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

originally posted by: charles1952
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.

Well played, good sir. Well played.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I take no offense so there is no need to ask forgiveness. Some of the Jeff Foxworthy litmus testing redneck jokes apply to me. I don't mind, I laugh.

I just think it is a good parallel to make with te signs as neither Earls nor the other stores with dress codes are baring people for who they are, but they both have a standard of conduct they require.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Telos

Why would it be sacrilege? Why would I consider it sacrilege? Have you even read any of my posts?

Good god almighty, some people...

Every single one of them., Have you read mine though? Because you're attacking me for absolutely no reason. Relax sir, homosexuality and gay rights are safe even without your hysterical rhetoric.

a reply to: Telos

You're the one who had a crack at me. I have no idea why you felt the overwhelming desire to jump on any of my posts, but jump you did and here we go.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Telos

You're the one who had a crack at me. I have no idea why you felt the overwhelming desire to jump on any of my posts, but jump you did and here we go.

Ok sir, since our "bickering" is not bringing anything productive to the thread, I'm not commenting anymore with you. How ever in my defense I didn't jump on your posts I just was a bit impressed (in a wrong way) by your choice of words toward the owner. And I repeat, since you're gay you are aware what it means to be called names and be judged. Therefore shouldn't be doing (logically) what you wouldn't want to be done to you.

If in any way you felt offended by my post than I retract it. That being said, I do believe that civilization began when instead of a rock, man cast a word. Which in turn if it used inappropriately can hurt more than the rock.

Peace

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I'll jump in on this...

From Charles' post:

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

Sounds like judgment and intolerance of other posters to me. He's being intolerant of people being intolerant of people being intolerant... and if I express intolerance of Charles' post... well, you get the idea. That could go on forever.

That brings up a good question: When is it OK to be intolerant?

If someone expresses intolerance of child rapists, do we call that person intolerant? No, because the vast majority of us agrees that child rape is WRONG and something we should not tolerate.

The discord comes when we talk about something like homosexuality, which some of us find intolerable and others (like myself) find not only tolerable, but completely acceptable and none of my business.

I find child rapists intolerable because they HURT other people. It's the same reason I find bigots intolerable. Now, people expressing their opinions DOES NOT hurt other people, yet Charles seems to be intolerant of them. Being gay also does not hurt other people, yet many (including charles, I believe) find them intolerable.

Where do we draw the line?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I said that it was well played. I didn't say I agreed with it. In all honestly, the same argument could be used to defend the Nazis, though perhaps not quite so eloquently.

I still can't help but wonder if this is getting blown way out of proportion. I believe there was a post that sort of expressed my thoughts: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: buster2010

You know, I have been on here a long time, and I only post from time to time, but I have noticed individuals, you included, always seem to talk like you are way more intelligent than everyone else. No reason for that smug reply. I read it, I understand it completely. My remark was "it could be argued".
I used to enjoy good debate and adding to good topics on this site, but with the smugness and attitudes people throw at you on here now, it is a waste of time.

So, did you find the words "it could be argued?" confusing?

It also goes on to describe the meaning of all persons. Sexual preference is not included in that.

, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Look, I don't don't agree with the owner of Big Earl's at all, unless they were being vulgar, but I do believe a person has a right to their beliefs and I have no right to tell them who they should sell to. Free market works just fine.

Remember recently the boycott of Chic-Fil-A ? It actually strengthened their sales if I remember correctly.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I believe there was a post that sort of expressed my thoughts: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, if only that poster's threads were all about Benghazi, the IRS and the VA (so-called "scandals" that he considers to be more important issues than civil rights of fellow citizens)... But the last one I saw was some silly progressive hit-piece about "banning bacon". Clearly, his priorities lie in Obama-bashing and progressive-bashing, which is SO important to our country today!!! :rolleyes:

And while some don't think equal rights in this country are deserving of a thread, or that threads about equal rights are "fluff pieces", many of us think it's one of the basic tenets of our country's founding principles and very worthy of a thread. All citizens means ALL CITIZENS. Not just the ones we agree with.

I have often wondered in instances like this why people don't use the members only rule to get around the backlash from such things. Make your business members only. Its up to you who can be a member or not. I see this in ethnic communities all of the time. I remember a restaurant in Tampa that would only serve Greeks. They managed to stay below the radar by making it members only and they just happened to only have Greek members.

Forgot to add that there are gay bars that operate on this model as well.


