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

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Who the hell knows Annee, give me a 1000 scenarios and every one of them would most likely be different. What constitutes clothing that doesn't meet the establishments standards, what is too dirty, what is too revealing, what is whatever...I'm not sure you argument here, but establishments do have standards, all of them....

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No, I don't just believe them. I look at what both sides have said, find the common details from both sides which can be assumed to be correct since both sides are the same.

I never said they did nothing. What I said is that what they did, which isn't completely clear, still doesn't seem to be anything that normally would be considered obscene. Unless of course you happen to be a very anti-gay personality type who is motivated to find something wrong, which is exactly what I think this waitress is.

I make that assumption of some logical assumptions as well. Since we have few details that's all we can do. Sitting across the table how far can one person reach under toward the other??? Even with their chin on the table and reaching under they'll most likely get to touch a knee, or if the other person is also reaching they could hold hands. There is no way you can reach the crotch of the other person. So the most probable thing is that "Rubbing Legs" at best means one has his legs up in the others lap and he's massaging his legs. If that is too gay for anyone to witness then I'd say you're looking for something to bitch about. Doesn't matter if it's two dudes or whatever, there is nothing obscene about it.

That is just one of the details that can be assumed with a fair amount of accuracy. There are more, but this would get too long for me to list them all. I just want you to understand how I'm viewing this so you understand that I'm not just taking one side over the other. I don't give a crap about sides. I don't even care if this is actually a real event. It doesn't effect me in any way. I look at it almost like an intellectual exercise since even if it was fictional or not doesn't matter. Basically it's just a process of taking in what details you have then processing them and trying to extrapolate more information logically to see how close you can get to actually figuring out the truth. That's it.

Just so we are clear Lady, it's not your opinion being different than mine that was frustrating. It's you version of the details which were incorrect this late in the debate that was putting me on edge. Your comments like these:

I said the owner stated clearly t hat the two were behaving inappropriately in his establishment, so they were told to leave.

They weren't told to leave. they were told not to come back. The owner never said anything to them that we know of, but we know the waitress did.

If I went in with my husband, and we were in each others laps, or groping, or whatever, I have no doubt we'd be asked to leave as well. We wouldn't have to go get fresh with someone else for our actions to be wrong. This couple heard about this place, and decided to make a scene, and raise a stink. That's clear.

That may all be true but not one of those example have anything at all to do with what these guys did. There was nothing said about them groping, getting fresh with anyone else, or sitting in each others laps. There is also nothing clear about them wanting to make a scene or a stink at all. That is noting more than paranoid fantasy of your own creation.

The reason they were removed was stated.

They weren't removed.

the intolerant anti-Christian folks that think Christians don't have a right to their beliefs.

This isn't about your beliefs, christian or otherwise. This is about these two gay guys and Big Earl and his daughter.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

/sigh

Yes, there are meanings of the word "discriminate" which include the simple choices we make everyday.

"Am I having the coffee or the tea with breakfast? The tea? Fine." (Coffee was discriminated against; poor coffee.)

So you think that daily discrimination is limited to inanimate objects otherwise it is all wrong? When I say we discriminate daily I'm not talking about inanimate object choices, I'm talking about human choices. If there is more than one person in the choice there is discrimination happening.

In this case, we are of course not discussing the simple choice of one thing or quality over another, but of human beings and American citizens being called hateful names and told they shouldn't come back to a restaurant because of their innate characteristics.

There's a difference between the two meanings of the word, yes?

As I said I'm not defending either side. You have already decided based on whatever information was put forth, how ever it was spun to decide. So we have this nice gay couple who go to this restaurant and sit down quietly to a nice meal, as they go pay their bill an employee of the restaurant starts to foam at the mouth and screams "we dot not like fags".

Might be true, might be spun to look like that, might be totally different where the gay couple was aggressive. I wasn't there so I'm not jumping on the band wagon of gay discrimination based only on their sexual orientation.


People say hateful things all the time, people who normally don't are sometimes driven to say hateful things too.... You hear it constantly on the streets anytime you walk down them, it is there gay or straight, really doesn't matter.


It is funny how we do not know what the whole conversation/argument was about other than one line, so I am not going to judge anyone here.

Now that we've cleared that up, there's no question that in Texas at this time, people CAN BE discriminated against based on sexual orientation because, hey, it's only 2014 and obviously we don't have to do what's right (treat everyone fairly regardless of the law) unless we're made to do so. (This, by the by, is the inherent flaw in a libertarian paradise, but I digress).

