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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
- Blacks out of the pools.
- Gays out of the restaurants.






You were one who introduced the race dynamic to the topic by insinuating that one had anything at all to do the with other, I only took what you started and ran with it.


If you dont want to go there then don't bring it up



As for the 5,000 word wrambling that you posted last, I will simply concede to you that everyone does have a right to do and say as they see fit. It doesn't mean we all have to agree with it.

Everyone has an opinion on the subject and people will always differ on their own perspective. Some see two gay men kissing and think "awww isnt that special"...and others see it and are disgusted and offended.

To each his own...all I am suggesting is a little self control and respect for those around you.




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
First and foremost, these gay men were in El Paso, Texas. They were both Hispanics and public displays of male homosexual activity amongst Hispanics is considered culturally offensive in the extreme. El Paso is also one the most Catholic cities in the US. That said, there's still a good-sized GLBT community in El Paso/Juarez/Las Cruces area as there are almost 2 million people living in the area. There probably a dozen or more bars and restaurants that cater exclusively to the GBLT community as there are in any urban area in the US. I'm guessing that this gay male couple were probably drinking and could have easily been arrested for drunk in public. The security staff could have asked them to refrain from such activity or leave in a less offensive manner but done is done.

To all you Texas haters out there, you can kiss our collective behinds because we don't care what you think nor do you care what we think of you. The so-called execution of the mentally retarded inmate was a pure legal ploy by the defense team to keep Oliver Cruz alive after raped and murdered Kelly Donovan, a USAF member who stationed at Kelly AFB. Do you remember her, Cruz's victim? Guess not. Cruz stabbed her 20 times after kidnapping and raping her. Cruz wasn't retarded, he was an evil, lazy bastard who fooled a lot of people by playing dumb. This wasn't a single act of impulse, it was one of a long line of violent offenses he'd committed including shooting at a man with a shotgun. My the Creator have mercy on Cruz's soul because he won't get it from me. Is Texas's system of justice perfect? No. Neither is yours where murderers and pedophiles get to walk around still breathing while their victims are dead or permanently scarred.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Lustful expression is not love and intimate expressions should not be public displays by anyone. Even more so when it is a depraved and misguided behavior. A restaurant that tolerates such displays would loose my business and the business of the majority of their customers. The restaurant has acted just as it should. If there is one of those restaurants near me I'd consider patronizing it.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Lustful expression is not love and intimate expressions should not be public displays by anyone. Even more so when it is a depraved and misguided behavior. A restaurant that tolerates such displays would loose my business and the business of the majority of their customers. The restaurant has acted just as it should. If there is one of those restaurants near me I'd consider patronizing it.


But it is your opinion that it is "depraved and misguided behavior."
The rest of the natural world would seem to disagree with you.

I personally find prejudice such as yours to be depraved and misguided.
And yet, I'm not trying to make you into a second class citizen. I want you to have your opinions and beliefs. I want you to be able to eat wherever you choose to eat. I disagree with you completely, and yet I'm not trying to strip you of your civil rights.

See how that works?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Having read these brutish, bigoted, ignorant and spiritually diminished diatribes from so called ‘normal’ people, I want no part of ‘normal’. Bear in mind that it is heterosexual men who murder more people than either women or gays. It is heterosexual men who are evidentially more aggressive and violent. It is heterosexual men who commit 80-95% (depending which statistics you read) of all paedophilic acts, often on their own children. It is heterosexual men who start and perpetrate wars. It is heterosexual men who rape women. It is heterosexual men who abuse their wives to a horrific extent. It is heterosexual men who engage in most sexual perversions. It seems to be the heterosexuals speaking here who are apparently spiritually in the dark ages. So you can keep ‘normal’…and insert animalistic. So how is that right? What gives you such a sense of entitlement? Who are you to say how anyone else should live if they are not hurting you? Gay people are being killed all over the world every day just for being who they are and how they were born. Is this really how you feel the world should be? Just because a large percentage of people believe in something doesn’t make it good or right. Would you like to have abuse shouted at you when you walked down the street just because you were holding your girlfriend’s hand? Would you like the police called just because you gave your girlfriend a kiss in a restaurant? Or get beaten to a pulp by some gay thugs just because they realised you were heterosexual. Ever wondered why that does not happen? Tolerance maybe…more evolved?
Quite a lot of heterosexual ‘normal’ men seem to need civilising before entitlement to being part of any society. So forget one 3 second kiss on the lips and maybe worry about whether your own opinions and behaviour is in itself civilised before you condemn anyone else.
I realise this will fall on deaf ears but its way past time for some heterosexual men to evolve. Some are so brainwashed into believing what daddy told them was ‘right’. Some are so brainwashed that they believe the world is all there is and as it seems. Some are so in the world that they cannot see at all. Some don’t get being in the world but not of the world.
Of course it may just be an intelligence issue having read ‘homosexuals get haemorrhoids’…