Not encouraging bigotry here. This members only thing has been used to get around alcohol sales on Sundays and other such issues.

originally posted by: Daz3d-n-Confus3d

Remember recently the boycott of Chic-Fil-A ? It actually strengthened their sales if I remember correctly.

I'd say major expansion and a good product has more to do with Chic-Fil-A then anything else.

The owner Dan Cathy went from donating two million dollars to anti-gay groups to donating ten thousand dollars to a Boy Scout group. So, yeah the boycott did work.

There is no problem, gays can go to Sodom ! near the dead sea. They can have a good time in Israel. I've heard there is a festival of gay pride near the dead sea in Israel.
It is the sign of end times that people of Sodom returns to the city of Sodom !!
The bitterness of my statements comes from the bitterness of the truth !

a reply to: alienjuggalo

You did read the article.

It is stated that the "couple" were acting inappropriately, regardless of sexual preference and were asked to leave because of that.

I, nor anyone else, must accept others and what they choose to do or be.

a reply to: macman

It had everything to do with sexual preference... Unless you chose to ignore the fag comment to better suite what you are getting at.

Do you complain to management at the establishments your are at when hetero couples show affection?
And yes, you do need to accept that other people are different then you, part of living in a free country. Don't like it, move to china.
We all deserve the right to life liberty and happiness, and deserve not to have that infringed upon because you don't agree with the lifestyle choices they make.
No you don't have to be their friends or associate with them, but you do need to accept that they are people as well.
How ever hard that is for you.

I guarantee you served with gay men, you may not have known it but I would bet my big toe on that

originally posted by: Sremmos80


It had everything to do with sexual preference... Unless you chose to ignore the fag comment to better suite what you are getting at.

The "Fag" comment was after the fact and was not quoted correctly.
I guess that you and others can read minds and feelings of others, instead of taking what someone says, instead of interjecting your own bias.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Do you complain to management at the establishments your are at when hetero couples show affection?

If it was in the same nature as what was described in the article? YES!!!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
And yes, you do need to accept that other people are different then you, part of living in a free country. Don't like it, move to china.

Oh really???
Please show me where I MUST accept others.
I would love to see this law.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
We all deserve the right to life liberty and happiness, and deserve not to have that infringed upon because you don't agree with the lifestyle choices they make.

The couples right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Not happiness by itself) was not infringed upon.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
No you don't have to be their friends or associate with them, but you do need to accept that they are people as well.
How ever hard that is for you.

I do not need or have to accept anyone.
Again, please show me this law where I must do this.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I guarantee you served with gay men, you may not have known it but I would bet my big toe on that

And I could personally care less what someone does behind closed doors.
Honestly, I really could care less.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You have it wrong.

People must acknowledge others for who they are however you can NOT force others to accept them.

What destroys the claim of discrimination in this case is they have already said everyone including homosexuals are welcome in their establishment, but everyone must conduct themselves accordingly.

If it can be proven that they would tolerate a strait couple playing footsy in their establishment without banning them then and only then can one show they were discriminated against.

What people here seem to be doing is saying the establishment must tolerate a behavior because they are gay. A behavior they wouldn't tolerate from anyone else. That is NOT equality.

a reply to: macman

you need to accept that they are people just like you and me.
I am not saying you need to accept them into your home and be best friends with them
But you do need to accept they have every single right that you do.
If you need a law then look up anti discrimination laws, shouldn't be to hard for you to find

The fag comment was taking out of context only in the wording.
They didn't say we don't like fags, just that they don't serve fags.
And it was not after the fact, it was said to them.

Cheney’s admitted his daughter told the couple the restaurant does not “like fags.”

Either way, it is still a jab at their sexual orientation....
And how was their liberty not infringed? They are not allowed back into that restaurant, so they do not have the liberty to make the choice to eat or not eat there
They got banned for their lifestyle choice that makes them happy...

Just another one of those "minor" issues, i.e. facts ...

The couple was not asked to leave, they were asked not to come back.

Stated reason? "We don't like fags."

The Cheneys (owners) could clear up the matter by showing the security tape of the couple's so-called inappropriate behavior, and yet, they refuse to do so.

Curious that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

But they do need to accept that they are people, no different from me or you. That is the point I am making that you two refuse to see apparently

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am fairly certain that for them to show or release the security footage would require consent from all parties at the dinner.

If not they would need to at least blur all the faces to protect privacy.

I could probably do it with my software, but I think many would need to pay someone. Is it worth it?