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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It states what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, in a sense. It places boundaries on it.

Where it isn't addressed, it is left to the State to decide.

But it DOES address how the state is to handle the laws it makes. In the 14th amendment which has been mentioned and quoted many times. Please read it.

Yes, some things are left to the states, but the states are NOT permitted to makes laws that abridge the privileges of its citizens. 14th amendment. Reading comprehension.

So, let me get this straight. You believe that the 14th, which states a law can't be made that goes against the Constitution. Yet, you can't show me where in the Constitution it defines, outlines or even addresses Marriage. And.....you and others are under the idea that since the 14th addresses "rights or privileges", that since Marriage is a privilege, which during the creation of the US was a religious act and not Govt, that the Govt can't control or limit it except in things like blood tests and so on.

And to further take it on, that somehow the privilege to drive can be limited and restricted in a more confining manner, because after all "it's different".


Is that the jest of your argument.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


The KKK is not a protected group. So, no. If it was an Atheist caterer and he was asked to cater a Christian shindig, then yes, he should have to do it.

It is always different for Progressives.

So, since you don't agree with the KKK, they should not have the same rights as every other group?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Nobody is demanding or asking you that accept anyone and if you want to wreck your kids - go for your life.

I realize we live in the nanny state style mentality, but I don't recall needing permission or validation from you on how to raise my kids.
And yes, people are being forced to be around this, as businesses are being dictated as to whom they must serve.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
The fact that you think all gay people are the same only goes to show you really have no idea what homosexuality actually is.

Care to show me where I stated this?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
I'm not surprised you have that attitude.

I am not surprised that you have assumed such a thing. I don't hold it against you, as this is a common action by Progressives and the like.

a reply to: macman

Since marriage is a religious action, the govt really has no say in it.

I question that statement.

Marriage has been around much longer than current religions. In fact in many cultures it wasn't and currently isn't a religious act.

It can be religious same as eating a piece of bread and sipping wine can be, but the act of eating bread and sipping wine is not inherently religious.


I see people touting marriage as religious and rooted in religion, but they shouldn't because marriage hasn't and doesn't belong to any religion.

Many cultures have had marriages throughout their history and not all cultures made it religious. I once watched a traditional Korean Marriage while stationed in SK it was one of the strangest things I have ever seen.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I will give you that, but...................it did not start out as a Govt controlled action and has been related to religious and/or spiritual grounds.

a reply to: macman

Two people can get married without governmental involvement, but if they want the government to recognize their marital status and qualify for benefits of that status from the government then the government has to be involved to some degree.

In this country marriage is a legal contract to most it can also be religious if they so wish but the government doesn't care about the religious aspect only the legal qualifications and ramifications of it.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
did I say I dont know what the word ''equal'' means?

Here ya' go
You didn't know the definition. Inferring too many definitions of the word ...
So I gave the proper dictionary definition that every english speaking child can understand.
And HERE
You called the proper definition of 'equal' to be an 'alibi' ... which was a very odd thing to say when in fact the definition is just that .. a definition.

You then went on to say that equality 'has to be earned' ... but of course homosexuals can't have it anyways because equal rights ''does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations." (your quote and your definition of 'strange'). So although you refuse to directly state 'not all humans should have equal rights' .. you've inferred it. So tell us .. who in your world gets to decide which humans have rights and which don't? And what is the subjective criteria they use to determine if someone has rights ... like if homosexuals have a right to eat in a restaurant - which is the topic of this thread.

a reply to: FlyersFanI didnt ask for dictionary meanings,
''Equal Rights'' as defined by WHO? Answer the simple question, flyersfan.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
''Equal Rights'' as defined by WHO? Answer the simple question, flyersfan.

Already did ... many times ... the DICTIONARY ... read the thread.
'Equal rights for all humans'. Yes or no? Answer the simple question, Skorpion.


Rights that are equal - unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable.
Yes or no?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
''Equal Rights'' as defined by WHO? Answer the simple question, flyersfan.

'Equal rights for all humans'.

as defined by WHO? You? No thanks.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
as defined by WHO? You? No thanks.

No. Once again .. defined by THE DICTIONARY.
You know ... the big book full of words and official definitions.

So we have it official now. Skorpion doesn't agree with equal rights for all humans. A big fat 'NO' to laws being - unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable. Equal as defined by the dictionary that everyone uses to define words. Got it.

