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

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Floydshayvious
So could I go there with my partner and pretend to be straight?

I can act pretty straight - I also like burgers and think Ron Swanson is one of the best friggin' characters ever.

Sure. Just make sure and do real man stuff so you don't get found out.

Stuff like scratching your balls, burp out loud, maybe rip a fart and laugh about it. Make sure to address the waitress as , "Pretty little thang" and invite her to "take a seat over here on daddies lap."

Wear some dirty jeans and cowboy boots that are all dusty and the biggest belt buckle you can find with an eagle on it.

You know stuff like that.

I am still keen on trying his ribs, but I also am unsure what he means by men being men. Should I write Big Earl a letter and ask him to tell me how to be one?

I'm all bumfuzzled, now! Should I carry an axe? Beat my wife? Oh damn, I'll need to get a wife, first and then beat her. I don't know if he likes the idea of wife beating, though so I should probably develop a racist personality to cover myself. Maybe I could just roll around in fish guts so he thinks I've been fishing. I could actually go fishing but I'm terrible and nothing ever bites. Oh my, this is a lot of trouble for ribs.

Are ribs on the menu?

Fk it, I'll get tacos. Sorry, Earl.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Oh I got your meaning crystal clear. I said I had a best friend that was gay and gave my opinion, you said you were gay and gave your opposite opinion. Honestly it doesnt take much to figure it out. I actually think you lost the plot a bit yourself.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

No, you just don't read.

Edit: Unless, perhaps you might like to make a brief point which I'd be happy to address?

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
.

This is from Big Carl's Facebook page, his own words:

The quote "we don't serve fags here" was never said, instead, after being badgered, the young lady said "We do not like fags".

So she did say it and she in no way regrets it either. Big Carl technically never said anything to them directly, but as the waitress is his daughter he's standing behind her while saying publicly that Gays are welcome, as long as they don't act Gay. What that means exactly isn't clear though.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Not that it will matter though because Big Earl I think just slit his own wrists on this one.

I happen to live not far from the town where Big Earl's place is located & I can assure you that any small amount of business that Big Earl loses, will be irrelevant compared to the business he will gain.

North East Texas is a long way from San Fransisco.

Now for an update on this situation. Looks like things are heating up and Big Carl's, or at least they might.

Texas Waitress Who “Doesn’t Serve Fags” Says Gays “Will Be Taken Care Of…We’re Ready For Them”

Big Earl is dealing with a massive influx of user reviews on Yelp hailing his restaurant, Big Earl’s, as “the greatest gay bar in Texas” and a “prime spot for a restroom beej.”

A local gay man named Kyle told CBS Dallas yesterday that many in the community are planning to frequent the restaurant to “embrace those people and to love them and hug them.” “I think the restaurant better learn to adapt or they will probably have to close their doors soon,” he said. Christina Cheney, the pompous waitress who initially enforced the restaurant’s anti-gay policy, issued a threat to the LGBT community in the same interview. She’s heard of the big gay plan to infiltrate her restaurant, and she wants the community to know that “they will be taken care of appropriately” if they come near her. “We are aware that they are attempting to come out here,” she said. “We’re ready for them; we have informed the Sheriff’s department and the state.”

Hmmm....This might get interesting. It might also get ugly as well. Personally, I don't think this is a very good way to handle this either. This is just bad form on all sides, or at least it seems to be heading that direction. We'll just have to see how it plays out to know for sure.

a reply to: took red pill

Honestly I hope it all works out ok for him actually. I don't think he should be run out of town or lose his business over something that technically his daughter said. Legally he is in the clear. Making this a social issue and if he's accepted in his community then so be it.

It seems that there may be some blow back heading his way from activists however and that was why I said earlier about him slitting his wrists on this one.

originally posted by: took red pill

originally posted by: mOjOm
Not that it will matter though because Big Earl I think just slit his own wrists on this one.

I happen to live not far from the town where Big Earl's place is located & I can assure you that any small amount of business that Big Earl loses, will be irrelevant compared to the business he will gain.

North East Texas is a long way from San Fransisco.

Seems a bit like the Lego movie, to me.

Here's a hypothetical: let's say that we have two straight male friends who just happen to be very trim and physically fit, have higher than average voices and GREAT fashion sense, let's call them Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted's wives took their rather large families (Bill has four kids and Ted has eight, they're Baptist and Catholic respectively) to Six Flags over Texas, and the boys, who have know each other since high school and regularly rough-house and play around with each other, decided to have a "guys night out."

Bill and Ted go into "Big Earls" because they're hungry. Big Earl's serves food to the public.