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaisyAnne

Originally posted by John Matrix


Your first error is that you equate homosexuals with the black race. Homosexuals are not a race. Your reasoning is an insult to all races.


While you are correct in saying that homosexuals are not a race, I find the latter part of your sentence to be perplexing. Are you saying that homosexuality is insulting to all races? How exactly is it insulting?

I suppose the main thrust of my problem here is this:

If you dislike gay people, just come out and say it. Don't hide it behind any other "reasoning" because it is not reasonable. It's a prejudice. Plain and simple. If you have this prejudice, just have the decency to come out and say it. You have a right to think whatever you like. But you do not have the right to try and infringe on the rights of other human beings by classifying your prejudice as anything other than what it is.

I don't care whether or not you like gay people. I do care, however, if you think that your dislike gives you the right to legislate it.


Gays are not a race, but they want to be treated like they are a race. That's insulting to all races. I don't see why you don't get that statement.

Gays are found in all races, but Gays are not a race. They are a fetish group with a specific paraphilia. Should society and politicians pander to the cuckolds, the swingers, the bdsm community, too? What's next?

I don't want to legislate it, I want to stop Gays from using politics to get their own agenda past in legislature. They are 2% of the population that are getting in the face of the rest of us. All I would like is that they keep their dirty laundry at home instead of airing it in the public's face.

I don't hate Gays. As long as they leave me alone I leave them alone.
I wouldn't be best friends with one, but I could be on friendly terms.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


Your first error is that you equate homosexuals with the black race. Homosexuals are not a race. Your reasoning is an insult to all races.


You're right. Homosexuals are not a race. But they are a group of people who are discriminated against simply because they are "different". All people's deserve to be treated equally. I believe that was the point the poster you were responding to was trying to make.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Gay people are awesome. I can't wait till they take over the world and implement their agenda to force all our kids to watch serialized dramedies and wear feather boas. The world will be a better place, trust me.

I'm rooting for the two guys who got kicked out. Hopefully they'll get even somehow, sometime.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Oh Yes, Gays are so much more civilized, intelligent and refined than normal hetero sexual people. If you could just rid the world of all us normal men and women it would be so much fun....it would be....well...just one big Gay Mardi-Gras with all the boys speaking with their sissy lisps.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by John Matrix


Your first error is that you equate homosexuals with the black race. Homosexuals are not a race. Your reasoning is an insult to all races.


You're right. Homosexuals are not a race. But they are a group of people who are discriminated against simply because they are "different". All people's deserve to be treated equally. I believe that was the point the poster you were responding to was trying to make.


They already have the same rights as me. But they want more than that. They want their paraphilia to have rights....marriage rights...etc.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


We are not a race, but we are a minority. That was the point. It is never acceptable for the majority to force it's will on the minority. As I have stated before, ad nauseum, this country was founded on the rights of the individual, not the will of the majority. If you doubt this, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I would also state that there is only one race, the Human Race!



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


Now you are placing us all into the stereotype. Most of us are not 'Sissy Marys', as apparently you seem to think.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
They are a fetish group with a specific paraphilia.


