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

originally posted by: nixie_nox
So using procreation to deny homosexuality being a natural phenomenon because they can't procreate is extremely ignorant.

Agreed. There are a lot of male/female married couples who can't have children due to infertility. I guess they shouldn't be married either. (/sarcasm)

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Businesses, even Texan ones, do not have the right to discriminate against clientele that are a protected class.

And that is the problem.

The "protected class" have now become the special class of citizen, with special rules and special considerations.

Maybe, so people can avoid being re-educated by the Govt, those protected class of people should have special IDs, so the non-protected class, you know...every day people, can apply those special actions and rules that are carved out for them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Unless you want tax breaks or have joint ownership and transfer of property after death to your spouse.

My mother is recently widowed and I filled out the homestead exemption for their home to which it is lowered by $500 because of widow status.

If their marriage wasn't legally recognized by the state then she wouldn't get that. On a federal level my father was a veteran so she qualifies for what is called aid and attendance she also now receives his SS checks because his was a larger sum.

And that is the issue. Who the hell is the Govt, local or Federal, to think it gets to meddle in the affairs of private citizens?
This idea that people need permission from the Govt, and then a piece of paper from the same Govt to be married is moronic.
I am tired of this attitude that the Govt needs to grant me permission to conduct personal affairs. And people need to start waking up to this. The Govt is NOT my master.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
So let me ask you how do you propose to eliminate government from marriage in those instances? Maybe I am not understanding your meaning when you say govt has no business dealing with marriage. Are you saying the govt should recognize any person or couple who says they are married or were married on their word?

The Govt has no business is recognizing or not recognizing. It is supposed to be there to file the role of just a small bit in life.
Contracts are between parties.
Govt benefits are the reason why this is being pressed. Remove the Govt benefits, which are not what the Govt is supposed to provide, and this is a non-issue.

a reply to: macman

So when you say "remove the govt benefits" Does that mean you want to do away with my mothers SS, the ability for people to file joint taxes, Homestead exemptions, the ability to transfer property and pensions after death to your spouse, and the such?

I asked what solution you have. It seems you are creating more problems.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
'Big Earls" restaurant in Pittsburgh Texas banned a gay couple from ever returning to eat there because they "only serve men who act like men".

The server "Big Earls daughter" cited a sign on the door saying that the establishment reserves “the right to refuse service to anyone,” prohibits “baggy pants,” and requires that “men act like men and women act like ladies.

she also told them "we don't like fags"

Big Earl says blacks, hispanics and homosexuals are all welcome to eat there saying the public display of affection "rubbing legs together" got them banned.

After their facebook page blew up with people expressing their outrage big Earls had to post this

My goodness, does anyone read or study? Big Earl has spent his life in the military to defend this country and will be happy to explain the constitution to you. Earl is well versed in the Bible and Christianity, has travelled the world and is well educated. It would have been nice for the full interview to have played in order to explain the background to what caused the incidence. The quote “we don’t serve fags here” was never said, instead, after being badgered, the young lady said “We do not like fags”. The behavior portrayed by the young couple was simply inappropriate and would have been considered so no matter what sexual orientation.

link

Personally I don't get it, I know you can reserve the right to serve whoever you want but being a business owner myself I feel like gay peoples money is just as good as anyone else's.

And anyone that spends money in your establishment is a good customer and should be treated with respect.

You missed the point.. It was a public display of affection which is disgusting and deserves to be thrown out of a restaurant.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So when you say "remove the govt benefits" Does that mean you want to do away with my mothers SS, the ability for people to file joint taxes, Homestead exemptions, the ability to transfer property and pensions after death to your spouse, and the such?

Simply put, yes.
The Federal Govt was not created to have such authority of life.
Taxes?? Abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax and there is no need to file separate or jointly.
Transferring of property is a legal action between private people.
Pensions?? A business to person transaction.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I asked what solution you have. It seems you are creating more problems.

Seems that the Govt has created the larger problem. Undoing it may cause headache, but it certainly does not create original problems.

a reply to: iosolomon

And I don't like ugly bigots who make rude comments on ATS. So, no restaurant food for you - get out.

a reply to: iosolomon

There was nothing to misconstrue....
You said what you said and you meant it. You assumed that you knew what this couple was like in there.
You say they were not discriminating when clearly the daughters comment shows that they were.
If you think your words were just misconstrued then leave them up so we don't have to take your word for it.
Not very tolerant of you IMO, tolerance must not be in the religion you preach all the time

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.

Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?

it is not just about a man and woman saying yes to each other. it is about inheritance, property, benefits, medical benefits, assets, businesses, taxes, and parenting.

* bold emphasis mine

very true, but is that to say that only a man and a woman [together] are capable of the same?

Replied to both kaylaluv and sremmos80 in this post.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: iosolomon

And I don't like ugly bigots who make rude comments on ATS. So, no restaurant food for you - get out.

[To anyone who might happen to read this: kaylaluv was replying to the removed portion of my post]

Actually, there is nothing bigot about what I said. Flamboyance is rude and obnoxious. You cannot argue that otherwise. Whether someone should be banned from a restaurant for being loud and obnoxious, well, that's something you can argue, but to call me a bigot for saying that excessive public displays of affection or gay/lesbian people who taunt their sexuality (obnoxiously) is not a correct use of the word bigot.