Even in San Francisco I would assume, but hey we are talking Texas and everyone knows all those Texans discriminate against gays, so it all must be true.

You've introduced a string of hypotheticals that I have no opinion on without more details. I personally dont' think guns in restaurants are a good idea, and I'm not sure what you're implying by taking my comment about "loud" people out of context.

SHOULD the folks in Texas act this way and treat paying customers like this? Of course not. It's bad for business, in the long run, because there is no doubt that social and cultural trends are in favor of inclusion and equal treatment.

Equal treatment of American citizens before the law is not an "opinion." The unpleasant characteristics you toss into your examples like stacks of red herring really mean nothing to me. I can conceive of equally obnoxious situations with examples that you'd probably find completely acceptable. That's generally called "stacking the deck."

My point was that bad behavior can get anyone kicked out of an establishment straight or gay, but we just assume instantly it is gay discrimination when it involves gays.

Anyone who does not see that this facility (Big Earls) feels like it's well within its rights to discriminate against gays and lesbians (the "men as men and women as women" bit on the front door) is simply and willfully trying not to see it. Its as obvious as Big Earl's Daughter dropping another "f bomb" without even batting an eye, likely.

Could be... The sign also could be the consequences from a big altercation...Do I think the sign is stupid and wrong, yes. Could there have been circumstances we do not know that lead to the hastily written sign, also yes. Hell, at least make a better sign, or just maybe it wasn't premeditated, but spur of the moment event triggered by the resent altercation that ramped up everyone's emotions. Was the sign there when the gay couple came in? I wonder...

But then it could be just some backward hicks that hate gays... As I said I'm not grabbing my torch and pitchfork just yet.

Beyond that, I'm not sure why you would "jump around screaming gay discrimination" ... are you gay? If not, you probably don't have any skin in the game.

Must be a lot of skin in this debate because that is what has been basically the view since the OP.

BTW you do not need to be gay to recognize Illegal discrimination...

I have a tiny question.

What would any of you consider as actions to get you justifiably kicked out of a public establishment?

a reply to: charles1952

Hey Charles, it's been far too long, you have always treated me with respect regardless if we agree or not and it's lovely to discuss such topics with you.

Legally Texas can discriminate so they would have to alter laws or find loop holes as such to do anything Legally, it's more of a Social issue now. and maybe the couple was acting ""Inappropriately"" and maybe they were not, not being there myself and having the witnesses seemingly biased i can't claim anything for sure, though i would assume that a higher percentage of Straight couples could have gotten away with such behavior.

You're right, the LGBT movement should be about Love and Educating, but when you have been beaten into a corner, when you have been oppressed and shut out, eventually you have to shout, Eventually you have to be loud enough to be heard. does it seem hypocritical ? maybe, maybe it blends the line of "Dirty Politics"

i would like to quote RuPaul

“my goal is to always come from a place of love ...but sometimes you just have to break it down for a mother..." - RuPaul

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No, I don't just believe them. I look at what both sides have said, find the common details from both sides which can be assumed to be correct since both sides are the same.

Both sides say they came in, ate. paid, and were banned. We can all agree on those points. It's the reason for the ban that is at issue.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I never said they did nothing. What I said is that what they did, which isn't completely clear, still doesn't seem to be anything that normally would be considered obscene. Unless of course you happen to be a very anti-gay personality type who is motivated to find something wrong, which is exactly what I think this waitress is.

Until we know all the details, we can't know. I assume that a business owner would have to have a really good reason to ban people that could come in and pay. If the restaurant was totally against homosexual couples, they would have stopped them at the door, or before they ordered. Maybe the waitress decided she didn't like them, and maybe they really did do something that was offensive. We can't know. A ban isn't from the waitress, though, and it's a serious thing, so I assume the owner had a reason. I would assume that if ANY couple was claiming what this pair is. A guy/girl couple could claim the place didn't like young people, after being told not to return, but that wouldn't make it true.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I make that assumption of some logical assumptions as well. Since we have few details that's all we can do. Sitting across the table how far can one person reach under toward the other??? Even with their chin on the table and reaching under they'll most likely get to touch a knee, or if the other person is also reaching they could hold hands. There is no way you can reach the crotch of the other person. So the most probable thing is that "Rubbing Legs" at best means one has his legs up in the others lap and he's massaging his legs. If that is too gay for anyone to witness then I'd say you're looking for something to bitch about. Doesn't matter if it's two dudes or whatever, there is nothing obscene about it.

