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: 28
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you want or not associate with whomever you want and the state shouldn't be telling you who you should or should not associate with.


But the only way we have the freedom to NOT associate with someone is to remove ourselves from the situation. In general, we don't have the freedom to make someone leave.

I'm not going to answer any further about affirmative action. I've told you I don't feel strongly one way or the other.



Do you think a Jewish man should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi themed wedding


If he makes Nazi-themed wedding cakes for other people, then absolutely! Otherwise, it would be religion-based discrimination. If he doesn't make Nazi-themed wedding cakes, then no, he shouldn't be forced to fill a special order by making something he generally doesn't make.


a black man be forced to cater a KKK rally because he has the best barbecue in town


The KKK is not a protected group. So, no. If it was an Atheist caterer and he was asked to cater a Christian shindig, then yes, he should have to do it.



or do you think those people should have the right not to serve people they disagree with?


It all depends on the business and the business laws and anti-discrimination laws in that state.

Let me state again that I said on the first page of this thread, Earl has the legal right to ban this gay couple. It's legal in Texas.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you want or not associate with whomever you want and the state shouldn't be telling you who you should or should not associate with.


But the only way we have the freedom to NOT associate with someone is to remove ourselves from the situation. In general, we don't have the freedom to make someone leave.

I'm not going to answer any further about affirmative action. I've told you I don't feel strongly one way or the other.



Do you think a Jewish man should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi themed wedding


If he makes Nazi-themed wedding cakes for other people, then absolutely! Otherwise, it would be religion-based discrimination. If he doesn't make Nazi-themed wedding cakes, then no, he shouldn't be forced to fill a special order by making something he generally doesn't make.


a black man be forced to cater a KKK rally because he has the best barbecue in town


The KKK is not a protected group. So, no. If it was an Atheist caterer and he was asked to cater a Christian shindig, then yes, he should have to do it.



or do you think those people should have the right not to serve people they disagree with?


It all depends on the business and the business laws and anti-discrimination laws in that state.

Let me state again that I said on the first page of this thread, Earl has the legal right to ban this gay couple. It's legal in Texas.


Ah...did you hear youself? "The KKK is not a protected group." Yep. You are for discrimination as long as the groups you like are protected and those you don't are not. Hypocrisy.

Your whole response was full of qualifications and exemptions--you hate discrimination except in this case or for that excuse or you are on the fence over there. Face it, you only dislike discrimination you dusagree with.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hypothetically let me ask a question

at your Job you say "I don't like Fags" your boss who you didn't know was Gay (or even if you did) hears about it and fires you... now how many would claim "The Gay Mafia" the "Gay Agenda" they are shoving it in our face and forcing us to accept them and policing our rights

Or your at a store with your children, and one of them says oh "That's Gay" (as people use it for "Slang") the manager comes and ask you to leave for unacceptable behavior ... how many are going to say "Free Speech" and the "Gay Agenda" is policing our rights

?
edit on 3-6-2014 by Darth_Prime because: spelling

edit on 3-6-2014 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Hypothetically let me ask a question

at your Job you say "I don't like Fags" your boss who you didn't know was Gay (or even if you did) hears about it and fires you... now how many would claim "The Gay Mafia" the "Gay Agenda" they are shoving it in our face and forcing us to accept them and policing our rights

Or your at a store with your children, and one of them says oh "That's Gay" (as people use it for "Slang") the manager comes and ask you to leave for unacceptable behavior ... how many are going to say "Free Speech" and the "Gay Agenda" is policing our rights

?


Not me. The boss has every right to fire someone who he feels disrespects customers and gives their business a bad rap.

Likewise, as a customer, a business owner has every right to ask me to leave if he finds our language offensive.

I try to be consistent in the idea that business can refuse service. If they don't like me saying "gay," whatever the context, or my CCW, or my haircut, it does not matter.

Likewise I am perfectly free to take my business elsewhere, encourage other not to go there, and even protest in public if I fe wronged.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982


That is the conservative copout to demean those who don't want to be marginalized. It is an uneducated and lazy statement to make.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Why place "scientific" in quotes? Just because you don't agree with the data?



Firstly, since you have been civil, I feel your questions deserve a civil reply


I wrote 'scientific' as innuendo, because not everything science has to say is 100% proven. The only 100% known fact about the cause of homosexuality is that there is no 100% proven theory to date.


