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: 20
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

okay, but you can't compare Me to a Gun, i am a person, a gun is an object. you are not banned, the Gun is. i could be banned as a person just for being Gay

All men Created Equal, i know the Constitution is interpreted differently but the way i see it is that regardless of sexuality, race or gender we should all be treated equal, meaning i shouldn't be legally protected to be discriminated for something others wouldn't




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

if only straight people would just shut up and refrain from speaking their minds.


Straight people are and always will be entitled to their opinions.

However

When those opinions band together to hide the truth and deny basic rights and equality then something needs to be done to stop it. Hitler was a great example of how popular opinion about Jews spiralled madly out of control and resulted in nothing short of genocide.

The same principle applies with gay rights. We're here, it's not our fault we are the way we are and we can, do and very much want to participate in society at large. We come from every single race and religion but we all want the same thing; to be seen and treated as equals, not second class citizens.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

First of all, you can't "disagree" with homosexuality. There's nothing to disagree with because they are what they are and no amount of you being all disagreed does a thing except make you a mean little grump.

You can't disagree with someone for being a female.


Well, I disagree on the reasons people are homosexual. I don't consider it genetic; I consider it a behavioral thing, perhaps caused by various environmental factors coupled with possible mental factors, perhaps caused by a simple choice. So, I don't agree with it, or consider it normal. People come in male and female. Behavior isn't the same as genetics.


originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
I'm about sick of bandying about this issue - get it out of you and just say what you likely want to say. Tell me the reason you don't like homosexuality.

Too much friggin politeness in this damn thread. Take your bigotry and piss off or admit that you just don't like what you don;t understand.


I didn't ask what you were "tired of", and I really don't care. I posted a response to mOjOm, with many details, and information relevant to the post to which I responded. I don't need your approval for what I said. My opinions are mine, nit yours. Where is all that claimed tolerance? None for opinions different from your own? Gee, what a surprise...not!

If you want to ask me a question about why I think what I do, try rephrasing it in a fashion that isn't all irritated, and refrain from calling me a bigot. Otherwise, you can deal with no explanation, because I certainly don't owe you one. Being rude to me isn't the way to ask.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I find it amazing that the same folks in other threads who are paragons of extolling the virtues of individual rights and pushing back against any and all authoritarian control are the SAME FOLKS who, when the matter rubs their own peccadilloes the wrong way, are completely ready to evangelize about what is "right and wrong."


Individual rights don't mean someone can do anything they want, anytime they want, and any place they want. People shouldn't be acting all fresh with one another out in a public place. Assuming this is addressed to me, since the message link came here, though my name isn't in your post. I stated clearly that I would expect good behavior from ANY couple in such a place, which is equal treatment.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Sure, personal freedom is fine regarding carrying an AK into McDonald's (I'm sure that doesn't scare any kids) or inflicting your own private religious practices on everyone around you by holding hands (PDA) and praying to Jesus to ritually condone the Bic Mac you're about to shove in your mouths (because we all know that the power of prayer turns garbage food into nutritional goodness) or to teach your kids that the world magically appeared in six days rather than good basic science and reason (which is going to give them a GREAT basis to compete with the Indians and the Chinese in a few years, yessiree) ... but two men kissing or holding hands is just going to pervert their entire natures and transform them into slavering sinner-bots ... or some other such rotting scenario ...


Holding hands isn't objectionable, and the only ones claiming it is are those who are claiming Christians praying in public bothers them. Praying quietly isn't any more offensive than any other conversation at a table, so get over it. This case is about a couple acting inappropriately in a restaurant, not about fast food or praying. If you want to discuss those things, start a thread for them. The restaurant owner stated that the couple was behaving badly, and were banned as a result. Overt sexual advances in a public place aren't appropriate for anyone. Isn't "privacy in the bedroom" something your side claims should be respected? if you bring what should be int he bedroom into a public place, you can't claim no one has a right to complain.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Then, then, it's fine to impose your own "values" on everyone else, isn't it? It's okay to invoke some kind of authoritarian dictation when your rhubarb gets rubbed the wrong way.


Case in point.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
There's a word for that kind of crap, and that word is hypocrisy.


I quite agree. Tolerance for what you want, and none for anyone else is indeed hypocrisy. All claiming this restaurant owner doesn't have a right to his opinions are being hypocritical.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Well, I disagree on the reasons people are homosexual. I don't consider it genetic; I consider it a behavioral thing, perhaps caused by various environmental factors coupled with possible mental factors, perhaps caused by a simple choice. So, I don't agree with it, or consider it normal. People come in male and female. Behavior isn't the same as genetics.


Based on the assumption that you are not a self loathing homosexual, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

There has been more than enough personal testimony in the varied gay threads on here to blow the notion that being gay is a choice we make right out of the water.

