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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Cant help but recall the gay waiter who benefited after writibg an anti gay message on her own ticket and then blaming it on a party who found out later.


The first reported incident like that was a young man, and it was legit.

Those that followed were copy cats.




posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Just so I'm on the right "sheet of music" here:

If you are a homosexual couple, what you do at your table in a restaurant should be private and people should mind their own business.

If you are a white Police Commissioner, what you do at your table in a restaurant is a matter for public record and should result in loss of employment?

I see many of the same names here arguing against themselves with this one and it's a little confusing.
edit on 29-5-2014 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
Just so I'm on the right "sheet of music" here:

If you are a homosexual couple, what you do at your table in a restaurant should be private and people should mind their own business.

If you are a white Police Commissioner, what you do at your table in a restaurant is a matter for public record and should result in loss of employment?

I see many of the same names here arguing against themselves with this one and it's a little confusing.


You're comparing the behavior of a Police Commissioner to a young gay couple?

You lost me.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus

If you are a white Police Commissioner, what you do at your table in a restaurant is a matter for public record and should result in loss of employment?



Don't think I'm familiar with that one??? Got a link???



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I would never think to compare the actions of the couple with the #^$% cop, please don't think that.

It's the arguments for/against both cases that leave me confused.

Many of the same people that said there is "no privacy in public" are now saying the couple were "in private in public" for some reason.


edit on 29-5-2014 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Congratulations, being gay doesnt give you anymore insight on the incident. I only mention that I have friends/ best friend thats gay as a disclaimer because thats required here with any dissenting voice.

I wish you'd link me to the restaurant admitting she called them that. I didnt see it anywhere.

I stand by my opinion that with such a garish sign in the front door the likelihood is that they decided to put that to the test and got a reaction. I have trouble imagining a waitress taking on the authority to throw people out for rubbing their legs together.

Why are they attacking the restaurant if it was just the waitress?



Thank you and congratulations on missing the point of me actually mentioning it. good grief, some people just never get it.

If you read my posts, you might likely get a better insight into what I meant.

If you want a link to anything, read the OP.




You ever feel it's like beating a dead horse?

Btw, thanks for sharing your viewpoints on the topic. I hope that this type of nonsense will come to an end in my lifetime. I just am not the type of person that understands certain ways of thinking. Mainly the close minded type of thinking.

Why do people CARE SO MUCH about who people love or who are they attracted to, especially if they have NO IDEA who the people are, personally? I especially enjoy when they bring the Bible into the discussion. Apparently, they haven't read the New Testament and have no idea who that Jesus guy is. He's the one that taught us to love and respect one another. Jesus is really all about the love, and how important it is to love one another, no exceptions. I'm thinking they missed the Judgement Bus as well.

Now, I am by no means "religious" or a "Bible Thumper" but I am definitely spiritual. I do believe in God/Jesus and I was raised Protestant, so I do know about and have read the Bible. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who bring the Bible into it are the most judgmental!

Anyhow, just wanted to thank you for being so vocal and actually adding a relevant POV to the topic. Thanks for sharing!

edit on 29-5-2014 by lovebeck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:40 PM
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.
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Considering the publicity they received, not only will they lose a segment of the gay community as customers, but also those who support them. In my opinion, it's stupid business practice. If you want your business to make money, you want to attract customers, not scare them away - business 101.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daz3d-n-Confus3d
a reply to: Gryphon66

It could be argued that this act does not say anything about discrimination of sexual preference. Not saying they are right or wrong, but gay folks are not a race.


Race is not the issue in the salient portion of the law I referenced ... the definition of public accommodation is.

The fact that "race, color, religion or national origin" had to be spelled out does not limit the meaning of "all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment."




SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;


Beyond that fact, the Fourteenth Amendment very clearly extends the protection of the Civil Rights Act to all American citizens regardless of the nature of a specific "rationalization" for unfairly discriminating against American citizens.

Public accommodation means, very clearly, a public business provides service to the public, not just the ones you like. If that's what one wants to do, open a private club.


edit on 21Thu, 29 May 2014 21:52:16 -050014p092014566 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Echo3Foxtrot
I'm gonna be going back home in a few days to Texas, I'm going to make sure I make a stop to eat here.


