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

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: FlyersFan

Well right. By those definitions of rights a restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to someone and the customer should be able to go elsewhere to eat, so I don't see a problem there.

What if the good proprietor refuses service to a black person? What about if he doesn't like asians? Should females sit quietly and meekly while the menfolk in his establishment eat steak and discuss politics with one another? How about if they stipulate that certain demographics they don't like can dine, but must dance a merry jig before they can?

There's a murky line here that seems only to be remotely defined by our individual prejudices and I find that repulsive.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Read my posts - I don't confuse a thing. You may like to take a look at the posts by the member I was replying to because it will give you some insight into what is a pretty dastardly individual, belonging to a rather nasty cult, living in a land where freedom and equality are foreign terms which are apparently incomprehensible.

If you have not confused it, then I apologize for reading it incorrectly.
But, just as people have the freedom to be Gay, it goes the other way where people have the freedom to dislike or hate those that are Gay.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
What's more, you can't not agree with a homosexual's lifestyle because each person is different. How I am is different to my neighbour is different to you and my friends and family and their neighbours and so on and so forth.

That is very generic in nature. Yes we are all different.
No, I don't have to accept anyone in their "different'ness".

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
I find it quite ridiculous that you think there is some sort of gay mandate on how each of them absolutely must behave, although it certainly would make it easier to "disagree" with to do so.

I never stated this.
What mandate would this be?
I don't agree with homosexuality. I stated this much.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
You can't shield your kids from a darn thing in this world and if you try they will either resent you for it, or end up socially retarded with less life skills than their friends.

Well, thanks for telling me how to raise my kids.
Funny, as I don't recall ever asking you for your input into this.

How about this, maybe, just maybe, focus on your own life and issue before you go telling others how to live their life.

That is the whole issue I see. People thinking that they get to dictate what others do, say, act and live.

I have no legal, moral or any other obligation to accept you or anyone else's actions, choices, lifestyle or what ever.

If this was the case, then you would need to accept someone's hatred for Gays, just as they would have to accept Gays.
It goes both ways.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

You don't want your kids to be around homosexuals, or you don't want your kids to be around homosexuals in the act of having sex? I understand the latter, as I wouldn't want my young kids to be around ANYONE in the act of having sex, regardless of their sexual orientation.

But to say that you don't want your kids around homosexuals is a pretty naive notion. Someone that goes to your church may be gay. Someone in your neighborhood may be gay. One of your kids fellow classmates may be gay. The fact is, gay people live in our communities; they attend our schools, churches, grocery stores, malls, and movie theaters. How in the world are you going to keep your children from being around them?

Why does it matter? They are my kids. I decide this, no one else.
And thank you as well, for telling me how to raise my kids. I appreciate it and didn't realize that when I procreated, paid for all the things in life for them, raised them thus far, that I forget to include you and others in the decision making process in how exactly to raise them.

That is you problem, along with many many others. You think you get a say in how others live and act.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

It is not murky.

If we have property rights, and freedoms with said property, then the owner of a business, building, residence or what ever has the right to refuse service or admittance.

a reply to: macman

I feel bad for you, as you seem to have to hate things you don't agree with.

I dont quite see where i said i hate the things i dont agree with it.

i simply said i don't like to have things i hate near me.

You on the other hand is using semantics with the word hate.

There is no reason to feel something should not be near you for no reason other than some emotional bandage over it.

i don't like a nuclear power plant, a neigbour who is nazi, kkk, insert racial hate group> etc near me... i have my reason due to their proven effect.

What reason do you have for gays?

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
flyersfan answer the simple question. 'Equal rights' according to WHO?

.I gave the dictionary definition.

I dont recall asking for dictionary definitions of misused words. Your alibi doesnt answer the question I asked. Just WHO said ''equal rights'' means gays can get married.? Name a person...or organization.

The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

www.law.cornell.edu...

That means that all citizens should have the same rights and privileges of being in the U.S. One of those privileges is being able to marry the person of your choice. If a gay person is a U.S. Citizen, and he/she hasn't broken any laws that would take away his/her rights as a citizen, then it is unconstitutional for any state to not allow this gay citizen to receive a marriage license from that state to marry another gay citizen, if that is what they so choose. Frankly, when or how or if two married people have sex is none of the state's business, nor is it any of ours - unless there is victimization involved.