After a few minutes observation of the pair, the Cheney's, "knowing how to handle them homosexuals" descend on the table and demand that Bill and Ted leave and threaten them at gunpoint to do so* ... based on nothing more than what could be considered stereotypical and situational evidence.

Bill and Ted, both married with kids, good Christian men, don't understand why this would be happening to them.

Do you?

*For the sake of the narrative, I've assumed that the comment "we know how to handle 'em, and we've let the sheriff and state know" means they intend a Second Amendment solution to their problems.

a reply to: Gryphon66


Ooh, Ooh, pick me! Is it because the Cheneys and Big Earl are dicks?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Gryphon66


Ooh, Ooh, pick me! Is it because the Cheneys and Big Earl are dicks?

LOL ... I don't usually give extra points for being judgmental, but in this case ...

i think all businesses should do this. dont get me wrong im not racist or anything but i believe if its your company or business then you have full right to choose who you serve.
ideally everyone being treated equally would be great, but everyone has the right to their own belief and the population will never have a unified way of thinking.
the bad part about this report is that a business can get this kind of free coverage by enforcing their own personal beliefs
if you own your home, you can pick and choose who enters
i believe the same should go for if you own your own business

a reply to: Gryphon66

I thought about this as well. Again, they would technically still be legally allowed to ask them to leave. Once again making this whole thing an issue of what is Socially acceptable.

IMO, unless these two guys were actually causing a problem to the extent that it made other customers leave or caused Carl to lose money or something then No, I don't think they should be asked to leave. I think anyone who expects everyone to act in a certain way which isn't even specified other than a vague sign, is simply being an unrealistic control freak and an A-Hole.

I mean we all have to interact with other people in this world. We don't all act or think the same in this world either. So to actually live your life thinking you don't have to interact with people you find strange or different than yourself is just stupid. We all have to interact with people different from us. Now, we can either bitch about it and try and change everyone or we can deal with it and adapt so that some kind of common ground can be reached. That doesn't mean you have to be friends with them or do what they do or anything like that. But you should at least give others the same freedom to be themselves as the freedom you get to be yourself. Even though that might mean letting some Gays be Gay as well as letting some A-holes be A-holes. Then it's a matter of deciding how much of those "Personality Freedoms" are allowed to express themselves.

For example, I can handle a little PDA regardless of it being Gay or Straight, but I don't want either to be humping on my table.

I can handle the cranky old man who hates everything, but I draw the line when he get's up in my face or threatens others.

I can handle the kinda bitchy high maintenance chick and her complaining but all that ends when she gets too demanding...

when ""Normal"" American's protest they are seen as "True American's" fighting oppression. when Minorities or other non "Normal" groups protest they are "Whining" pushing an "Agenda" wasting the time of "America"

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm actually unclear what the exact behavior was but I thought it was just touching legs?

So far, it isn't very clear. Legs were touching, and some one said one guy was half up under the table,toward the other, or something like that. No official details, though. The restaurant said the behavior was out of line, however, and I don[t see any reason to doubt them. Some people simply don't act appropriately in public. That goes for any sort of couple. Just because these two were both guys, that doesn't mean it's some special issue in this case. I figure they acted up, because of what t he sign said, just to push the limits. Some people do that. Then, when told they couldn't return, they probably badgered the waitress till she made a comment they found to be insulting.

People do act up in public places, and most, when told to knock it off, act even worse. I have seen it more than once. Moms that won't make their kids behave (that time, the cops were called and removed them), people drunk and way too loud (management there wouldn't even speak to them, which ticked off every other customer there), and so forth. Here, two guys acted out, and they want it to be about their preferences, when it's about their behavior.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

I'm glad to see you again. Please rest assured that I still hold you in the highest esteem and am looking forward to a discussion in this rather unusual case.

I'm assuming that in this one, particular, case there is no controlling law requiring Big Earl to take any action or attitude. Is it correct that he can do, legally, pretty much what he wants with his restaurant (at least in the areas we're discussing here)?

I also assume that if he's doing something illegal, this will be taken care of in the courts. We can pick sides, but we're basically spectators. If he's not doing anything illegal, then don't we have some more fundamental issues to face?

If he can't be persuaded to change, and I think changing the opinions of someone in Texas named Big Earl will be an iffy proposition at best, where do we go?

Certainly, the Brendan Eich (sp?) path can be taken, get a man fired when his only offense was to donate $1000 to an unapproved cause.

Or, hundreds of gays could march around his restaurant dressed as male reproductive organs in prophylactic devices. That would probably hurt his business.

But are any of those the solutions that gays, who call for tolerance and acceptance of diversity, really want to use? If they're not, what should be done? Try to persuade government to force him to do what gays want?