You should go all Hillcrest on that place.




posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Everyone wants equality..........

But if a heterosexual couple gets kicked out of a restaurant for showing PDA , it wouldnt make the news and no one would raise an eyebrow........

But if your gay its a scandal.........

I dont see this "agenda" wanting equality, I see it wanting special treatment


In today's language of double speak, equality = special treatment



So if it were a disabled couple or anyone else it would be equality, but because it's a gay couple it's special treatment?



I find the business owners pretty despicable, but I find most equality pushers equally so due to their hypocrisy.

IMHO stuff like this should be dealt with via social pressure not laws. I call it special treatment because that's what it is, certain groups getting treated special. They are literally a protected class, and I don't like the idea of ANY sort of government "class" systems. Whether or not they deserve protected class status is a different debate, the fact of the matter they have it, and that means special treatment.

I'm against gay marriage as well, not because I'm against gays being together, I'm against gay marriage because I'm against ALL state recognized marriage, gay or straight. The government has no business in our bedrooms or social pairings, yet those who support gay marriage are inviting the government in.

If your looking for a quick kill thinking I'm a gay-basher your barking up the wrong tree.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Well, on the bright side, it sounds like we've found a great way to get a free meal; go to a restaurant, eat dinner, canoodle a bit and voila!

You are asked to leave and leave quickly.

only in America........

edit on 29-5-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: James1982
I call it special treatment because that's what it is, certain groups getting treated special.


I never understood how making sure people are treated equally when it comes to goods and services is being "special"?

Do you really call black people "special"?

How about disabled people?

Christians?

Or is it only gays?
edit on 29-5-2014 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanzHenry

originally posted by: Echo3Foxtrot
I'm gonna be going back home in a few days to Texas, I'm going to make sure I make a stop to eat here.


You should go all Hillcrest on that place.



Well, depends on which Hillcrest we're talkin' here. Hillcrest or Hillcrest After Dark, because that can get scary if you party in that area. Never know where or how you'll end up.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

Your post make absolute perfect sense to me. I generally keep my view to myself if I'm in the company of anyone else that happens to be gay, because I am considered rather conservative. It will forever amaze me that some think employing basic reason equates to that.

I do think this should never have happened, but then we don't live in a perfect world and as much as I find it distasteful, the best course of action for these guys is to just not go there again.

Let the man have his restaurant and operate it how he likes - no harm was actually done here. Just hurt feelings, bruised egos and people getting their backs up over something that is really quite silly.

I've heard good things about BBQ in the American southern states and but never tried it. I don't care if it's made my the devil himself if it's as good as they say!



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The point is not that they refuse service to homosexuals. I see some apparently are thinking that. It was specifically stated their public display of affection was what got them banned. So it may be about homosexuality, but not in the way some are making it out to be. I don't know who made the statement itself, or even if they represent the establishment, which makes a difference. I think it is possible that the person was badgered into making such statements. That is not to say that the person did not think the same thing the whole time, but people say things they normally wouldn't say when under stress of some kind. That seems perfectly believable to me, and may or may not be what occurred.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I've just read the thread. It's a little late, and perhaps I dozed off, but I suddenly saw a ghostly spectre in the room.

I said "Look at this. I hate intolerance, what's wrong with these people? Don't they have any brains, sense, or intelligence?"

He turned to me, nodded, and said "I agree, it's terrible." Then as a sly smirky expression crossed his face, he said "Let's see what's in the thread."

I quoted "Exactly right it is God's place to judge not man's." He said with a strange confidence, "I wonder why so many people are comfortable judging Big Earl?"

"That's not what the poster meant," I said, with a slight edge in my voice.

"Oh, really?" He looked smug. "What else have you got?"

"Here's how people respond to Big Earl." I said with a touch of moral superiority. "My bottom line is this isn't a place and these aren't people I'd personally want to be around, so I'd avoid them."

The spectre smiled and said "I'll bet that's exactly what Big Earl said. But Big Earl is stuck in one location and all he can do is keep people he doesn't want to be around away from him."

