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

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

I'll take 'keep away' signs over eating at places where I get served a little more than what I ordered.

We share common ground in that public displays of affection are something we find distasteful. However, equality dictates the same rules apply for everyone.

Either public eating places have a policy that encompasses everyone or they do not. It's not rocket science.

how about we all eat at places where we feel welcome? That isn't rocket science, is it? If you cant be ''yourself'' at a place where you aren't wanted, why go there in the first place? I have the common sense not to. What about you?

Quite simply;

We, the consumer should be free to choose to eat / shop wherever we wish. Our purchasing decisions should be based upon personal experience and products that suit our needs/ tastes.

the restuarant owners attitude towards homosexuals WOULD affect your ''experience'' there, wouldn't it? Is it not better that you eat at a place that welcomes you? Why do you want to eat at places that make it clear that you arent wanted?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Look I am all for everyone being treated equally and according to Earls they would have kicked any couple out for those actions. That is equality,no.

It seems to me the couple was flaunting or being borderline lewd in the restaurant. They were banned for their actions not their sexual orientation.

I have no doubt the owner or staff do not like homosexuals, but they are free to feel they way they do in this country. You can't regulate peoples thoughts.

IMO no ones rights were trampled in this case. If they were I would have no problem saying so.

rubbing legs together is lewed ? Yeah if they were front of thigh to front of thigh standing in line .
I have a feeling that if they were a straight twenty something cute white couple celebrating their first anniversary and they were holding hands and kissing over the table that that staff reaction would have been aww instead of outrage.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Gay folk will give the one in the OP a wide berth now, but the whole point is we shouldn't have to be told 'we don't serve fags here'

It's sad that the owners feel that way. It's neanderthal mentality. But they have the right to operate their business any way they wish under the law.

Honestly, If I were homosexual, I'd be not going anywhere near that place. God only knows what they'd do to the food in the kitchen while preparing it. For that matter, if I was a non-wasp (which I am ... I"m not a WASP) I'd avoid it as well. Catholic. Muslim. Black. Hispanic. God only knows what the people who run the place will do to the food of those who aren't exactly like them.

originally posted by: buster2010
Did you find the words "All Persons" confusing? Whether "Big Earl" likes it or not gays are people too.

You've got to know that I want ALL people to have equal rights, including gay people, but the civil rights act does not cover sexual orientation (hang with me for a second). That's why states (like Colorado) have added it to their state laws and why some cities in Texas have added it to their local laws. The truth is, Texas has no such law and this restaurant broke no laws.

Was is discrimination? 100% yes! Is it legal in Texas? Sadly, yes.

This is why states have amended their laws to include certain groups and this is why people say gays want "special rights". Because they want to be included in "all persons".

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Race, color, religion, or national origin. States cannot discriminate based on those grounds. But they are free to discriminate on other grounds, like sexual orientation. They're free to discriminate on any grounds, except the ones specifically mentioned in the Act: Race, color, religion, or national origin.

In my opinion, either the grounds for discrimination should be removed completely, so ALL PERSONS would stand alone or LGBT needs to be added to the Act. Failing that, Texans for equal rights should pressure Texas to join us in the 21st century. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Well ... they can serve/not serve whoever they want.
And people can boycott the place if they want.

That being said ... I don't know how much canoodling was going on. Honestly, if I'm in a public place I don't want to have to see anyone sucking face or playing footsie ... straight or gay. It's not just a matter of looking away ... sometimes it's 'in your face'. So maybe some of the patrons complained ....

I hate to bring up old topics...but aren't they having a "private" moment at their table???

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.

No. There are no private moments in a restaurant and sorry but not even conversations. We as a rule don't join in on others conversations at a restaurant but no these conversations are not private. You're in public everywhere in a restaurant except for the toilet stall.

Hey I have as issue with the men acting like men but women have to act like ladies. Why not men act like gentleman or women acting like women. Oh I guess they'd have a problem with women breast feeding infants too.
These people are troglodytes. Ignorants in a modern age.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It's sad that the owners feel that way. It's neanderthal mentality. But they have the right to operate their business any way they wish under the law.

Actually they don't have that right.

Legally they can't tell blacks that they don't allow blacks to eat in their restaurant. They can't tell women that the don't allow women to eat in their restaurant. And they can't tell disabled people the don't allow them in their restaurant. There are LAWS that prevent them from doing so.

However, the law as it stands now does not cover sexual preference. It should, because we should not allow any group in this country to be treated like second class citizens no matter what group they belong to.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Men act like men, ladies act like ladies. What utter hypocrisy. Real men and ladies don't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Public Displays of Affection are one thing, I prefer not to see much more than short kisses from any couple regardless of orientation and I could agree to barring any couple over excessive PDA, but it would be applied equally.