I agree. Until there is some proof, I tend to lean toward environmental and mental factors. There are studies that seem to indicate that's more likely. Don't have the links at the moment, since my own computer is still being repaired. can try and locate later, though.


originally posted by: markosity1973
Science can be and is often wrong. For instance, when the catholic church thought it owned science, it was 100% taught and believed that the world is flat and that the earth was the centre of the galaxy and all planets revolved around us.

So, you may choose to believe what you read about many scientific theories only to discover a few years later it has been totally disproved again.


I won't argue that! There are plenty of modern examples to support that statement. At this stage, not having any sure cause, however, it's reasonable to disagree on the topic.


originally posted by: markosity1973
In short - don't pin all your belief in one theory on homosexuality because they are not there yet with knowing what causes it.


Well, no "hopes", other than that people could be helped. I believe a lot of the emotional issues many homosexuals have are a part of the cause, and could be alleviated if that could be. I want help for that the same as for any other problem.


originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
You didn't state your reasons. Your own case might not fit those standards, but many cases do. I have personally known people that became homosexual as a result of abuse. Some left later, some didn't. Their STATED reason was the abuse. Another person I know stated flat out that being raised by her lesbian mother and partner was what made her that way. Her statement, not mine. When the science I read agrees with personal testimonies from people I know and have known, then yes, I tend to believe the science. "Everyone else's" testimony isn't the same as yours. Some might be, but a LOT are not. It's a complicated thing, as I already stated. Not all will have the same cause.


See above comments. Yes, people might say those things, and they may be right in their own case. I've also met straight men who were sexually abused by men, so I am not 100% sure that sexual abuse is the cause or not. Call those men gay and they will beat the cr@p out of you!

I will however agree that sexual abuse a terrible thing that leaves an indelible stain on someone's soul. My own mother was sexually abused and she is no lesbian either.

Here's some subjective evidence for you in my own case; My mother swears to this very day that when I was born she sensed there was something different about me. Being catholic, she was certain she had just given birth to a saint or something. She used to say it every now and then as a kid when I was growing up. You can imagine her shock and disappointment at the discovery that I am gay. An no, it is not a rebellion thing in me either.


Well, abuse isn't the only factor, of course. With the serial killers I mentioned, abuse is a factor in many cases, but not all that are abused become killers. Same in this case. I believe it's a factor that, when coupled with other factors we don't know yet, can push a person closer to homosexuality. Overall, i think it is a complex issue, with many factors, and that's why we don't understand it as of yet. I think that's true for most human behavior.

When you told your mother you were "gay", did she think that was what she'd sensed, at the time you told her? Do you remember when you first started having any sexual interest at all?


originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Oh, I agree. Simply propping up legs shouldn't be an issue, unless it caused some damage to a seat, which isn't what was stated here. However, it's very possible that a lot more than that went on. I have seen straight couple do that and then move on to some seriously inappropriate behavior. That, coupled with a ban for paying customers, is what makes me inclined to believe the couple in this case was likely doing something like that, and was thus banned. I have seen people react to that kind of thing, too, depending on how busy the place was, and who noticed. Sometimes people complain, and sometimes they don't. A complaint would have been warranted in those cases, though.

Very good rule. The problem would be in locating such a case, because even when they happen, they don't tend to get media coverage, and in a small Texas town, people aren't likely to talk about it it it happened to them. Plus, if someone was banned, it seems unlikely they'd come forward and talk about it now. It would clear things up if some did, though! Likewise, if a homosexual couple went in, didn't do anything but eat and talk, and wasn't banned, that would show the same thing. If it was shown that a straight couple got away with it, that would be strong evidence that this pair was targeted, too. It would be nice if we had more witnesses, or video.


Like many of these scenarios its a lot of hearsay and not a lot of solid evidence. My simple answer to the OP is that assuming the story is true then the restaurant needs to be consistent. i.e. I would expect heterosexual couples to be banned for the same behaviour. If this is the case, then there is no problem other than the very rude girl saying we don't like fags here.

She needs to be disciplined and taught about customer service. - Yeah sure, if it's a house rule that legs are not allowed to be placed on another person, ban them. But cite the legs rule, do not use derogatory terms. She can think what she said, but she shouldn't say it in a professional situation.


I agree. If they treat all equally, there isn't an issue. The comment the waitress made can be considered rude, but to be fair, we have no idea what they might have said to her, to make her say that. They don't tell us what they said after told about the problem. If they were being very confrontational, it's possible she was pushed into her statement. When people are angry, and in a confrontation, they say things they wouldn't otherwise say. Her best option would have been to walk away, and have the owner deal with them. being professional in a service industry is very important. If someone can't handle it, they need to work on that. Quite agree there. I dealt with a lot of people working in a hotel, and even the worst of them never got called a name by me.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I agree. Until there is some proof, I tend to lean toward environmental and mental factors.


