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.

 

Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


No, but if you are a recognized Religious Institution, then you are just as protected by the First Amendment as any individual. If you are a Muslim, you cannot force a Mormon Church to officiate your wedding. A Justice of the Peace (or whatever they may be called in your state) cannot refuse to marry anyone with a valid marriage license. A church on the other hand, may refuse to perform the same ceremony. The state cannot and should not dictate such things.




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well explain to me the difference between a restaurant not being allowed to refuse service to someone because they are gay and a church refusing to marry someone because they are gay?

Is it not a service for money?

Goods or services being exchanged for American Currency?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Businesses are not protected by the First Amendment, and are subject to the laws of the community, the state and the fed. In this case, the City of El Paso has an anti-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


My big problem is this with such laws. There was a case where a gay couple couldn't use a dating service and the fed forced them to. That's forcing people to change their business (by writing code), to appease to the fed's views.

That's my problem. The whole forcing to thing.

A business has a right to do what it wants in terms of conduct. I think racism should be the line, because that's someone's being hood. But being gay is no different then being straight, by, asexual, etc etc. And the fact remains that your sexual behavior is not to be forced upon anyone, so if a business does not want to service them, it's their right.

One of the cornerstones of western society is that there's more to life than sex and reproduction. So this should not be as important to protecting as race and gender, because those are formal parts of the species that cannot be held against someone. Sexuality is not suppose to be equal to who the individual is. It's your private matter, not something you should be allowed to use as a shield behind or something.

This rise of sexual patriotism is utterly ridiculous and prone to civil decay. Putting sex and reproduction as the corner stone of society puts us backwards.

Sex is not suppose to be that thing that glues society together. Society is. Individuals working together to better themselves and the general public is suppose to be there.

When you put sex as something to legislate and protect and do anything with, you run into very dangerous waters.


It should be simply this. Your sexuality does not matter from the federal government. You can marry, have full rights, and go on your marry way. But the individual of a business should have a right to direct conduct in his property as he sees fit. If he does not want homosexual activity in his bar, it's his right, as it is his property and his building for which he can legislate as he wishes, so long it doesn't go against the individuals rights. Sex, being something that needs more than one people, is not individual rights. Even masturbation falls under this category as well, as a hypothetical individual is present anyway, so there's still more than one person, by proxy.

If an individual does not want masturbation, or self love, in his bar, it;s his right. If he doesn't want homosexual behavior, it's his right. If he doesn't want heterosexual behavior, it's his right. But if he doesn't want blacks, or Hispanics in his bar, that is racism and not allowed, as it violated the individuals right.


Well, that's how I view it.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I don't think that was fair either. There are plenty of Gay dating services. But this is not comparable to a restaurant, who's business is to sell food. The dating service in question was targeting a specific demographic. But I see your point.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I know, but there's stuff like clothing codes and hair codes that some restaurants have. Sexuality falls into the same category as clothing style. It's how we reflect ourselves onto others. So That's what I'm getting at.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Like I said before,

I don't pretend to approve of Homosexuality,
If they want to be gay, they can be, who am I to argue,
but they should show a little respect for others out in public


and if that makes me a bigot then I'm a bigot.

I don't approve of things like incest, does that make me a bigot too?
I don't approve of lots of things and I bet you do too,

since when was it fround upon to have an oppinion?

the owner runs the buisness, if he don't want Homosexuals in there, he has the right to kick them out. simple as that!


how many of you anti-bigotry pro-gay ppl on here touting things like "Religion should be abolished!" I bet most of you do.

everyone is a bigot to some degree.

take your head out of your bum! please










[edit on 12-7-2009 by TrentReznor]

[edit on 12-7-2009 by TrentReznor]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Homosexuality is such a dirty and degenerate phenomenon. People today accept homosexuality because they have lost their moral standards. They don't know how human beings should behave anymore. If there truly is a God, do you really think he would accept homosexuality?

One doesn't need much thinking to understand that homosexuality is so unatural. Sex between male and a female has a function, to produce an offspring. When the penis penetrates the vagina, the purpose it to create an offspring. The function of the anus is not to be penetrated. Doesn't this show how unatural homosexuality is? If all of mankind would be homosexual, mankind would die out (not counting science).

If the decline of mankinds moral standards continues to fall like it has done the last 100 years, within 20 years pedophilia will be accepted. Nowadays some pedophiles say they are sexually attracted to children, they are trying to rationalize their evil and demonic behavious. Do you think that should be allowed too? Should that kind of so called "love" be allowed to exist?

Don't you realize that pedophiles today speak in exactly the same way about pedophilia just like homosexuals did about homosexuality 20 years ago?

[edit on 12-7-2009 by nau310d]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Interesting that EVERY TIME you talk about gay people, you only talk about gay men and their deviant sexual behavior. You can't say that gay woman have this deviance because fit the definition no matter which way you will probably try to twist it.

And this throws your entire argument out the window.