Deny ignorance my friend; listen and learn. That is what ATS is all about.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: alienjuggalo

The bible is the problem imo. It tells him how to live his life and he can not go against that


This is funny, so, The bible tells him something is bad and has consequences, which is easily verified today, but because the bible denigrates it, this makes the bible the problems.
Well, you aren't wrong. When a person wants to live a life full of "wrong" (like most on the planet do), then yes, a book that condemns this would naturally be the problem.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

Please let me impose on your time a bit longer. It seems that you have added some depth to our discussion which I would like to explore with you.


I, and i'm sure many of the Gay people of this country and world are not trying to alter the "Straight Behavior" we are not calling you a "Lifestyle" or an "Abomination" but many people (Not All) are trying to limit and control our lives and saying we should change our "Lifestyle"
There is so much in this sentence, and it can lead to such inflammatory comments, that I'm a little reluctant to share everything with you. I don't know why, you have always been reasonable and welcoming to me. Maybe in the next post.

But let me touch the surface. In the interest of understanding each other, I think you can see that Straights (just assume I put "some" in front of everything) note that they now have to do things they don't want to, object to, and haven't had to do before. The list is lengthy, no need to remind you of it.

You are correct in saying that the vast number of Gays don't go to Straights on an individual basis and cause confrontations over the issue. Isn't it fair to say that they go to government to get government to force Straights to do things they don't want to? And who are the shadowy, to me, groups of Gays who harass and cause very serious economic damage to those who disagree with them? And there is the eternal issue of the parades which present scenes to Straights known to be wildly offensive to them. Those scenes, of course, are done primarily for that purpose.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am merely saying that for many straights, it seems that the vast majority of force used in this issue is being used by the Gays.


no one is saying who and who you shouldn't "Like", but why discriminate? why Gay slurs and hateful remarks? you can hate or dislike who ever you want, you can say it out loud and be vocal if you desire.. but why take it to a place of hate? we are still people...
I agree with you that going to a place of hate is destructive for everyone involved. (I expect you know my position on "God hates fags.") But please note what else you say, it really confuses me.


you can hate or dislike who ever you want, you can say it out loud and be vocal if you desire.. but why take it to a place of hate?
I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that people can be loud and vocal about their hatred, but they shouldn't take it to a place of hate? I know I'm misunderstanding you. Help me out here.


There is no such thing as "Gay Sex" because some (many?) people engage in the same "Kind"
Is that really an important distinction to make? I think you may be misinterpreting the phrase. Gay sex could easily be defined as sex between Gays. There is also a form of sexual relations which, I believe, occurs more frequently among Gay men, then the population at at large. Again, I may be misunderstanding your purpose, but at first glance that seems like a semantic nit.

If it's all right with you, I'd rather not comment on Gryphon66's statements. I'm not sure it would be profitable.


i see a lot of people who claim "They would take their business elsewhere" it's easy for people to feel that way that maybe hasn't faced such discrimination, or never had to worry about it. yes i know everyone has a story of some form of discrimination, but as far as what we are discussing goes.
If I understand the story, the couple did something the management didn't like. The management held their collective tongues until the couple had finished their breakfast and was leaving. The management said to them, don't come back here, we won't serve you two.

I don't need to cover the various arguments supporting the management here, you've read the thread. But, does management get any points for not snatching their food away and kicking them out in an angry display? Have we established to everyone's satisfaction that management's rejection of them is due to orientation and not behavior?

I know that if one of my daughters (who is extremely critical of organized religion) attended (for whatever reason) a clergy appreciation dinner, I would expect her to keep her mouth shut. And I wouldn't have to tell her, life has taught her that.

what if that was your Kid? your Family? someone you loved? would you not be upset? would you not want someone discriminating your child/wife/husband/brother/sister/mom/dad etc
Dear Darth_Prime, it's awfully hard for anyone to know what they would do in a given situation. Allow me to give you my best, honest, guess at what I would do.

I would be upset and steam for about half an hour after hearing the story as presented in the OP. I'd then probably think of what I could do to (Fix? Resolve? Punish Big Earl?). Then I'd sit down and start assembling facts to determine what would be the best approach. Finally, I'd realize that legal action would be unavailing, trying to take on Big Earl's punishment in my own hands would be both wrong, unavailing, and probably expose me to various legal problems.

Then I'd probably wait about 24 hours, walk down to Big Earl's and say "What in the world happened to get my dear old Mom kicked out of your place?" Then I would listen, then I would make a further decision, based upon his words to me.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. I understand that this will sound as weird as butter on watermelon, but if you ever see fit would you care to send me a few pictures of you in full dress? I'd like to see what your style is like. - C -

P.p.s. I just reread that P.s. I think I am about to receive more criticism, from more directions, than I can recall receiving before. Oh, well. What each individual sees as beautiful could be an important step towards understanding the person. - C -



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

One of my main problems is relating my thoughts to text, i am much better at talking out loud, so i apologize if i get confusing.