So, go ahead and ban me from your restaurant, I sure wouldn't want to support someone who subscribes to the religion of bliss in this country, being brainwashed by a backwards thinking society responsible for more evil than good in the world. Bad.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: iosolomon

There was nothing to misconstrue....
You said what you said and you meant it. You assumed that you knew what this couple was like in there.
You say they were not discriminating when clearly the daughters comment shows that they were.
If you think your words were just misconstrued then leave them up so we don't have to take your word for it.
Not very tolerant of you IMO, tolerance must not be in the religion you preach all the time

I edited my post before anyone replied. (Kaylaluv must have been in the process of replying.) I realized that the post would likely be misconstrued. In fact, the post has since been flagged and removed by the staff, which, shows that it was misconstrued. I did not mean to violate any rules, but it is better this way --that's why I edited it.

a reply to: iosolomon

Flamboyance is rude and obnoxious. You cannot argue that otherwise.

Only reason being is that you will go blue in the face defending your opinion that it is rude and obnoxious.
You don't know how these men were acting, out side of the one claim of "leg rubbing" from Big earl and Co....
The daughter banned them for being fags, no where does it say they were being flamboyant about it except in your pre conceived notion of the couple.
Straight people can be rather flamboyant as well, but it seems you think that is reserved for the gay and lesbians....
And at that point you are just taking the word for what you want it to mean, not what it actually means

a reply to: Sremmos80

,no where does it say they were being flamboyant about it except in your pre conceived notion of the couple.

Whether that be so or not, I was actually referring to the sign they had posted. "Men act like men, and women act like ladies." That clearly implies they do not want loud, obnoxious patrons in their restaurant. Granted, a transgender person might misconstrue this as barring them, but a transgender person believes that they are of the opposite sex, so they shouldn't have a problem.

a reply to: iosolomon

So again, where does it say that they were loud and obnoxious? ?
What part of that are you not getting? ?
Men are loud and obnoxious all the time, get 5 marines and some beers and you will see what I mean. Been there done that and I was one of the loud and obnoxious ones.
And i think you are giving big earl a massive benefit of the doubt thinking he would allow transgender in his establishment after an event like this

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You are awfully narcisstic to think that you can tell the entire planet's ecology what is normal and what isn't. And sex is NOT the only thing that determines procreation and advancement of a species. There is far more to it than that.

Your opinion is narcissistic. My statement is based on facts.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
So using procreation to deny homosexuality being a natural phenomenon because they can't procreate is extremely ignorant.

That's a long way from all I stated. Go back, reread, and try again.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
One of the reason's that the human race has been so successful is due to middle age. We are the only species that has a middle age. What is middle age?
It is a period in a human's lifetime that is still productive, but they DON"T procreate.

Better define "middle age", and be specific. I know people in their upper 40's that have new babies. People in their 50's raising kids.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Since we are social creatures, it means we have a segment in our human lives where we work to benefit our tribe, clan,. etc, WITHOUT having to take resources to procreate. In other words, it is a totally give situation that benefits everyone, including helping out those that have procreated, to be successful.

Claiming that as a reason for homosexual behavior isn't even logical.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So when you say "remove the govt benefits" Does that mean you want to do away with my mothers SS, the ability for people to file joint taxes, Homestead exemptions, the ability to transfer property and pensions after death to your spouse, and the such?

Simply put, yes.
The Federal Govt was not created to have such authority of life.
Taxes?? Abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax and there is no need to file separate or jointly.
Transferring of property is a legal action between private people.
Pensions?? A business to person transaction.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I asked what solution you have. It seems you are creating more problems.

Seems that the Govt has created the larger problem. Undoing it may cause headache, but it certainly does not create original problems.

I don't consider it being the govt problem as you.

SS saves many people and they worked for it. My father passed away sonow my mother collects what hewas getting but hers went away.

You propose eliminating the 1700 a month she requires to live on. Right now she requires assistance so she lives in an ALF. If you have never seen pricing of an ALF then you are in for a treat. When I say treat I mean shock. When I was searching I looked at over 70 ALFs even the worst ones were 3K or more when everything was totaled and that was at the basic level of care prices go significantly up as the level of care does. Some places were over $5500 a month. Most are private pay which means no medicaid. Thank goodness my father was a veteran because that qualified her for aid and attendance otherwise her SS and pension wouldn't have afforded much of anything.

Your ideal would mean many elderly would be out on the street or rotting in their homes with little or no help.

I am sure it sounded good in your head, but I don't think you really thought it through well. Now if companies were not out to rob the elderly of ever cent of their earnings by charging outrageous prices then maybe your scenario would work however this is America where healthcare is for profit and the only thing they care about is their bottom line.

So I can't agree with you on this as I have seen how each side works already. A living wage no longer exists for the children to make up the difference in healthcare for their families and there is strong opposition by some to ever change that.

So I guess we are at an impasse. I appreciate the civil conversation though.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I don't consider it being the govt problem as you.