Therefore, left handedness is caused by environmental and mental factors.

As science has no proof of what causes it.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Logic fallacy. Praying quietly isn't offensive behavior. Groping one another in public is. Praying is Constitutionally protected. Public sex isn't. If you can't argue more logically than that, just give up.


If the owner has a sign on the door that it's a secular establishment, then he may find praying offensive. I find praying offensive. Other customers may find it offensive, too. You don't have the honor of saying what everyone finds offensive.


Such a sign would be a Constitutional violation. Praying is part of the free expression of religion. No one posted an anti-homosexual sign, either, so your point is moot.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Freedom of expression is covered by the first amendment. You're implying that the couple was "groping" or having sex in public, when NO ONE has claimed that. Not even Big Earl. He said he didn't know what they were doing, exactly. So, I'm afraid your logic fails. You continue to make things up to prove your point.


I am not "implying" anything. I am stating that the owner stated they were behaving in a manner that warranted a ban, and speculating on how that could happen, with them across the table from one another. I have seen couples act inappropriately while seated that way. For the owner to ban them, it's not unreasonable to think they gave him a reason.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Let me say here, that even though I find praying offensive, I would stand up strongly for everyone's right to do it. I don't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I support.

I'll have to assume that you support some offensive actions in public (like praying) and don't support others (like expressing fondness).


Why would praying, which is simply talking to God, offend you? I never once heard anyone do so loudly enough to disturb anyone.

Expressing fondness is a long way from overt sexual advances. The owner claims they were acting badly enough to be banned. If their homosexuality was the issue, they would have been refused service. That isn't what happened.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
You have no idea, either. Stop pretending otherwise. If their behavior was offensive, as the owner claims, he has every right to ban them.


And, according to you, if the owner found praying offensive, he doesn't have the right the ban them. Yeah, I get your position. It's hypocritical.


Don't be obtuse. Prayer isn't the same as public sexual expression. We don't have a Constitutional right to public groping.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Ah, but anyone that supports him is in the wrong, in your eyes?


I wouldn't say he's "wrong". I would say that he has the right to be bigoted. He has the right to ban them from his establishment. And I disagree with him.



Calling him a bigot is acceptable? That's been done in this thread, many times, by many people.


Yes, absolutely. It's acceptable, it's my right and it's what I think. His daughter called them "fags". She got that somewhere. He put that sign on his door for SOME reason. You bet I think he's a bigot.


So, you aren't a bigot for disliking Christians, but he's a bigot for not allowing overboard sexual activity in his restaurant? Weird standards you have there!



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Nobody is demanding or asking you that accept anyone and if you want to wreck your kids - go for your life.

The fact that you think all gay people are the same only goes to show you really have no idea what homosexuality actually is.

I'm not surprised you have that attitude.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"Fag" is a Gay slur, regardless of it's original meaning, it seems it was said in an attempt to hurt and demean them. true we don't know what they said to her, maybe they said "We don't like Straights"

i know this question wasn't to me, but from my first memory of attraction it was towards Males.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Looks like gays are going to be about as popular at that restaurant as a Reggae band at Ku Klux Klan rally..

It is very simple why. The "in your face" attitude and "look at what we are doing" all the time is the reason. The militancy of those is on the increase to try to gain more acceptance, (lots of exposure can lead to people becoming numb about it), but it is beginning to get under people's skin a bit, so maybe it isn't working.

Maybe if they weren't showing off so much, no one would notice, but then that would be the opposite of what they want. Based on that, the blame is 100% belonging to the *** community. I don't care myself, doesn't bother me. People do so hate the truth these days though, when it doesn't suit their agendas.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



I had a female friend, very into guys, who, after a seriously abusive marriage, switched to living with another woman for a time


Yeah we all know why that happens... one and relationship and some women claim they are lesbians. Homosexuality does not happen like that. It happens just the way how heterosexual people start liking the other sex.. around puberty(another proof that it is chemical).


