged you wrong by saying you're like the others who are trying to misrepresent this issue by presenting skewed perspectives and silly assumptions, then I honestly am sorry and I take it back. These last couple pages your arguments just came across that way to me, but perhaps I am wrong. There have been so many posts by people trying to put forth that Militant Gay Agenda argument that it's hard sometimes to remember who's part of it or not and maybe I mixed you in with them by mistake, I don't know, but if that is the case I'm sorry for labeling you as such. (I will be watching you carefully from now on though just to make sure.)



As for me being blind to "these kind of issues". I'm not sure if you mean that to have some kind of extra meaning or something but No, there is nothing about these kinds of issues that effect me in a personal way at all. I'm neither Gay nor A Gay Activist. Nor am I a Ex-Military, Christian, Business Owner and Father with control issues who is anti-gay.

So this issue holds no personal significant meaning for me. But I have read and multiple sources for this topic. Looked at all that is offered as evidence. Looked for the common threads and tried to see it from both sides including where the embelishments would be from both sides, etc.

With all that, it just seems impossible to come to any other conclusion than this is just a case of a some Anti-Gay folks being a little out of line with a couple gay guys who visited their establishment. I don't think they did anything overtly sexual that was an issue. I think maybe he was massaging the dudes feet or just let him put his legs up in his lap or whatever, but so what??? There's no way they were jerking each other under the table or anything, because that's just a silly. This chick just didn't like them and let it be known because she doesn't like gays and wants to bitch about it. These guys went to the wrong place where somethings were said they didn't like and now they are complaining. That's it. Simple. Logical.

a reply to: HandyDandy

Right, they admitted to calling them a derogatory Slur, Granted Freedom of speech and all that, but if it was a Racial Slur i wonder how this would differ?

a reply to: buster2010

That was an interesting headline UPI used. It's unfortunate that the article doesn't support it. In fact, your article states:

In an interview with Leon Stafford for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cathy doesn’t apologize for his previous public stance against gay marriage and, in fact, confirms that his personal position on same-sex marriage remains unchanged.

By the way, one of my more boring classes was "Statutory Interpretation," boring, but I've used it a lot and have a decent understanding of it. You're interpretation of the statute is wrong. No buts, it just is.

a reply to: buster2010

Then there is no reason for the language at the end that specifies who they were protecting?
All persons do have rights. That includes the bigot owners of restaurants.

a reply to: mOjOm

Apology accepted. It happens to all of us.

Unlike you this is the only thing I have read about it. The source and these pages.

For me it comes down to the owners word against the couples word. I can't really judge the character of either.

What I meant by blind was you have made up your mind and you aren't going to deviate about who is right and wrong.

I can only go by what the article says. What the couple were doing could be innocent or it may not be, I cant say however the owner said he wouldn't tolerate it from anyone. That tells me it is the action and not the people and he even said gays are welcome just not that couple.

Hey it could be because they were gay, but that would have to be proven to me. The fact they said they don't like gays well it was crude to say but in and of itself doesn't prove anything except their personal feelings and if you think about it they could have lied when questioned about it, no. Some may call that brutal honesty. None the less it is honesty so why should I think they are lying about why they were banned?

Most of the time I am on the other end of the debate with these things but with this one I can't. The reason given was for their behavior and that is an acceptable reason.

I think most people cant get past the fact they made their feelings clear. Well I am not ready to convict off of feelings.

Some of the comments in this thread are a bit frightening to me. I am not saying yours. But some are skirting dangerously close to being thought police.

Like I said I don't care what people think as long as they conduct themselves in a becoming way with each other.

Could I be wrong about the owner and the couple? Sure, but without more evidence this is where I am at.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

I'll take 'keep away' signs over eating at places where I get served a little more than what I ordered.

We share common ground in that public displays of affection are something we find distasteful. However, equality dictates the same rules apply for everyone.

Either public eating places have a policy that encompasses everyone or they do not. It's not rocket science.

how about we all eat at places where we feel welcome? That isn't rocket science, is it? If you cant be ''yourself'' at a place where you aren't wanted, why go there in the first place? I have the common sense not to. What about you?

Quite simply;

We, the consumer should be free to choose to eat / shop wherever we wish. Our purchasing decisions should be based upon personal experience and products that suit our needs/ tastes.

the restuarant owners attitude towards homosexuals WOULD affect your ''experience'' there, wouldn't it? Is it not better that you eat at a place that welcomes you? Why do you want to eat at places that make it clear that you arent wanted?

We don't. But, we should not be made to feel unwelcome in the first place.

Here's another everyday example that might resonate with you. As part of my job in the real world I fill propane gas cylinders for customers. In the area where my shop is we have a lot of Indian and Muslim customers who use propane to cook at home with.

How's about I put up a sign saying 'no muslims allowed for gas fills?' In Texas I could get away with it. It would be grossly unfair to the families who would now have to drive to a shop that is prepared to do it. But hey, if I can get away without serving homosexuals in a restaurant, I can also refuse to fill gas cylinders for Muslims.

Here where I live neither would happen. I wouldn't dream of refusing service to anyone because any paying customer is equal and deserves unbiased access to basic needs no matter what my opinion of them is. And my opinion of the local muslims for the record is that they are friendly, if a little shy due to the language barrier- a lot if them are refugees from Afghanistan.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: EnduranceArtist

Well the ole saying in sales where I come from is 1 bad review gets spread to 10 people where as 1 good review will only reach 5...
But I do see your all publicity is good publicity point you are making

People can laugh, but YELP has taken many restaurants down.

Many restaurant goers have adopted YELP as their go to message board.

YELP is not taking kindly to Big Earl..

a reply to: markosity1973

Church!


Yes people have Freedom and speech and thought, but it doesn't excuse you from being Hateful.

when it starts affecting peoples lives it's no longer Speech and thought, it's discriminate action

originally posted by: buster2010

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

Definitely about the money. Cathy may be the owner, but someone sure dropped the hammer on him.

Those restaurants are franchised. I remember hearing something about some pissed off franchise owners.

a reply to: macman

Would you be happy if the sign denied serviced to military personnel for being ruthless, murdering, robotic idiots? What about if your mother called you crying and exclaimed that she had been denied service for being something she innately was?

You're absolutely right that nobody can force anybody to accept anything.

I shun mindless murderers.

I've heard arguments that it's Unconstitutional to not allow Smoking in places...

if a Restaurant kicked someone out because of Guns what would happen?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
I've heard arguments that it's Unconstitutional to not allow Smoking in places...

if a Restaurant kicked someone out because of Guns what would happen?

Unless they were gay, there would be a huge backlash.

If they were gay, then it would be applauded by 55% of the population.