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: 37
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by mOjOm removed for a manners violation)
(post by Christian Voice removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by mOjOm removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Thread closed for staff review



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
... and re-opened.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
***ATTENTION***

This is your only warning. This back and forth stops immediately. The next person to go off topic, or attack another member WILL be immediately post banned for an indeterminate period of time without warning. Keep it on topic, or there will be consequences.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
OK, here is a summation of my perspective of the topic. I think the owner was free to refuse service to anyone violating his private business' rules and that the angered homosexuals are simply seeking retribution for someone disagreeing with their lifestyle choices. People seem to never want government interference until something happens they do not personally like and then it's off to cry to the government or to sue someone.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I am going to call it a night. I truly hope there are no hard feelings with anyone. It was great debating with you all. God Bless You all.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
i noted that the sign said women were supposed to behave like ladies.
the chances of a pair of lesbians showing up to push the boundaries of the owner's description of proper public behavior, is pretty low. so i'm guessing what the owner is implying is that people behave with social graces, period. women behave like ladies = social etiquette. see in that description it includes both genders, regardless of their sexual orientation.

i will admit, however, that the - men behave like men - thing, seems pretty wishy washy on the etiquette concept. to be consistent he should've said - men behave like gentlemen.


edit on 8-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Looking at all the deleted posts makes me think that one side in this debate is becoming abusive but even if you are gay i would still defend your freedom of speech, your right to have your say but today we have specal laws created by the NWO being used as gags.

Mr Obama does not like cleaning tolets so should he be made to clean one or does that only happen when the isue has upset gay pride ?

My birth rights gave me the right to decide who and what I like and I won't be giving that right up any time soon



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

It's very simple but one side is truly trying to make it very complex. What is going to happen is more people will decide to go out of business and cost jobs for even more people to avoid caving their principles to the bully homosexuals. I can also see an uprising very soon of all of the people that are fed up with the gay bullying agenda. These few Federal judges have an eye opener coming soon. They do not know what's best for the majority and they most certainly do not speak for the majority.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 8-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I tried to stay away fro this topic as it was getting hurtful and hateful out of ignorance and pure unwarranted malice.

that being said, it is also my Birth right to be able to get the same service as any other Person regardless if i am Gay.

If the business feels the need to discriminate and exclude People because they are being told by a Book they are not allowed to tolerate People because of their sexuality, than the loss of their business if their fault, if they cost jobs to people it is not the fault of us Gays, it's the fault of the business owners for being selfish and engaging if bad business practice.

so many people are comfortable to believe that a Business is a Person that you would deem objects and Businesses higher than People

Bully homosexuals... bully homosexuals.. how many deaths have been brought on by the word of the gays?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
. . . . it is also my Birth right to be able to get the same service as any other Person regardless if i am Gay.


Yes. Same EXACT service. Not a consolation or replacement service. Whether you are gay, a different color, disabled, of a different belief, whatever.

I know there are lawsuits now in different locations trying to make it law a business can use religious belief to discriminate against a customer.

As far as I know (not positive) -- these lawsuits have not past. However, there have been laws past that deny religious belief as a right to discriminate.

Anyway, Big Earl has made himself a target by his own actions. And his daughters actions, who learned it from her papa.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Big Earl is setting the stage for more businesses to do the same. You guys are in for a major eye opener.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Christian Voice

To act like they get go dictate how men and women act?
Who is he to decide how I as a man need to act or any woman needs to act?
He can test how the free market works when you deny people the right to be a patron based on his personal beliefs all he wants but in no way is he setting a positive precedent imo



new topics




 
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join