I'm not trying to be a ---- oops, I already mentioned that two paragraphs ago. But really, is the "Movement" ( for want of a better word) going to go the persuasion and education path, or should it choose force and coercion?

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: Gryphon66
*For the sake of the narrative, I've assumed that the comment "we know how to handle 'em, and we've let the sheriff and state know" means they intend a Second Amendment solution to their problems.

Oh (blase) yay. Are the militias heading to Texas too? *rolls eyes

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

So, their bad behavior warranted them a ban. They should learn how to behave in public. Funny, isn't it,t hat they don't mention when the behavior occurred, that warranted the ban? So they ate, then misbehaved, and were told to pay and not come back. Did you expect them to eat for free because they couldn't act like civilized adults with manners?

NO!!! You were just told to read what happened yet still you refuse to do so and so you post incorrect information again!!

So let's get something straight, shall we???
You won't or don't put the effort to inform yourself of the details about this issue. Not even after 14 pages and two days of this thread and the info being available. Yet for some reason you come in here throwing your misinformed opinions around as if you're some authority. You don't even have the story correct yet!! Bringing nothing into the conversation would be bad enough but you are even worse by bringing in incorrect information which just adds and/or continues to confuse and muddy the whole issue. Why should anyone listen to you when you can't even take the time to inform yourself of the events like everyone else has done???

Using your hatred of Christians as an excuse for bad behavior makes you the intolerant one, not the Christians. Check page five, I think, for the actual facts on Christians and judgment. Link in one of my posts. The "judge not" business isn't what you want it to be.

If anyone is displaying a "Hatred of Christians" it is probably because self proclaimed christians like yourself continue to debate, judge and condemn others while doing so from a position of complete arrogance and ignorance. Just because you like to label yourself christian doesn't make you one and even if it did, who cares???? That neither makes you Superior to anyone else nor Correct in everything you say. There was almost nothing in about this issue that had to do with Christianity anyway. It was mentioned once, quoted from Big Carl and that's it. Why do you insist on making it the center of this???

I'm not trying to be mean or anything. This isn't personal, I don't even know you so how could it be?!?!? It's just frustrating sometimes repeating details that I thought were clear by this point.

How about you get it straight that all we have for what happened is their word against that of the restaurant owners and employees? You have video? Show it. You don't have any. You chose to believe that they did "nothing", and were banned for being homosexual. I choose to believe that they were acting inappropriately, and were told not to come back as a result. You don't have any evidence to refute my opinion. I certainly didn't bring anything religious into the discussion. I said if people behave badly in a business, the business has every right to tell those people they aren't welcome back. If that bothers you, that isn't my problem; it's yours. I didn't condemn them for their sexual preferences; I stated that if they were behaving badly, then they deserved the ban, same as ANY couple would. I even stated that if I behaved badly in a restaurant with my husband, we could easily get the exact same treatment, and rightly so.

HandyDandy brought up religion, when stating:

And yes Charles1952.....I have every right to be judgmental as I don't use the bible as my excuse.

My comment about that was directed to him, not to you.

You are frustrated because I don't believe the same thing you do, and I have a different opinion on what happened. I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours. That's why they are opinions. I believe the restaurant owners. You believe the couple. Neither can prove which is right and which is wrong, so being frustrated with me is pointless. Here is a hint for you - if this had been a guy and girl couple, I would side with the restaurant as well. Businesses don't ban people without good reason. I see no reason to assume this business is different simply because the couple in question happens to be comprised of two guys. Why are they special? Why should we automatically assume they did nothing wrong? Simply because they are a guy/guy couple? Nope, sorry. I don't decide things that way.

The details are not clear. They went in, ate, paid, and were banned for what the restaurant claims was bad ban behavior. They claim they did nothing. That's what we know. One side says this, and the other side says that. So, stop getting all bent out of shape because I happen to believe the business had good reason to ban paying customers.

a reply to: charles1952

Or even better--just ignore Big Earl and go somewhere else. Not everything must be a federal case, full of outrage, indignation, and protest.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Dear NavyDoc,

Thank you for your common sense and realism. But still, we must realize that it seems as though everything must be made "a federal case, full of outrage, indignation, and protest."

Please indulge my idle speculation. This is not a firmly held position, just a possible line of thought.

From your name and mini-profile, I assume you actually were (or are) a "NavyDoc." If a seaman came to you and said "I have a headache, fly me stateside and schedule me for an MRI," I suspect that your response would definitely hurt that young man's feelings. In order to get treatment like that, he'd probably have to have something the size of a golf ball growing out of his skull, or something equally dramatic.

Is it possible that Big Ear's customers have to scream and fuss in order to have the average American even notice them? In other terms, might this just be a play for sympathy and publicity?

With respect,
Charles1952