Do you know much about the Stonewall Riots? i don't want to derail this topic with LGBT Herstory but it relates to the Parades you mentioned.

The Parades have surely evolved from their Original Political Character, but to assume they are just to offend Straight people is not true.. well i can't speak for everyone maybe there are some that do it to offend people, many do it to express their Pride, there are many Straight people that Join, the Message of Pride is to be proud of who you are Gay, Straight, Bisexual Black White or Purple, be proud to be you and express yourself. if that involves hot shorts or leather that is their Personal expression who is anyone to tell them how to express themselves?

What are we forcing the Straight population to do? Same-Sex Marriage? Anti-Discrimination Laws? Economic Damage? many people in this topic are in favor of not giving them their business if they knew they were Anti them, if they want to say the comments they say, or take their position on Social issues they have to own it and stand by it, if that causes them economic damages that is their fault, can't blame the gays

i believe her saying "We Don't Like Fags" was the fire to the rain, had they said your behavior was unacceptable and you are not welcomed back here, that would still be shady, but they are protected under their Law to discriminate, it was the added "We Don't Like Fags" that was unnecessary... yes she has that right to think it and say it, but for what reason other then to offend?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


Well, I disagree on the reasons people are homosexual.


Well, seeing as you aren't a homosexual you're not in a position to know what you're talking about.



I didn't ask what you were "tired of", and I really don't care.


Imagine my surprise.


If you want to ask me a question about why I think what I do, try rephrasing it in a fashion that isn't all irritated, and refrain from calling me a bigot. Otherwise, you can deal with no explanation, because I certainly don't owe you one. Being rude to me isn't the way to ask.


I don't actually require an explanation from you because I already know that the only thing you base your unfounded assumptions about this subject of which you literally have no clue, is your own little warped mind and nothing more. I've come across the likes of you hundreds of times - you might not be a 'bigot' bigot, but you're bigot lite.



edit on 2-6-2014 by BasementWarriorKryptonite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
Based on the assumption that you are not a self loathing homosexual, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

There has been more than enough personal testimony in the varied gay threads on here to blow the notion that being gay is a choice we make right out of the water.

Deny ignorance my friend; listen and learn. That is what ATS is all about.


Nonsense. I don't have to be a leopard to know about leopards. Illogical claim on your part.

Discussion on a website isn't scientific proof; it's opinion. There were studies done for decades, and no genetic link has been found. I read about all those in the news for years, and listened to all the debate. The studies didn't find a genetic link because there isn't a genetic link to find. Relying on science over opinion means I stand on more stable ground.

Now, whether one chooses or not is a different issue. Something doesn't have to be genetic to not be a choice. There are many behaviors that are influenced by a multitude of things in our environments as we grow up. Those, perhaps coupled with some hormonal issues, could easily mean a person doesn't choose, but again, that isn't genetics. We really don't, regardless of all the study done, understand a lot of things about human behavior.

I took a course in the psychology of serial killers (and, no, I am NOT saying homosexuals are serial killers; this is simply an example of things we don't know), and part of the course was the "why" of these folks; why do they kill? Is it genetic? A product of upbringing? A result of brain injury? The simple truth is that we really have no idea. For every one that fits some "rule", there are exceptions. Even among the most predominant theories, there are always exceptions that disprove the "rule". Some have brain injuries that cause problems. Some have some brain abnormality. Some were abused as children. Some, though, have none of that, yet they still become serial killers.

The point is, the human mind is complex, and not really understood even by the experts. My belief that homosexual tendencies aren't normal isn't an attack on people that have those tendencies; it's a statement that I think they need some help, out of concern for them.

All that aside, these two guys, I suspect, wanted to make the restaurant look bad, because they found the sign offensive. If a straight couple went to a restaurant that said "No Lewd displays of affection allowed!", and were banned, and the owner said it was their behavior, I'd believe they were at fault as well. Sometimes, people push the system. I think that's what happened here. Some places, the restaurant would simply ignore it. This place, they didn't.

I know we disagree, but you were at least mostly polite about it.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: markosity1973
Based on the assumption that you are not a self loathing homosexual, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

There has been more than enough personal testimony in the varied gay threads on here to blow the notion that being gay is a choice we make right out of the water.

Deny ignorance my friend; listen and learn. That is what ATS is all about.


Nonsense. I don't have to be a leopard to know about leopards. Illogical claim on your part.


True, but believing a leopard can change it's spots just because you read about it from a 'scientific' website doesn't mean what you read is solid unshakeable reality though.

For instance, I was once visited by a group that represented the infamous and now extinct exodus ministries. They told me that gay people are gay because if one of 5 reasons. They were 100% adamant that I am gay because I had a distant father. This is total bollicks because my dad is a farmer and worked from home. I wasn't sexually abused, so that ruled that out. I did not fit the other three categories either, so broken logic dictated it was dad's fault. I'm not sure how Dad would feel about that.......