I have seen some pretty bad behavior from couples sitting across from one another. Things such as one using a foot to "massage" the other person's privates, through clothing, or maybe under it. People do things like that, and if they do and are banned, it's their own fault. Guys with long enough legs could do something like that. Depending on the size of the table, and leg length, it IS possible. Seen it, so I know. Case I saw, the couple had someone point out what they were doing was visible, and they stopped. The people that saw them could as easily have complained, though, and had the couple thrown out. A hand on a knee certainly shouldn't offend anyone (unless it's their knee, and they don't welcome the hand), but it is possible more than that happened here.

originally posted by: mOjOm
That is just one of the details that can be assumed with a fair amount of accuracy. There are more, but this would get too long for me to list them all. I just want you to understand how I'm viewing this so you understand that I'm not just taking one side over the other. I don't give a crap about sides. I don't even care if this is actually a real event. It doesn't effect me in any way. I look at it almost like an intellectual exercise since even if it was fictional or not doesn't matter. Basically it's just a process of taking in what details you have then processing them and trying to extrapolate more information logically to see how close you can get to actually figuring out the truth. That's it.

Same for me. I don't agree with homosexual behavior, but others do, and that is their decision. I have had friends who were/are, and we simply didn't agree on that one thing. Other things, we agreed on. No big deal. In a case like this, when a customer is told to not come back to a business, I figure there is usually a valid reason. Businesses don't want bad publicity, and banning paying customers isn't something most would do for simple disagreement, either. That's why I think the guys did something more than simply holding hands, or bushing knees, or something tame.

It does disturb me that some are discussing going to the place to "force" them to accept whatever behavior they choose to display, and organizing such a thing. That's simply messed up. Discussion is one thing, and all well and good, but stating there are plans to target the place en masse, with all sorts of overt behavior? Nothing tolerant or accepting about that at all.

When I go out to eat, most times it's with the whole family, which includes the kids. I don't want ANY couple getting too fresh where we are eating. Hands held? Light kiss? Sure. Groping, or tongue-in-mouth kissing, or whatever? Nope; save that for later, in private! Even it it didn't bother me, it would bother the kids, who are still at ages where sex is "icky. They show no interest in knowing more about that topic as of yet. Nothing like my oldest; she was a bit precocious there. Then again, when she finally got all the details she wanted, she said it was "gross", too! I reminded her of that in her teen years, of course, and was told to hush.

Another note I [have to add; I did spend some years in Texas, so I am familiar with the mindset of various social groups there. It's not all "cowboys", or whatever. Some are like that, of course, but some are very cosmopolitan. Depends where you go, to an extent. Small towns are more conservative, but that's really most places in the country. It's not like the whole state is against homosexuals, however. I went to HS there, and two male friends were a couple, though back then most didn't know. It wasn't something people talked about as much in those days. Both are on my FB list now, though. Nice guys. A couple of doors down was a lesbian couple that were family friends for some years. Mostly quiet, though we did attend parties there. They were pretty cool, and VERY serious about no one bothering anyone that wasn't interested, no matter who one might prefer. Nothing overt allowed at the parties, either. Everyone attending, and the crowd was mixed as far as preferences go, followed the rules and had no issues with that. This was late 70's-early 80's, too, and even then, as long as no one was "in your face" about it, most people didn't really care. So, I am not someone who hasn't ever associated with anyone with preferences I might not agree with. In this particular case, it just seems like the pair were trying to cause a confrontation. Some do that sort of thing. Not all, by a long shot, but some.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

First of all, you can't "disagree" with homosexuality. There's nothing to disagree with because they are what they are and no amount of you being all disagreed does a thing except make you a mean little grump.

You can't disagree with someone for being a female.

I'm about sick of bandying about this issue - get it out of you and just say what you likely want to say. Tell me the reason you don't like homosexuality.

Too much friggin politeness in this damn thread. Take your bigotry and piss off or admit that you just don't like what you don;t understand.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So you think that daily discrimination is limited to inanimate objects otherwise it is all wrong?

Did I say that? Did I say anything even closely resembling that? No, I did not, and I can tell from the quality of your writing that you're not dull-witted enough to really think that's what I'm saying, at all.

You're positing that "discrimination" is not always "bad." Fair enough, when it regards coffee (poor coffee) it doesn't matter. A further, human, example ... I decide to call a friend for lunch. I have a choice of two nearby my office. I choose one over the other, but neither of them knows anything about my choice, ergo, there's no way that either of them suffer, except from the possible association with my own company. Yes, of course there is "discrimination" daily not only regarding inanimate objects but also people ... and that, as I am sure you well know, is not the point of the conversation here nor what anyone normally means when they say that "A (unfairly) discriminated against B."

