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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


And there are atheists and there are ATHEISTS.
There are Christians and there are CHRISTIANS.
There are feminists and there are FEMINISTS.
There are vegetarians and there are VEGETARIANS.

My only point is that there are fanatics in every group. And they're usually the ones who stand in the way of the group as a whole from being "accepted" as deserving, normal, worthy, EQUAL people in society. I just think that's an interesting and valuable point to consider.

I agree with you 100% but in this instance we are not debating any of those other groups, which I would have the same stance as my post you are referencing to.

originally posted by: rom12345

PDAs from homosexuals, feels creepy to me.
perhaps this is my deviance.

People praying, thanking God for their food in public restaurants creeps me out. I'm sure some people would find it endearing.

Two gay men sitting across from each other in a public restaurant, one has his legs stretched across with his feet in the others lap. I find it endearing. It is something I have actually seen from both gay and straight couples. It is not a behavior exclusive to this gay couple.

Oh, I'm sure Big Earl's mind was in overdrive imagining more was going on. A whispered few words might have ended the issue: "Gentlemen, I don't want to insult you, or make you feel uncomfortable, but could you please put your feet down. It could be misinterpreted".

This was about discrimination.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Oh, yeah, I know. I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was just expanding your point to cover pretty much all of society.

a reply to: Annee

I agree completely. I don't really understand why some people think they have a right to see only what they want to see in this world and to legislate against behavior that they find "creepy" or unseemly. I would never support a law that would outlaw a person praying in public, even though I don't like to see it.

I believe that the core of what I find amiss with our society is that religion (result of a conscious choice) is not only a protected class but is also constitutionally protected while sexual orientation (an inborn characteristic not unlike handedness or eye-color) is NOT protected uniformly from discrimination.

That says a lot about US, right there.

Doppleganger.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Oh, so, if the guy has a REASON to discriminate against people unfairly, that's okay then.

Don't we discriminate everyday? What is unfairly, I'm not sure, but it seems when we see it we know it. In this case they came in ate, paid their bill and for some reason were asked not to return. Were they the first gays to ever go into that restaurant? Have all other gays been treated the same there, go in, eat, pay their bill then asked to never come back?

Really, look around you. There are many groups on the extreme fringes ... gun-lovers and conspiracy theorists are two of them. Some people gathered in groups have vibrant behavior, some are loud, boisterous, fun-loving, etc.

Extreme behaviors are really not limited in any way to "gays" ... so, I'm afraid that, even if Big Earl has been trapped in the middle of a Pride parade, that doesn't justify a business owner that has chosen to serve the public behaving in this way nor condoning this kind of behavior.

People who are armed legally and responsibility are told all the time they can not use the services of an establishment, so are non-gay "vibrant behavior, some are loud, boisterous, fun-loving" behaviors too, so I'm not sure your point other than to say if it is gays then it is unfair.

Christians happen to make me shudder when I hear/see them praying in public. There are many Christians who exhibit extreme behavior (snake-handling, strychnine-sipping, yelling in unknown languages, etc.). It's okay for me to go up to them while they're saying grace and call them backwoods-inbred-idiots to their face then? I mean, that's the way I feel, and lot's of other folk feel the same way ... and ... well, these Christians are DIFFERENT than most people ...

So someone talking in a normal tone that happens to be praying makes you shudder? Does any talking in a normal tone make you shudder. What if someone needs to use the F bomb 4 times in every sentence (a hell of a lot more common than public praying) does that make you shudder too?

Now if some group started to dance around me with snakes I might not have too kind of words for them, just as we do not know what triggered the "we do not like fags" statement. Was it just blurted out or was there a confrontation and it was said in anger and frustration. We do not know a single thing the gay couple said so we assume they just smiles politely the whole time.

We seem to assume a lot to just fit our opinion, but as I said before I do not know, but I'm not going to jump around screaming gay discrimination just because gays were involved.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Church!

one thing i doubt i will ever understand is the support of hate and discrimination. i understand free speech and thought, i support it, and i would fight for anyone's.. but to willing support the mistreatment of people based on Sexuality is shameful

originally posted by: rom12345


There are vegetarians and there are VEGETARIANS.


Yea, and at these grill houses, no one likes a vegetarian.

You ever try and go out to eat with a true vegetarian.....not pleasant to say the lease...

ANY vegetarian ask me to go out and eat I will instantly discriminate and say no way!

originally posted by: Xtrozero
People who are armed legally and responsibility are told all the time they can not use the services of an establishment,

No, they are not. They are told they cannot bring their gun into the establishment. The PEOPLE are welcome. The gun is not.