And how does anyone, including YOU know that being gay is not natural?? Homosexuality has been around for as long as history allows us to know. Homosexuality is exhibited even in the animal kingdom.

Lastly, you keep trying to say that gays are trying to legislate their fetish? Wanting to marry someone you love or serve in the military so that you can fight and possible die for your country is NOT a fetish. There would be no reason for a gay to marry if it were simply a fetish, yet it's interesting that they want to betroth themselves to one person for the rest of their life and enter into a legal contract recognized by the state so they can enjoy the same benefits that everyone else who gets to spend the rest of their life with the person they LOVE. Who cares if they want to marry? It HURTS NO ONE!



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nau310d
 


Yes, I know it’s terrible about paedophilia. 20 years you say? In that case something needs done about the huge percentage of heterosexuals (with ‘evil and demonic behaviours’) that commit crimes against children. As it is mainly a heterosexual problem, what do you suggest?
I know I am repeating myself ad nauseam, but as people don’t read…here goes… Anal sex is practiced by a large percentage of heterosexuals…so with your argument are you really saying that heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, dirty and degenerate?
Yes, indeed….very little thinking….



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by nau310d
 


Yes, I know it’s terrible about paedophilia. 20 years you say? In that case something needs done about the huge percentage of heterosexuals (with ‘evil and demonic behaviours’) that commit crimes against children. As it is mainly a heterosexual problem, what do you suggest?
I know I am repeating myself ad nauseam, but as people don’t read…here goes… Anal sex is practiced by a large percentage of heterosexuals…so with your argument are you really saying that heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, dirty and degenerate?
Yes, indeed….very little thinking….


I'm not saying that heterosexuality is "unnatural, abnormal, dirty and degenerate". Anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals because the moral standards of society has fallen the last 100 years. People don't know the difference between good and bad and society is in chaos. That is why anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals.

But homosexuality is "unnatural, abnormal, dirty and degenerate". If Gods exist they would definitly not acknowladge homosexuality. Why do you think aids was created? It was to mostly eliminate homosexuals and heroine addicts.

Also, I don't think pedophilia is mainly a heterosexual problem, you see that most pedophiles are men and like to rape young boys, which makes them homosexuals/pedophiles. For me and many others, they are the same thing: A product of abnormal and degenerate behaviour.

You ask me what can be done? Well in the past, when human society degenerated, most of humankind was eliminated by some kind of disaster and society had to be created from the beginning. That is the way it has always been. Mankind has been destroyed countless times and re-created, mostly because of the moral decay.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by nau310d]

[edit on 12-7-2009 by nau310d]

[edit on 12-7-2009 by nau310d]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


My big problem is this with such laws. There was a case where a gay couple couldn't use a dating service and the fed forced them to. That's forcing people to change their business (by writing code), to appease to the fed's views.

That's my problem. The whole forcing to thing.

A business has a right to do what it wants in terms of conduct. I think racism should be the line, because that's someone's being hood. But being gay is no different then being straight, by, asexual, etc etc. And the fact remains that your sexual behavior is not to be forced upon anyone, so if a business does not want to service them, it's their right.

One of the cornerstones of western society is that there's more to life than sex and reproduction. So this should not be as important to protecting as race and gender, because those are formal parts of the species that cannot be held against someone. Sexuality is not suppose to be equal to who the individual is. It's your private matter, not something you should be allowed to use as a shield behind or something.

This rise of sexual patriotism is utterly ridiculous and prone to civil decay. Putting sex and reproduction as the corner stone of society puts us backwards.

Sex is not suppose to be that thing that glues society together. Society is. Individuals working together to better themselves and the general public is suppose to be there.

When you put sex as something to legislate and protect and do anything with, you run into very dangerous waters.


It should be simply this. Your sexuality does not matter from the federal government. You can marry, have full rights, and go on your marry way. But the individual of a business should have a right to direct conduct in his property as he sees fit. If he does not want homosexual activity in his bar, it's his right, as it is his property and his building for which he can legislate as he wishes, so long it doesn't go against the individuals rights. Sex, being something that needs more than one people, is not individual rights. Even masturbation falls under this category as well, as a hypothetical individual is present anyway, so there's still more than one person, by proxy.

If an individual does not want masturbation, or self love, in his bar, it;s his right. If he doesn't want homosexual behavior, it's his right. If he doesn't want heterosexual behavior, it's his right. But if he doesn't want blacks, or Hispanics in his bar, that is racism and not allowed, as it violated the individuals right.


Well, that's how I view it.


You are refusing to address the issue of a MIXED RACE COUPLE being denied service. You blatantly ignored it or maybe did not think to address it.

So Not allowing a Black/White couple in the bar is LEGAL? Isn't that based on SEX more than RACE?

They are together because of SEX. They were not BORN to love someone of the opposite race according to your viewpoint.



[edit on 12-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


That actually never entered my mind because I don't think that way.