And heres why ... when a person is excluded from a public venue, like a restaurant, or is directed to a different section of a public accommodation, like the back of the bus, due to no other reason than some inherent difference from "the average" ... like skin color, or gender, or sexual orientation ... then yes, it is an occasion of being "unfairly" discriminated against. It is well-known that such cultural categorizing is not merely unpleasant, or "hurtful" to someone's feelings, but actually damages them in the long run, diminishes their self-esteem, and crushes their morale.

And, that's just ONE of the many reasons, that the better part of our nature as a culture has long maintained that such discriminatory acts are not only damaging but despicable acts ... and splitting hairs over whether it happened or not when someone says something like "we don't like fags here" is absurd. It is clearly not a question of some unacceptable behavior on the part of the couple, because any behavior on their part that was normal to them would be unacceptable in the eyes of bigots who are comfortable with throwing a slur like "fag" in someone's face.

I find it amazing that the same folks in other threads who are paragons of extolling the virtues of individual rights and pushing back against any and all authoritarian control are the SAME FOLKS who, when the matter rubs their own peccadilloes the wrong way, are completely ready to evangelize about what is "right and wrong."

Sure, personal freedom is fine regarding carrying an AK into McDonald's (I'm sure that doesn't scare any kids) or inflicting your own private religious practices on everyone around you by holding hands (PDA) and praying to Jesus to ritually condone the Bic Mac you're about to shove in your mouths (because we all know that the power of prayer turns garbage food into nutritional goodness) or to teach your kids that the world magically appeared in six days rather than good basic science and reason (which is going to give them a GREAT basis to compete with the Indians and the Chinese in a few years, yessiree) ... but two men kissing or holding hands is just going to pervert their entire natures and transform them into slavering sinner-bots ... or some other such rotting scenario ...

Then, then, it's fine to impose your own "values" on everyone else, isn't it? It's okay to invoke some kind of authoritarian dictation when your rhubarb gets rubbed the wrong way.

There's a word for that kind of crap, and that word is hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66



"A (unfairly) discriminated against B."

Unfair doesn't also mean illegal, that is the dividing line. Life is hardly ever fair, so I will agree with you that the gay couple was treated unfairly, unless they instigated the situation, and that is what we do not know. We just know of the aftermath of the sign and the comment due to "badgering", but I'm not sure what badgering really means there though.

I wonder how they would even know they were gay in the first place unless there was behavior that identified them as such, behavior that upset the establishment in some way, but it sure seems there was some kind of altercation in any event.

I do agree people should not use bad words to label others, but "fag" is not the only one by far. I think "listen Bitch" is extremely offensive but it is commonly used, so though I agree with the rest of your post about how it can affect others it is not a gay only event, but if a woman is called "Bitch" it never gets debated as a discrimination event...

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite


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.

If you smoke cigars and like 18 year old scotch then you would meet my definition of a manly thing, ok so my list is short what can I say.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Who said that discrimination was "gay only" again? Certainly not me.

Discrimination, whether illegal or not, is wrong.

This discussion regards discrimination against two gay guys in Texas. While we've been arguing about that, hundreds of other folks across the country have also been discriminated against, some in worse ways ... that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call it out for what it is when we see it, rather than trying to water it down and make excuses for bigots.

I think we're done here, as we both seem to understand what the other's opinion is on the matter.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I just reread this garbage pile of a post. I wrote it after three hours of sleep. I don't even understand it. I'm not sure why I'm sending it. Oh, well.

Dear Darth_Prime,

Thanks for talking with me.

I'm honestly not so interested in saying that Big Earl's behavior was bad, or that the diner's behavior was bad. A great case can be made that everybody involved is someone that shouldn't be supported. On top of that, you're quite correct, who knows what really happened? Why do our opinions on judging the various players have any value at all?

I suppose my notes to you are postmarked "Utopia," but I really don't see any end to this, as long as we play "tit-for-tat." There are possible solutions,though. Try this one:

The Catholic Church, a strong opponent of gay marriage, is also a huge supporter of the dignity of each individual. It seems to occupy the two extremes of the issue while the other churches are somewhere in between. I would consider getting a group of reasonable, controlled, gays together (you should go too) and stroll over to the Church.