I fully support banning fags from restaurants. Second-hand smoke can cause cancer. If you want to smoke a fag, step in front of the door. It can't be that friggin difficult. All these "civil rights" groups shouting discrimination get on my nerves.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Xtrozero
People who are armed legally and responsibility are told all the time they can not use the services of an establishment,

No, they are not. They are told they cannot bring their gun into the establishment. The PEOPLE are welcome. The gun is not.

Just like the clothing you wear and the behaviors we feel like doing... meet the establishment's standards and all is good.

The gay couple was welcomed but their behavior was not...so it seems, otherwise they would not have made it past the front door much less eat.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

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.

And anyone that spends money in your establishment is a good customer and should be treated with respect.

Actually it isn't just as good since they have a different goal which is to accept same gender love as something positive and they want people to have the same defintion of love. My definition is love exists as a sign to procreate, to make babies preferably in an eternal marriage.

Deal with them is like dealing with the devil. They don't have anything real, so the image of their dollar in their minds isn't real and must be made real each time one deals with them, or you'll have a bank account full of 'not real' money which isn't very convincing in the global trade market when dealing with countries who have anti gay laws. Which every country should have if only to be considerate and realistic since the countries who have made their choices are not going to settle for a lesser definition of love.

The same with McDonalds, you go eat there and you'll have sexual problems because of their slogan 'I"m lovin' it" where It I suspect refers to their food but love is for sex to make babies, not to be used to lure customers who then get all confused and shutdown mentally over time.

a reply to: jonny79

So love is only for making babies?. what about brotherly love? what about people who can't have kids can they not love?.

Oh and how is the year 1897? sorry but society is moving on from excluding people just because they are gay.

Amazing 1st post dude....pft.

a reply to: jonny79

I am very confused on your money explanation.... are you saying when gay people use money that it is not real because the love they have is not real???
And since a country has anti gay laws they won't take the money cause it is gay money, is that the same or worse then blood money?

And the mcdonalds theory is just beyond believe.... Not sure where you are coming from with that one

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Just like the clothing you wear and the behaviors we feel like doing... meet the establishment's standards and all is good.

The gay couple was welcomed but their behavior was not...so it seems, otherwise they would not have made it past the front door much less eat.

So according to the door sign at this establishment, a Lipstick lesbian would be welcomed, but a Butch lesbian would not.

Behavior issues aside.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well that's all fine and good and you have that right but a business owner also has the right to tell you not to swap spit in his establishment.

You wanting to show affection to your husband does not give you the right to show everyone in a privately owned property. When I go with friends to temple, I wear a Yalmuka (sp?) because "their house, their rules." I understand this and don't demand they change their beliefs and rules to accommodate me. If I found it onerous, I just wouldn't go. That is part of "live and let live" and demanding that people accommodate me is not.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well that's all fine and good and you have that right but a business owner also has the right to tell you not to swap spit in his establishment.

Yes, he does have that right. I was clear about that in my first post in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com... You came in in the middle of my discussion with someone else about the general display of affection in public and clearly do not understand the context of our discussion.

My position is that the business owner had every right to kick out the gay couple, because the laws of his state allow him to. It's still discrimination and it still makes me sick, but he is legally permitted to do so.

originally posted by: jonny79
My definition is love exists as a sign to procreate, to make babies preferably in an eternal marriage.

And just as you are permitted to have your own definition of love and marriage, so is everyone else. My definition of love has nothing to do with marriage or breeding.

Deal with them is like dealing with the devil.

You mean an imaginary boogie man?

They don't have anything real, so the image of their dollar in their minds isn't real and must be made real each time one deals with them, or you'll have a bank account full of 'not real' money which isn't very convincing in the global trade market when dealing with countries who have anti gay laws. Which every country should have if only to be considerate and realistic since the countries who have made their choices are not going to settle for a lesser definition of love.

On what planet is this brand of denial practiced?

The same with McDonalds, you go eat there and you'll have sexual problems because of their slogan 'I"m lovin' it" where It I suspect refers to their food but love is for sex to make babies, not to be used to lure customers who then get all confused and shutdown mentally over time.

Again... planet of origin?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My definition of love has nothing to do with marriage or breeding.

Nor mine. I actually consider love to be a responsibility, when you have a connection to someone you are responsible for and/or feel a responsibility for their well being.

Love is not Lust. Lust is the built in chemical reaction of attraction to propagate the species. It's very important to know the difference between Love and Lust.

Back on track, unfortunately discrimination of LGBT is not YET federally protected. I'm sure it will be at some point in time. LGBT protection is only in areas where someone made the effort for it to happen.

ThIs restaurant owner, in this area, is within his legal right to deny service/employment to LGBT. (Or ask them not to return).

originally posted by: Annee
LGBT protection is only in areas where someone made the effort for it to happen.

And this restaurant owner may have just shot himself and his community in the foot because now they will definitely be on the radar to change the laws there.