And before you start in on marrying children, they cannot give informed consent, which makes them victims, and thus renders those types of unions invalid and illegal.

a reply to: luciddream

I already addressed this.

I don't not agree with the lifestyle and homosexuality as a whole.

But.......I have gone to drag shows (which does not mean gay outright), I have several friends that are Gay.

I personally don't care what people do, it is their business.

But, it is something I don't want to really be around nor have my kids around.

I am pretty sure this addresses it very clearly.

a reply to: kaylaluv

ii think he is saying that.. then it should apply to US alone and not the whole world.
He is asking who sets the "equal rights" for the whole world.


Because "equal rights" depending on who implements, will vary. that is the only thing i agree with him in this thread.

Because, im sure equal right did exist during slavery, but issued by who? See.

a reply to: kruphix

If conversations are private at restaurant tables, shouldn't all actions be considered private? Some might ask....why are you looking and invading their privacy? Just playing devils advocate here. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since when are conversations private ay restaurant tables? they might be if none of the surrounding customers can hear what is being discussed but if people speak loud enough their voices are heard.

All actions be considered private at a restaurant dinner table?

Seriously, its a public venue, you want privacy keep things private.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Your use of the 14th is not valid in this.

First, the Constitution states nothing in regards to marriage.

There is no "right" to marry someone. Marriage was a religious standing.

The only reason why there is such a fight about it has to do with taxes.

Now, remove the tax breaks associated with marriage, remove the Govt from marriage (as being forced to pay the state to get a marriage license is moronic) and this Gay marriage thing becomes a non issue.

Civil unions are driven by the Govt. Marriage is driven by religion.

a reply to: macman

Do you condone heterosexual kissing, playing footsies in public near your kids?

a reply to: macman


Hey, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids. If you want to keep them locked up in your home, never to see or be in any public places (like malls or grocery stores or public pools or sporting events or schools or churches, etc., etc.) where any of "the gays" may walk by, that's certainly your prerogative as their parent. Good luck with that.

a reply to: luciddream

And that matters why exactly???

a reply to: kaylaluv

Thanks for allowing me to do so.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: FlyersFan

Well right. By those definitions of rights a restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to someone and the customer should be able to go elsewhere to eat, so I don't see a problem there.

What if the good proprietor refuses service to a black person? What about if he doesn't like asians? Should females sit quietly and meekly while the menfolk in his establishment eat steak and discuss politics with one another? How about if they stipulate that certain demographics they don't like can dine, but must dance a merry jig before they can?

There's a murky line here that seems only to be remotely defined by our individual prejudices and I find that repulsive.

So what if a Jewish guy doesn't want to serve Nazis or a black guy doesn't want to cater a KKK rally? Should the government force them to?

a reply to: macman

The 14th amendment is most certainly valid. I didn't say a marriage license was a right. I said it was a privilege of being a U.S. citizen. You cannot remove a privilege from a group of citizens who haven't broken any laws removing their privileges.

I'm fine with taking away marriage licenses and replacing them with civil union licenses for ALL citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm even fine with removing any kind of private unions sanctioned by the state, thereby removing all tax/estate and other government benefits. Good luck with getting all those currently married folks to agree with that though. They are not going to be happy to have those current benefits taken away from them.

a reply to: macman

If gay couple move near you, would you move or would you tell them to move?

Sorry just compounding you replies.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

The 14th amendment is most certainly valid. I didn't say a marriage license was a right. I said it was a privilege of being a U.S. citizen. You cannot remove a privilege from a group of citizens who haven't broken any laws removing their privileges.

There is no privilege to marry within any of that.

It is differed to the States, because the Constitution does not have a statement about it.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: macman

If gay couple move near you, would you move or would you tell them to move?

Sorry just compounding you replies.

On what grounds would I have any right to tell them to move?

Why would I move?

I never once stated I would seal off the world, I stated, very clearly which has been taken out of context in the normal fashion, that I don't want to be around it.

a reply to: luciddream


Well I think the meaning of equal rights is universal, but some countries' governments are just not concerned with them, i.e., it's not even mentioned in their constitutions. America's constitution is based on equal rights. Yes, as a country we have made mistakes, but using the Constitution as our guideline, we have corrected those mistakes. Banning gay marriage is another mistake that we are (slowly) in the process of correcting, using the Constitution.