Then you must not be paying attention.
Every program created and instituted by the Govt is failing, bankrupt and will soon require more tax payer money just to stay afloat.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
SS saves many people and they worked for it. My father passed away sonow my mother collects what hewas getting but hers went away.

So, because they didn't save and invest, and relied on Govt, we are all now forced to accept this???
No, sorry, I don't buy it.
It is sad that your father passed, but this is not something that was a surprise. Everyone dies. Planning for this is what being responsible means. I should not be carrying the burden for your mother. That is YOUR issue to deal with.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You propose eliminating the 1700 a month she requires to live on. Right now she requires assistance so she lives in an ALF. If you have never seen pricing of an ALF then you are in for a treat. When I say treat I mean shock. When I was searching I looked at over 70 ALFs even the worst ones were 3K or more when everything was totaled and that was at the basic level of care prices go significantly up as the level of care does. Some places were over $5500 a month. Most are private pay which means no medicaid. Thank goodness my father was a veteran because that qualified her for aid and attendance otherwise her SS and pension wouldn't have afforded much of anything.

Again, it is sad but I still don't see where it is my financial responsibility for your mother.
Why are you not stepping up and having her live with you, instead of having her stay in a horrible place that is offset by tax dollars?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Your ideal would mean many elderly would be out on the street or rotting in their homes with little or no help.

So, without Govt, you think there is no hope. That too is a very sad thing.
Ever stop and think that maybe you and your family should be taking care of your mother? Or is it that I, and the other tax payers, should be footing this bill?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am sure it sounded good in your head, but I don't think you really thought it through well. Now if companies were not out to rob the elderly of ever cent of their earnings by charging outrageous prices then maybe your scenario would work however this is America where healthcare is for profit and the only thing they care about is their bottom line.

Oh come on. Now you blame companies?? Give me a break.
Healthcare is what it is because Govt stuck its nose in the business of something between a person and a healthcare provider.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
So I can't agree with you on this as I have seen how each side works already. A living wage no longer exists for the children to make up the difference in healthcare for their families and there is strong opposition by some to ever change that.

And now the living wage argument.
Well, lets just watch Seattle over the next year and see how this "Living wage" deal ends up.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
So I guess we are at an impasse. I appreciate the civil conversation though.

I can be civil, it just doesn't happen often.

But...I still don't see where I am financially responsible for your mother.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.

Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?

it is not just about a man and woman saying yes to each other. it is about inheritance, property, benefits, medical benefits, assets, businesses, taxes, and parenting.

You do realize that in every state of the union, two gay men can go to the lawyer and draft up contracts that cover every aspect of that above, yes?

And the role of the government is not determining who can marry who, but to maintain a court system whereby citizens can work out their differences.

-facepalm-

I don't even know where to begin.

Before anyone gets offended by what I'm about to say, for those of you who do not know, I am gay.

Now on to the good part.

Gay guys can be a bit ballsy. They like to push the envelope and flamboyantly flaunt their sexuality for all the world to see. Instead of holding hands and just being gay, a lot of guys won't settle for anything less than playing tonsil-hockey while groping each other, then giving the "what are you going to do about it" look to everyone.

If I had a restaurant, I would kick people out for being gross too -- gay, straight or bi.

a reply to: macman

You know what is really sad I just complimented you on being civil and then you became a d%$#.

Maybe you cant do math but I told you ALFs can run between 2700 and 5500 a month the one she is in is about 4300. $4300 X 12 is $51,600 dollars a year.

You said...

So, because they didn't save and invest, and relied on Govt, we are all now forced to accept this???
No, sorry, I don't buy it.
It is sad that your father passed, but this is not something that was a surprise. Everyone dies. Planning for this is what being responsible means. I should not be carrying the burden for your mother. That is YOUR issue to deal with.

Now did I ever say they didn't save?? No, I did not. Their total assets and savings was over half a million now since you can't do math I will do it for you. That would work out to 9.68 years of care for one person. Maybe you are rich but I have news for you the rest of the country isn't. So get off your high horse and maybe give some actual thought to the issue because I don't know WTF you are thinking.

Oh, and they would have had a hell of a lot more if the market hadn't crashed and killed their 401Ks. Don't talk about being forced to accept stuff. SS has been around long time if you hate it so much maybe you should find another country to call home.

Ever stop and think that maybe you and your family should be taking care of your mother? Or is it that I, and the other tax payers, should be footing this bill?

My parents worked hard, saved money, paid into SS all their lives, and by reasonable standards did the right things through life and for you to spout crap about being responsible. Who can afford to pay nearly 60K a year? Can you? As far as my family taking care of things. I got news for you I am the only family she has.

Oh come on. Now you blame companies??

Why shouldn't I blame companies? They are the ones who played with people lives and investments then when everything went belly up got bailed out by the taxpayers and took bonuses on top of it. They should have been lined up and put in front of a firing squad. Anyone who lost their savings with them should have had the opportunity to put them down. My pops had 750K in 401Ksand IRAs before that fiasco and when it was done he lost over 400K. So whoever you are you don't know jack.