Thank God for secular rule of law in this country!!

I feel bad for the homosexual couple in the article. But at least all that happened was that they weren't welcome someplace to eat. If they were subjected to religious rule of law in some Sharia country, they could have been strung up in the town square.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

The Constitution?
Or does that not matter either?
Or just being an all around good person and know that we all live on this rock called earth.
www.youtube.com...
I tried and failed at embedding, i copied the stuff after the = sign but kept getting an error

a reply to: Grimpachi

And this is the crux of the issue. It is all about the Govt recognized benefits.

Govt has no business dealing with Marriage. If it is a contract between 2 people, then the Govt has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
''Equal Rights'' as defined by WHO? Answer the simple question, flyersfan.

'Equal rights for all humans'.

as defined by WHO? You? No thanks.

There you have the bigot proof in the pudding. Dance around the answer to avoid giving a clear one, but you just tripped yourself up and said no.

It's pretty obvious that you do not agree to equality and the 'who' you are looking to justify this by is Allah.

Businesses, even Texan ones, do not have the right to discriminate against clientele that are a protected class.

So all these claims that " a business should be able to choose who they do business with", it totally moot.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

If you publicly provide a service, no you can't discriminate.

Protection for sexual preference under the Civil Rights Act is still jumbled up in Congress of course, for decades. But I don't know what the local laws are for Big Earls.

At any rate, Big Earl's trying to claim that they can enforce that men must act like men, and ladies must act like ladies, is not only misogynist, and quite scary that a restaurant wants to tell people how to act, it is not protected by the civil rights act, as you can't discriminate based on gender.

a reply to: nixie_nox

Exactly. The concept people are struggling to grasp is that you can think , believe and even say what you want in private and amongst your friends/ family, but in the business realm it's all about the money and therefore everyone is to be treated equally and fairly.

I am a retailer myself and the cr@p I have to take from some customers is ridiculous. But if they go complain, even after being the world's biggest a-hole in the store to me and my team, it all gets taken very seriously and things get investigated by higher powers in the company who always goes grovelling back to the customers.

I would truly love to be able to refuse service to some people, but you just can't. The 30 pages of this very thread so far go to prove how one act can cause huge controversy and loads of negative exposure to a business. Heck, I'm from Australia and had never heard of a restaurant called Earl's in Texas, but I'd never go there now. Lucky it's not McDonalds or something global because this exposure would pummel the brand image and affect sales.

a reply to: macman

Unless you want tax breaks or have joint ownership and transfer of property after death to your spouse.

My mother is recently widowed and I filled out the homestead exemption for their home to which it is lowered by $500 because of widow status.

If their marriage wasn't legally recognized by the state then she wouldn't get that. On a federal level my father was a veteran so she qualifies for what is called aid and attendance she also now receives his SS checks because his was a larger sum.

So let me ask you how do you propose to eliminate government from marriage in those instances? Maybe I am not understanding your meaning when you say govt has no business dealing with marriage. Are you saying the govt should recognize any person or couple who says they are married or were married on their word?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You are awfully narcisstic to think that you can tell the entire planet's ecology what is normal and what isn't. And sex is NOT the only thing that determines procreation and advancement of a species. There is far more to it than that.

So using procreation to deny homosexuality being a natural phenomenon because they can't procreate is extremely ignorant.

One of the reason's that the human race has been so successful is due to middle age. We are the only species that has a middle age. What is middle age?
It is a period in a human's lifetime that is still productive, but they DON"T procreate.

Since we are social creatures, it means we have a segment in our human lives where we work to benefit our tribe, clan,. etc, WITHOUT having to take resources to procreate. In other words, it is a totally give situation that benefits everyone, including helping out those that have procreated, to be successful.

Who is to say that homosexuality isn't the same? It provides humans that contribute to society, but don't make the demands on energy and resources that procreation does.

Also, nature determines success of a species by NOT procreating. There are times when energy and resources are scarce, so it is necessary to keep the species alive by not procreating and draining resources that aren't there, and hurting the species.

Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.

Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?

it is not just about a man and woman saying yes to each other. it is about inheritance, property, benefits, medical benefits, assets, businesses, taxes, and parenting.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.

Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?

Interesting that you would use that comparison...interesting because non governmental involvement contracts are the least prolific in the US legal system.