I believe you are mistaken:

Source


Paraphilia: One of several complex psychiatric disorders that are manifested as deviant sexual behavior. For example, in men the most common forms are pedophilia (sexual behavior or attraction toward children) and exhibitionism (exposing one's body in public setting). Other paraphilias include compulsive sexual behavior (nymphomania and priapism), sadism, masochism, fetishism, bestiality, and necrophilia


Are you suggesting that being homosexual is limited to sexual desires? I would have to respectfully disagree with you. People who are homosexual actually LOVE their partners. It's not about the sex. This is a very common misconception built on ignorance.

Do you honestly believe that people who have been in a relationship with their partner of the same sex for years and years merely have a mutual sexual deviant fetish?

Also from Wikipedia:


Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders, as a replacement for the legal constructs of sodomy[4] and perversion.[5] They previously listed homosexuality as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I and DSM-II), but they removed it in the 1980 version of the DSM-III. That edition describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:

1) nonhuman objects, or
2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
3) children or other nonconsenting persons."


Once again, not only are you using decades old data to promote a misconception, but you are limiting homosexuality to sexual acts. And, aside from sodomy (but that only applies to males, not females), these definitions in no way suggest that being homosexual is a psycological disorder.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


If they don't have the right to marry the person they are in love with then they most certainly do NOT have the same rights as you and me.

Edit:

The only "agenda" they have is to be able to marry. Does it really bother you that much? If so, can you please illuminate me on how it violates any part of your own individual rights? I honestly want to know.'

We can't give them that ONE right that will make them happy and make them, as many people might label it, stop trying to shove their homosexuality in our faces?

Oh, wait. I failed to bring up the right TO SERVER THEIR OWN COUNTRY.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
A few years ago, I was at the beach and noticed what I had thought was some middle to late aged man with I thought was his daughter. Then they stopped and leaned against a large rock and started kissing.

That to me, just didn't look right and I was confused and annoyed about it if not just plain jealous. I have heard of older and younger generations together and many, just as most couples do, get hurt when one of them gets bored and moves on.

There are areas, such as San Francisco where it's tolerated or more common. I suppose many just get used to it and ignore it. Just like the homeless asking for change? idk

I would think these people would have more respect for others not to if it offends them. So, respect goes both ways. Just as I would feel very uncomfortable with a black or other race as a date in an enviroment where people don't like it and let you know some of the worst ways, such as in Texas.

I was told a few years ago by some guy at a truck stop who I could or couldn't marry. I'm not sure who they were and who was sending me the message, but it still bothers me. They did, however, say I could marry an American indian or even a Jew. WTH?

Sopranos had a couple of programs about intolerance and it seemed true to life in some respects, but still questionable.


I'd just asume have a private booth in a restaurant when I went out and would still feel uncomfortable even kissing my date or wife there or in public anyway. I don't like people staring at me when I'm eating either.

Some apparently haven't any modesty and prefer the shock value of it, rather than just a form of protest. So, it's seen as disrespectful.

What if that restaurant had mostly gay patrons and owners?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


I always love this logic: It's ok to be gay as long as you stay in the closet.


Yeah well I doubt it was just a peck on the lips and one things gays LOVE to do is go to businesses displaying affection for their lover going overboard to "test the that business's tolerance" and I have seen it. The have imposed their specialness and sexualness in ways that would piss anyone off. They just do stuff like this to piss people off, E-harmony the Christian online dating service, was sued by gays


June 02, 2007
The Gay Lobby Takes on eHarmony
By Ross Kaminsky

A lawsuit filed by a Northern California lesbian against dating service eHarmony represents the types of excesses of the gay movement which do so much damage to their efforts to achieve public acceptance.

According to the Reuters article linked above, eHarmony "has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a 'men seeking men' or 'women seeking women' option."

Before getting down to more subtle arguments, let me say this: This lawsuit should be thrown out of court immediately, with the plaintiffs forced to pay any legal fees that eHarmony had incurred preparing for the case. But I fear it will not be.

eHarmony is a dating service founded by religious Christians who have done a lot of research on what makes heterosexual dating successful and likely to lead to marriage.


