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

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I consider it a behavioral thing, perhaps caused by various environmental factors coupled with possible mental factors, perhaps caused by a simple choice. So, I don't agree with it, or consider it normal. People come in male and female. Behavior isn't the same as genetics.

lol so i assume you can change your taste in a jiffy!

Today i will decide to like guys, tomorrow i will decide to like girls!

No matter how hard i try, i will not find men attractive, my brain chemicals tell me i am attracted to women. I would assume it works the same for gay men.

Sorry, it is not behavioural, just like a left handed person cannot suddenly deicide to be a right handed person. It is already written in their brain, the environment simply enhances what is already there.

What is behavioural thing is when people brought up to think inside a box, they refuse to think outside of it.

a reply to: Euphem

Woah! We got a tuff guy here!!!!
Slow your roll chief
Can you find me an incident where a straight couple was banned?

a reply to: luciddream

I always wonder a little bit when people claim that being gay is a choice or decision. What I wonder is - What difference does THAT make? Let's pretend it IS a choice. So what? It's not hurting ANYONE. We live in a free country. People make choices about their personal lives ALL THE TIME.

I would love to understand (or even hear) the logic behind people saying, "Well, it's a choice", as if that makes ONE BIT of difference in how citizens and human beings should be treated in this country!

SO WHAT if it IS a choice? What's the logic? If I choose a blue couch and you have a brown couch, does that make me some sort of devil child? I just don't get it.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Once they establish it as choice, they will simply enforce laws to change and prohibit it.

It will be easier for them to correlate someone choosing to steal something and getting arrested as something equivalent to homosexuality(some already do.. but it will be prevalent).

then calling it a choice is a step for them to dismantle it.

nature didn't make it, you made it, so we will have to change it.

Choice is simply what the majority think is right...and laws made according to that.

We never truly never have or had a choice in this country or rather the world.... its an illusion, a good one at that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Not trying to be a tough guy. Just stating that you don't have evidence they only do this to gay couples.

Most people don't like watching other people hug/kiss/rub on each other...especially when they are out eating.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I always wonder a little bit when people claim that being gay is a choice or decision. What I wonder is - What difference does THAT make? Let's pretend it IS a choice. So what? It's not hurting ANYONE. We live in a free country. People make choices about their personal lives ALL THE TIME.

I would love to understand (or even hear) the logic behind people saying, "Well, it's a choice", as if that makes ONE BIT of difference in how citizens and human beings should be treated in this country!

SO WHAT if it IS a choice? What's the logic? If I choose a blue couch and you have a brown couch, does that make me some sort of devil child? I just don't get it.

I think I can answer that. You have to always keep in mind that the main reason for people to hate on gays, more so than just not liking it but to the point of actively wanting to destroy it, comes from Religious teachings. To the average person it's not much of an issue and treat it like they would any other personal relationship between two people which is, "you stay out of my personal life and I 'll stay out of yours." For the Religious Warriors however, as we all know, Gayness is seen as Sin and an Abomination and evil etc.

You cannot be justified in the Judgement of another nor the Punishment of another without them first being allowed to "choose" to do whatever it is they are being judged. So as you can see, for them to actually admit that being Gay is not a choice would mean having to give up the right to Judge and Punish accordingly. This is the reason for their absolute adherence to the idea of "Free Will" as well. Because once you establish that someone wasn't given the choice in how to act you can no longer judge them eternally for what they do and while they may not admit it their favorite thing to do is to Judge and Punish others.

a reply to: Euphem

Well, it's a good thing that they aren't being accused of hugging and kissing on each other then. The only thing mentioned was "rubbing legs". I'm sure had there been anything more than that we certainly would have heard about it since it's not likely that Earl or the Waitress would have held back any details which would help to prove their point.