I had to admit that there was something to that. "What about this one?" I asked. "it is the aspect of making others live the way he thinks they should that is the problem." The spectre was back in an instant; "You mean that posters don't want Big Earl to live and operate his business the way they want him to?"

I have to admit that caught me by surprise. I was scratching my head over it when he started speaking again.

Hmmm, here's something interesting. "Bottom line, some people are more open and are not bothered by other individuals choices. It's their life, their business and if they aren't giving me a hard time, then idc. Other peeps just gotta fuss and fight with EVVVERRYBODDDY and buddy they are PROUD of that." "Should I suppose that poster is saying that gays are not open and are bothered by Big Earl's choices? It seems to me" the spectre continued "that this was written by someone supporting Big Earl, and who was criticizing gays for not being open and for being bothered by other individual's choices."

He then drew my attention to the second part of the post. "See there," it pointed out, "that poster is saying that gays have to fuss and fight with everybody and they're proud of it." The spectre seemed to pause and think. "I wonder if they really are proud of fussing and fighting? Didn't I hear something about Pride parades?" It continued it's thought. "I don't think I've ever heard of Big Earl pride or not-gay pride parades."

Here my head was beginning to spin so I fastened on this post; "In fact, I imagine most simply want to be left alone since they have to deal with so much judgement on a regular basis." That was what I was beginning to want myself, that the spectre would leave me alone. But, no. He intruded again.

"I bet you that's exactly what Big Earl wants, to be left alone and not be judged by people throughout the US, and probably the world, by now."

I started stuttering what I was sure would be a devastating and witty response, but the spectre wasn't done.

"Ho!" he blurted out, "This one is good. It's another thing Big Earl must be thinking when he hears of all this criticism."

"I hope that this type of nonsense will come to an end in my lifetime. I just am not the type of person that understands certain ways of thinking. Mainly the close minded type of thinking." "I bet," said the spectre after a pause, "Big Earl agrees 100%. He has a way of thinking, and closed minded people keep telling him he's wrong, he can't think that way." The spectre made a move as if to sit down and get comfortable. "I'll also bet that Big Earl can't understand closed-minded thinking."

Now, I was furious. The spectre was turning everything around, making it seem as though the gays and their supporters were the closed-minded, tyrannical, bullies interfering with everybody else's lives and opinions. It's obvious that that's not true. We all know that the gays are the tolerant people who value being left alone so they can do their "thing" unmolested, not the other way around. ATS tells us that, the Media and Hollywood tell us that, it must be true. But I had one more arrow to shoot at the spectre.

"Apparently, they haven't read the New Testament and have no idea who that Jesus guy is. He's the one that taught us to love and respect one another. Jesus is really all about the love, and how important it is to love one another, no exceptions." "Hah!" I said.

The spectre got up to leave, looked at me for a long time, and shook his head sadly. "And how," he asked with a voice of judgment, "are they treating Big Earl?"



I came to, convinced it was all a bad dream. I guess I need more sleep, or something.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I think this business owner had the right to kick these people out....whether they are gay, black, Mexican or whatever. But they also have to pay the consequences of such actions in a free-market.

If people really cared, they would stop going to that establishment. He goes out of business.....problem solved.

It's more important to guarantee the right to free-speech than it is a right to not be discriminated against.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
Well, on the bright side, it sounds like we've found a great way to get a free meal; go to a restaurant, eat dinner, canoodle a bit and voila!

You are asked to leave and leave quickly.

only in America........


Doesn't anyone even read the articles anymore??? It's no wonder the arguments just keep going on forever. Half the people here just comment without even reading the details about what's going on.

Nobody got a free meal. They ate then paid and on the way out they were asked to not come back because they were gay. No free lunch!! The American Way!!



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: James1982
I call it special treatment because that's what it is, certain groups getting treated special.


I never understood how making sure people are treated equally when it comes to goods and services is being "special"?

Do you really call black people "special"?

How about disabled people?

Christians?

Or is it only gays?


I call none of them special. The government does.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Brilliant!

Absolutely brilliant!







 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join