Not allowing interracial couples is not about sex. It is one's viewpoints that two different people shouldn't be together. This still violated the individual's rights, as it discriminates their personal self. Weather they love a black or white person is not related to the fact that the owner is saying he doesn't believe race X is equal enough to be one with their race.

This is still discriminating the individual, and therefore should not be allowed.


It doesn't matter if they are together or not. The fact still remains that the owner is discriminating the individual based on their skin color, not their sex.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think you are trying to say it should be allowed for the restaurant to refuse service to someone because of their choice in who they choose for a mating partner but it should NOT be allowed to refuse service to someone because of their Race?

But to refuse someone service because of the choice in mating partner based on Race rather than choice of mating partner based on Sex is different somehow?

I think this is boiling down to you saying that being gay is a choice and being black is not a choice.

This is what will always continue to cause a problem.

Accepting that gays can be born gay.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nau310d
 





If Gods exist they would definitly not acknowladge homosexuality. Why do you think aids was created? It was to mostly eliminate homosexuals and heroine addicts.


Shame on you! I cannot believe you wrote that. I do hope that one day you see the light and repent for your sinful use of words and disgraceful thought processes...and awake from the brainwashing that has obviously been so effective.
May you be forgiven for your ignorance.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I get the feeling that if it was a man and woman, this would have not happened. No one wants to be up front with this but I think the majority of people are not ok with homosexuals showing affection in public.

When two men are kissing in public alot of people are going to be bothered by that. Its a cold and harsh truth. I don't see society changing its views any time soon.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I have no prob with gays but I don't want to see ANYONE kissing in public. Not straight people, not gay people. I think its gross. I'd never kiss my wife in public in front of people, because that is rude, no one wants to see that. I don't like seeing other people make out, so i'm sure most other people wouldn't wanna see me make out with my wife either lol.

and by the way, I've seen some of you in here say some absolutely HORRIBLE things about gay people and stuff, grow the hell up.

I've seen you guys say only gays have sex for fun, when all straight people just have sex to reproduce. I swear someone actually said this pretty much. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Everyone has sex for fun and anyone who says they don't is lieing or they just don't enjoy sex. I know I'm a normal warm blooded male and I have sex with my wife for fun. We have a kid and my wife just got pregnant again, but every time we have sex is not to conceive. And anyone who says they only have sex for this reason is fooling themselves.

Also straight people do all the same sexual acts that gay people do just so you know.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Don't assume. I know gays are born gay.

The question is not if they can come in being gay. The question is if they can come in showing their gay by means of showing of affection. Now you can't force someone to change their skin color if you're disgusted, but you can force them not to kiss another man/woman if you find it disgusting.

It's passive vs actions.

That's what it boils down to. Conduct. And in which case the owners of a business can direct the conduct of his business.

It's no different if a store doesn't want it's employ's cursing, wearing draggy clothes, or having no tattoos.

The fact remains that you cannot hold someone accountable for their passive qualities, but you can for their active qualities.

Looking back, I did make it seem that simply being gay can be enough for an owner to ban it. Forgive me for my own bad wording. But that's like a thought crime. You can't throw someone out for thinking gay thoughts. That's ridiculous. But you can throw them out for actively partaking in gay actions, as it is all part of a store's code of conduct.

That's what I'm talking about.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Aids was created to kill gays and heroin addicts? lmao. Wow now that is really out there, even for something on a conspiracy site. Any proof what so ever to back this up? Probably not. lol

And some of you seem to not know the difference between a fetish and a sexual orientation.LOL I swear some of you have no education what so ever. I guarantee all of you whether you are straight or gay have some kind of fetish. A fetish is NOT a sexual orientation, big, BIG difference. All a fetish is is a certain thing someone is attracted to, or a certain thing that turns them on. People have leg fetishes, foot fetishes, breast fetishes, every kind you could think of! Its not a sexual orientation and I have no idea how some of guys get this confused lol. And fetishes are also completely normal and natural (unless you are someone who doesn't embrace their sexuality and doesn't like sex). Everyone is attracted and turned on by different things, nothing wrong with that, its normal.



[edit on 12-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Well, when I'm out in the West Texas Town of El Paso.......
I suspect I should take an El Paso on kissing another guy.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" - Seinfeld

These are the times we live in folks. All change takes time.
It shouldn't but realistically not everybody gets to the station
at the same time. Bible thumpin', conservative Texas would
be one of the places I would expect will arrive late to the "man
on man public kissin' party". Wouldn't you? Man on horse, not
so bad....

San Fran? No problemo. NYC? Well if you can put up with the cat calls
of "What? No tongue?" No problem. But Texas? I think this was a rather
mild reaction by historical Texas standards. Not an excuse just an opinion.
Hopefully, they'll catch up. Incidents like this can speed the process.
The guards and cops were cretins but that wasn't unexpected.

Good post. You've gotta know where things stand. And no, I've checked and
my wife says no kissing guys for me especially in El Paso. Heck, I can barely
get HER to kiss me in "La Cocina".

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" - Seinfeld




top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join