"Hey, Bish!" They might say. "How do we step up the Church's teaching on the infinite worth of each individual? Do we have to tone down the use of the word marriage?" How do we get everybody to meet down in the church basement for fish fries, bingo, and serious support for us gays?"

Dear Darth_Prime, gays and straights both have the wrong goals. Ripping apart the country in order to get a few lousy tax benefits, or unloading bitter hatred over a difference in private behavior are both wrong. We won't get together until we find a shared goal. With different goals, we may tolerate each other, but we lose out on the love and friendship people are designed to have.

Gays, stop trying to force a change to straight behavior. Straights, stop trying to force a change to gay behavior.

Ru-Paul, "breaking it down for a mother" can be lots of fun and is a natural tendency. I don't think either side can afford that. We've had enough breaking.

Darth_Prime, I'm going back to bed. I honestly don't know what I've written here.

With respect,
Charles1952

Another alternative to ending the divisiveness is to stop referring to each other continuously as "gay" or "straight" ... these are misleading terms that over-emphasize the importance of the sex of our love/lust objects.

I've suggested before that by replacing the word gay in an anti-gay rant, the ridiculous nature of the prejudice is revealed.

For example:

"I just don't believe in American citizens being able to kiss each other in public. They should keep that in the privacy of their bedrooms."

Q: "Why can't we eat here?"
A: "Because we don't like American citizens."

" ... and so on."

There was a time when we needed to talk about "gay rights" culturally.

Now we only need to talk about "human rights."

That's the first way to "end the divisiveness" ... and the second way is to stop acting like a$$es to each other.

I don't like people that go fishing for pleasure.
I don't like people that vote left.
I don't like girls that dress like hookers
I don't like baseball fans
I don't like a lot of people, its my right to decide who I like and who I don't like !

That is untill it comes to jews or gays or immigrants.

I don't think many baseball fans or fishermen are going to decend on me and give me lots of abuse or start trying to tell me how to think but because the NWO loves the three above groups they are writing up laws to silence anyone that dares to say a word against them, forceing people how to think and this is whats so wrong today.

You have freedom to decide for yourself or you don't but I for one will do my own thinking thank you.

Anyway I am off to go fishing now

a reply to: charles1952

Well, certainly it could be. I don't know. Activist and in your face types often go looking to create a situation to complain about. Obviously I don't know if these gentlemen were out to do that or not.

Regardless, if someone doesn't want to serve me or do business with me, I just go elsewhere.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I wonder how they would even know they were gay in the first place unless there was behavior that identified them as such, behavior that upset the establishment in some way, but it sure seems there was some kind of altercation in any event.

They WOULDN'T have known! When two guys go in a restaurant together and manage to keep from drawing attention by not fondling each other & French kissing, nobody cares much what they do in their private lives....even in East Texas.

That's the problem. Most people here are willing to live & let live, but don't like having "alternate lifestyles" shoved down our throats. If they didn't want to start trouble they should have kept bedroom activities out of the restaurant.

We call it public lewdness. 100% their fault IMO.

originally posted by: took red pill
They WOULDN'T have known!

Wait a minute... If you would ever see me and my husband in public, you would know that we are loving partners. There is a middle ground between acting like just friends and fondling and french kissing. How about holding hands? A light kiss on the cheek. Sitting side-by-side with his arm around me. Would you consider these behavior unacceptable in public?

That's the problem. Most people here are willing to live & let live, but don't like having "alternate lifestyles" shoved down our throats.

How did these guys shove anything down anyone's throats? You don't even know what happened because the restaurant owner refuses to release the tape showing what the couple did that was so offensive.

If they didn't want to start trouble they should have kept bedroom activities out of the restaurant.

If you consider holding hands or touching other non-sexual body parts to be bedroom activity, you're doing it wrong...

HA! I just saw this in the Huffington Post and thought I'd share it in this thread!

Texas Restaurant That Refused 'Fag' Customers Touted As Gay Bar Online

HAHA! This is one way to get even! LOL

After the story broke on local news outlets, people began writing reviews for Big Earl's claiming the Texas restaurant is actually a gay bar. Its Yelp page has been flooded with photos of same-sex couples and an image of the store's billboard has been manipulated to read "Big Gay Al's."

One Yelp review reads: "Lovely place to bring your same-sex partner to and show how much you love him/her as much as their food! The more flamboyant, the better!"

Another says: "On the positive side, it says "Bait House" but the place was more like a Bath House with all the horny Texas cowboys flirting and slapping each other's behinds. Very gay-friendly atmosphere!"