I, for one, if ever in Texas, will never spend my money at Big Earls. Real men and ladies are not hypocritical bigots.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

the restuarant owners attitude towards homosexuals WOULD affect your ''experience'' there, wouldn't it? Is it not better that you eat at a place that welcomes you? Why do you want to eat at places that make it clear that you arent wanted?

This was the exact argument people used who didn't want to allow blacks to eat anywhere they wanted.

You are missing the entire point.

originally posted by: kruphix
It will only end when the older generations die out...and we probably have another good 3-4 generations to go before it is gone.

And hopefully in the process we'll have a new mutant species

(pun so intended)!!!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do tell the sin that was committed AGAINST him? Did he make sexual advances to him? Do you think his judgement was self-righteous? I certainly do. Do you believe he took them aside as a Christian man and brother and told them frankly and honestly they were to rebuke their sin and walk with Christ? Not only that Jesus says to impart this judgement on your fellow Christians, nor to judge by the word of God because in the end final judgement is Gods...

The business man has every right to deny service, what this is again is a hit piece against Christianity to point out its flaws due to nature of its flawed followers.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Echo3Foxtrot
I'm gonna be going back home in a few days to Texas, I'm going to make sure I make a stop to eat here.

That's nice. Not sure what your post has to do with anything, but good for you!

I guess his post has to do with your previous insults to the restaurant owners because they don't feel or believe like you. All you did was shooting all the kinds of unpleasant words and name calling for the sole reason that Earl's owner has different moral values than yours and shares a different point of view on someone sexuality. (even though all I see in the restaurant's owner stance is not agreeing with a inappropriate behavior in public for which he deserve the right to refuse service). Strangely though, in your case this behavior comes from someone who knows what being judgmental is. Because someone thinks and feels differently, that doesn't make him/her unworthy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I'm sure there are plenty of nice restaurants in that town, so it's not like they were strapped for options.

As a young child, I was with my mother more then once -- when she was refused admittance/service at a restaurant. She had polio. This was prior to the disability act.

NO one should have to "shop around" to find a restaurant that accepts their kind.

Homosexuality had little to do with it.

The server’s father, owner Earl Cheney (“Big Earl”), told a local reporter that while “homosexuality, Blacks, [and] Hispanics” were all welcome to eat at his restaurant, it was the duo’s public display of affection that lead to their banishment. ...The behavior portrayed by the young couple was simply inappropriate and would have been considered so no matter what sexual orientation.

If they had conducted themselves as befitting a public setting - such as a restaurant - then perhaps there would have been no problem. Of course, there is the possibility that they were lying...but no one can prove that.

Is it legal to put up a sign declaring no service to redneck hicks? I wonder if such a sign was placed in a restaurant window, it would matter in which state and even which country that restaurant existed.

Social context seems to have only been touched upon in this thread by people I have actually disagreed with in the past and now am horrified to find I share common ground with. This happened in a part of America, in a part of the world which while progressive in some ways might be considered somewhat conservative in a social context.

You can't force a person -or anything, really - to accept what they simply are not yet prepared to accept. They may one day - even soon - but ol' Big what's his name unfortunately happens to subscribe to slighter older and outdated values and that's his prerogative and it's likely just how he was raised and lived - he doesn't know better.

It's not up to me or this couple or anyone else to try and convince him otherwise, because it's like pushing crap uphill.

I'm curious, though - I wonder what the reaction would be from the redneck hicks if they saw a sign denying them service for whatever reason. I think they would go bat sht crazy.

a reply to: Telos

I'm not actually sure what insults you mean. Perhaps you could quote some and provide your understanding of the context - or I can offer to you if you were unable to pick it up from my posts.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

HA.. there are already signs up denying rednecks.

No shoes no shirt no service.

or

Sports coat and tie required


BTW I am a redneck so I can say that. lol

a reply to: charles1952

Simply brilliant. Be glad 3/4 didn't get what you wrote. Otherwise they would have attempted a virtual lynching...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Forgive the crude reference, but I couldn't think of a word or phrase to fittingly describe the restaurant's proprietor. I'm sometimes not as sharp as when I've had a morning coffee.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Telos

And yet after all of that, I'm still right. I'm sure it just boils your blood.

If you want to turn it to a matter of semantics then so is Earl

p.s. The only moment my blood boils is when I get kissed by the soft lips of a woman, touched by her hands and make love to her. Oops, is this a sacrilege?

a reply to: Telos

Why would it be sacrilege? Why would I consider it sacrilege? Have you even read any of my posts?

Good god almighty, some people...