If they got to make out in a restaurant where people are eating and Ill bet the gay couple were just laughining there asses off as people, especially elderly were blowing chunks of whatever it was on senior special that day.

The Restaraunt probably experienced some customers leaving because of the public display of french kissing and were probably told to get a room where they would have laughed and continued setting the place up for a tolerance test. They do it at a lot of places and people are sick of it and I mean that in the literal sense.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I think we should let homosexuals do whatever they want. Get married, make out in public, have sex in public, make babies with whatever body part they can scrape a little DNA from... Anything. We have repressed them for years so now its there time to shine.


Have you ever asked yourself why Homophiles were repressed all those years? Maybe there was good reason, but like many others, you've just become too indoctrinated to figure it out. Here's a few clues.

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy.

The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

A study reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals. Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men. Other potentially fatal ailments such as anal cancer, tuberculosis and hepatitis also affect gay and bisexual men disproportionately.

When the median age of death is less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality (National Institute of Health), it seems logical that a majority of society would have a natural aversion to such an unhealthy practice.

It's ironic that those who hold this belief are denounced as "homophobic", with the implication that they're suffering from a debilitating sickness or an irrational fear.

Maybe the heteros should be the ones charging the Homophiles with discrimination, intolerance and slander.

Carrie Prejean would surely have a case against the woman-hater Perez Hilton, who slammed her because she had the morals and the backbone to voice her opinion to a question he posed her.

John McKeller, President of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) has publicly stated he staunchly opposes gay activism and the "marriage" of two men to be lawfully considered the same as the union of man and woman. Not likely you'll hear anyone attempt to label this man a "homophobe". It proves that the intended definition of the term is flawed and erroneous.

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. Numerous studies throughout North America and Europe show that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general as well as homosexuals themselves, the very individuals some contend would be helped.

Homophile activists like Perez Hilton should think about where they'd be now if their parents had made the same lifestyle choices that they want the rest of society to tolerate and adopt.

Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.
www.massresistance.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Back when I was in school kids would be disciplined for kissing in the hallway. It had nothing to do with being gay. I think pretty much all established businesses would kick any couple out for kissing in a certain way regardless of sexual orientation if it was getting too romantic.

And in any case if a restaurant really does do something improper the thing to do is not go there any more (instead of whining to the government). I'd encourage everyone to research the policy of ostracizing instead of getting violent over everything. Personally I like no-kissing restaurants and I'd rather go to those. There is a difference between a peck on the cheek and a romantic kiss though.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13

The only "agenda" they have is to be able to marry. Does it really bother you that much? If so, can you please illuminate me on how it violates any part of your own individual rights? I honestly want to know.'

We can't give them that ONE right that will make them happy and make them, as many people might label it, stop trying to shove their homosexuality in our faces?

Oh, wait. I failed to bring up the right TO SERVER THEIR OWN COUNTRY.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by nunya13]


Marriage isn't a right and it isn't a right guaranteed by the constitution. It is something you have to "qualify" for like a drivers license and is NOT a right. What makes gays think they qualify for marriage between a man and a woman? Age and they have to pass a blood test and not be a blood relative in the immediate family like you can't marry your sister and yes EVEN if you're inlove with her. Blind? No drivers license. 12 years old? No Drivers license. Already married to one person? No marriage license and being in love don't matter. Gay's? No one is saying they can't marry, If they are old enough and can find somone of the opposite sex that will have them, they are just as free to marry as anyone else so the rules are the same for everyone.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest


And in any case if a restaurant really does do something improper the thing to do is not go there any more (instead of whining to the government).


Yeah ya see but that's the point, Gays have to be a victim class so they can get all this special legislation passed they want and they push peoples buttons and pisses people off. I doubt this was a simple kiss either I have seen what they do and it is deplorable and if anyone says anything about it they are haivng the ACLU and GLBT sueing you for hate crimes and calling you a bigot a hater. Many are at the point where that is just where its gonna get and no one is going to give a rats ass about their specialness anymore. Case in point the miss America fiasco. another setup . They knew that girl was a down home born again christian ans that gay judge set that whole things up as a loaded question .



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join