But hey, my and everyone else's testimony can't be right if science says so and you agree now could it?

As far as the behaviour in the restaurant goes, there's a major difference between putting your leg up on someone and kissing and heavy petting. I've already stated I'm not a fan of PDA's but I've been to enough restaurants with my partner and have witnessed straight couples do a lot more than put their leg in a lap and nobody bats an eyelid.

One rule for everyone is where this needs to go. If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the same restaurant has banned heterosexual couples for doing the same thing then the last 20 pages of this thread are just hot air.
edit on 2-6-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

if only straight people would just shut up and refrain from speaking their minds.


Straight people are and always will be entitled to their opinions.
.
Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n


Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.


You know, if you replaced the word gay with Palestinian in that statement, you'd have a Jewish zionist state propaganda rambling there.

You're only saying such things, just like the Jews do about Palestine in a transparent attempt to hide an uncomfortable truth; You simply don't like us and will try and say black is white in order to rally public opinion to your cause.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

if only straight people would just shut up and refrain from speaking their minds.


Straight people are and always will be entitled to their opinions.
.
Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.


No. What you're pissy about is that the very people that you dislike are fighting back and winning.

You've admitted it before - feel free to do so again, for newcomers.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: macman

okay, but you can't compare Me to a Gun, i am a person, a gun is an object. you are not banned, the Gun is. i could be banned as a person just for being Gay

All men Created Equal, i know the Constitution is interpreted differently but the way i see it is that regardless of sexuality, race or gender we should all be treated equal, meaning i shouldn't be legally protected to be discriminated for something others wouldn't


Carrying a firearm, is protected by the 2nd. People are being turned away for this action.

Just being Gay is not protected.

And the laws you stated are for how the Govt is to act. I am not bound to treat people equal, as I have freedom on speech.

What you want is the policing of personal feelings.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: macman

okay, but you can't compare Me to a Gun, i am a person, a gun is an object. you are not banned, the Gun is. i could be banned as a person just for being Gay

All men Created Equal, i know the Constitution is interpreted differently but the way i see it is that regardless of sexuality, race or gender we should all be treated equal, meaning i shouldn't be legally protected to be discriminated for something others wouldn't


Carrying a firearm, is protected by the 2nd. People are being turned away for this action.

Just being Gay is not protected.

And the laws you stated are for how the Govt is to act. I am not bound to treat people equal, as I have freedom on speech.

What you want is the policing of personal feelings.



And this Ladies and Gentlemen is why the once great USA is going to hell in a handbasket.


(post by Euphem removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: macman

okay, but you can't compare Me to a Gun, i am a person, a gun is an object. you are not banned, the Gun is. i could be banned as a person just for being Gay

All men Created Equal, i know the Constitution is interpreted differently but the way i see it is that regardless of sexuality, race or gender we should all be treated equal, meaning i shouldn't be legally protected to be discriminated for something others wouldn't


Carrying a firearm, is protected by the 2nd. People are being turned away for this action.

Just being Gay is not protected.

And the laws you stated are for how the Govt is to act. I am not bound to treat people equal, as I have freedom on speech.

What you want is the policing of personal feelings.



And this Ladies and Gentlemen is why the once great USA is going to hell in a handbasket.


Interesting comment considering that the "Once Great" USA was "once great" in a period of time when the government did not tell private entities who they may or may not serve or employ or work with, etc. Thus, are you suggesting that all of the feel good political correctness anti-discrimination we don't like (I use that term because the state certain racially discriminates all of the time and we only seem to get upset about discrimination we don't like but are okay with discrimination we do like) have made us less great because we certainly have more of them now than then.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Holding hands isn't objectionable, and the only ones claiming it is are those who are claiming Christians praying in public bothers them. Praying quietly isn't any more offensive than any other conversation at a table, so get over it.


Would you support a restaurant owner for banning someone for praying quietly in his restaurant?


Overt sexual advances in a public place aren't appropriate for anyone.


You have no idea what this couple was doing, much less be able to label it as "overt sexual advances".


originally posted by: Gryphon66
All claiming this restaurant owner doesn't have a right to his opinions are being hypocritical.


I haven't seen ANYONE saying he doesn't have a right to his opinion. You're making things up. In fact, not only does he have the right, he has the LEGAL right to toss them out.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I agree. The fact that I need to state such things is showing the Country is going to hell.

I have as much right to protect myself as someone has to be gay.

If that protection means carrying a firearm, which is defined and outlined very clearly by the 2nd, then I have that right like someone has of doing whatever they deem as being Gay.

And please, don't go off on some tangent that I think being gay is dressing a certain way or what ever. It was used an an example.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join