Well, at the time, she claimed she was homosexual. Why is it acceptable to claim she wasn't really, but not acceptable to claim her reasons were valid, and that she actually was for that time?



originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
From a purely scientific point of view, sex is designed for procreation. Attraction to the same sex is thus not the norm


Animal kingdom says otherwise. Homosexual behaviour is very norm. Just because someone is gay does not mean they can;t procreate, they just don't want to. Are people who doesn't want to have kids abnormal as well? since they have potential they just refuse to. Homosexuals germ cells works just as good as heterosexual germ cells.

No, it isn't. It's claimed, but not true. Cases of dominant behavior mimicking don't count. Earthworms don't count. Plus, people re not animals.


originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Proof? Show your proof that it's genetic. For a LONG time, it was called behavioral/mental in the books, till lobbying changed that.


Proof is that it happens everywhere int he world and have been happening since early historic data. OCD, Depression, Schizophrenia and other mental disorders were use to be called Demon Possession LONG Time TOO!

Just because there is no direct genetic study(due to controversy) does not make the other correct.

In other words, you have no proof. Claiming it's "everywhere" isn't proof. Discussing other mental disorders doesn't prove homosexuality is genetic, either.


originally posted by: luciddream
Kids figuring out they have tendency to like the same sex during puberty is more than enough proof, because as a straight man, i started liking girls after puberty. that and the fact most of the population can't change their sexual preference on a day to day basis.


They don't simply "find out". It is estimated that more than 75% of homosexual men were sexually abused by men as children. When there are recruitment efforts in the schools, that contributes as well.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I just found this thread after reading about the baker thread. Funny how that works.

This is the opposite of the other case in that this couple was not refused because of the fact they were homosexual (supposedly). If they were refused the right because of a specific action, in this instance "leg rubbing", then as long as they refuse other customers performing the same act then legally no discrimination has taken place.

The baker's case is different in that the couple was refused solely because of their sexual orientation, which the circuit court ruled as being an inherent trait covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, enforced through the Commerce Clause.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

They don't simply "find out". It is estimated that more than 75% of homosexual men were sexually abused by men as children. When there are recruitment efforts in the schools, that contributes as well.


You need to start providing links for your claims.

I know in past threads you've used both outdated and discredited sources.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: alienreality

Sorry, i had to read your comment a couple times, i don't know if i fully understand or not...

but maybe we agree? i mean, those Straight couples throw it in my face all the time, it gets tiresome. showing off they can get married and what not



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
*snip*

If this was the case, then you would need to accept someone's hatred for Gays, just as they would have to accept Gays.
It goes both ways.



It should, but we both know that one side doesn't think the other side really deserves equal treatment. They can hate any that disagree, but if we disagree, we are the "bigots".


(post by BasementWarriorKryptonite removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Annee

You need to start providing links for your claims.

I know in past threads you've used both outdated and discredited sources.


I don't think they're allowed to like al qaeda or westboro baptist church so you might be waiting a while for those links!


Or Mark Regnerus


Mark Regnerus, the author of a widely discredited 2012 study purporting to show that same-sex parents are bad for children, will be speaking this weekend at a conference sponsored by the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). www.splcenter.org...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I agree. Until there is some proof, I tend to lean toward environmental and mental factors.


Therefore, left handedness is caused by environmental and mental factors.

As science has no proof of what causes it.


Much more proof for that than for any "gay gene" -

Are You Right- Or Left-Handed? It Could Be Genetic

Lefty or righty? Genes for handedness found

Genes linked to being right- or left-handed identified

Genes linked to left-handedness identified

Genes linked to being right- or left-handed identified

Gene for Left-Handed Trait Discovered

It's hereditary. Recessive, but hereditary. My dad was a leftie, and one of my boys is as well. Funny aside to that; that's the son who has my dad's first name as his middle name. Leftie from the time he started using his hands, too.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"Fag" is a Gay slur, regardless of it's original meaning, it seems it was said in an attempt to hurt and demean them. true we don't know what they said to her, maybe they said "We don't like Straights"

i know this question wasn't to me, but from my first memory of attraction it was towards Males.


Her comment was unprofessional. There we agree. We don't, however, know what they might have said to her. They could have made some anti-Christian slur, or called her a "dumb redneck" or something. A better response from her would have been to have the owner deal with it, but people do say things they shouldn't in stressful situations. In a service industry, though, she needs to learn to curb that tendency. I dealt with lots of irate guests at a hotel, and not a one was called a name. Many coworkers weren't as able to deal with the problem guests, though.

I have heard that from some homosexuals, and from others, it was different, and developed over time. That's one reason I think it's a lot more complex than a simple genetic factor. Too many variables.




top topics



 
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join