With that being said, just how obscene can you really get sitting across from someone at a table???

a reply to: macman

I don't want policing of feelings, had you read any of my comments on any of these topics you would understand that i have stated clearly i would fight for anyone's right to think act and speak even if it is against me, if it comes to violence or starts to impede my life is where i get upset

I don't mind if anyone likes or dislikes me because of my sexuality, but people are hiding behind Religion and the Government that they want to grant them rights to discriminate, but they don't want "Big Government".

i personally find it absurd that you can dislike anyone based on Sexuality, Gender, Race etc. we are People, don't like me for my person not my sexuality

A police officer who arrested me for exercising my First Amendment rights said to me, "The Founding Fathers did not consider everything." I really do wonder how the Founding Fathers would decide on such an incident like this.

originally posted by: luciddream
It will be easier for them to correlate someone choosing to steal something and getting arrested as something equivalent to homosexuality(some already do.. but it will be prevalent).

I see. And stealing DOES hurt someone else, whereas being gay does not. To make a meaningful analogy, it would have to be a choice that doesn't hurt or even affect others. Hence my analogy of the blue couch.

a reply to: mOjOm

Another very good explanation. Thank you.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime

I don't want policing of feelings, had you read any of my comments on any of these topics you would understand that i have stated clearly i would fight for anyone's right to think act and speak even if it is against me, if it comes to violence or starts to impede my life is where i get upset

We have had this discussion before.
It really is we have the right to think and act how we see fit, and that means controlling our business/companies and our property in the same manner.
We all have this, or we all don't.
If someone can deny service due to a person wanting to protect themselves by being armed, then they can deny service for any other reason.
If they can't do this, then they can't for any other reason either.
It is an all or nothing. It is not some rights for you and some for me.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
I don't mind if anyone likes or dislikes me because of my sexuality, but people are hiding behind Religion and the Government that they want to grant them rights to discriminate, but they don't want "Big Government".

And people can hide behind whatever they want. If some can use it, all can.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
i personally find it absurd that you can dislike anyone based on Sexuality, Gender, Race etc. we are People, don't like me for my person not my sexuality

While absurd, it is everyone's right to do so.

Personally, I dislike a person for the person as a whole, not on what religion they are or race or so on.

a reply to: Euphem

You are right i don't have evidence to support they do it to everyone, but we do have evidence they do it to gay people. Hence the comment made and admitted that it was made by the daughter.
Kinda hard to say it is a two way street when only one side is having it enforced.

And I agree not every one wants to see people make out or what have you, that is why most here are asking that if it is such a big deal in that restaurant, why is only the gay couple getting banned?
Are we to believe that are the first couple to ever show some sort of PDA in that establishment?
Also, how hard is it to not look at something you don't want to see?

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n


Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.

You know, if you replaced the word gay with Palestinian in that statement, you'd have a Jewish zionist state propaganda rambling there.

You're only saying such things, just like the Jews do about Palestine in a transparent attempt to hide an uncomfortable truth; You simply don't like us and will try and say black is white in order to rally public opinion to your cause.

Made no sense whatsoever. Quit the 'replace X with Y' wordgames (its dumb really)and make an attempt to Answer to the point. Why would you want to eat at a place where you are not wanted?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

if only straight people would just shut up and refrain from speaking their minds.

Straight people are and always will be entitled to their opinions.
.

Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.

No. What you're pissy about is that the very people that you dislike are fighting back and winning.

as far as the texas restaurant mentioned in the op is concerned, they are the ones fighting back and winning. Right?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well considering the sign on the door, I would imagine they have had issues before. The sign has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation, just asking everyone to act like ladies and gentleman.

You cannot control all of your employees, and what they say, but I know the flamboyant, and outspoken gay crowd very well. My cousin is one such individual. He recently married his sweetheart, and they are now a very happy and interracially gay couple. I love them both dearly and only mention the interracial part as it seems that is much more taboo still in today's culture. So I am far from homophobic.

With that being said, he is the most outspoken and passionate person I have ever known, especially when it comes to anything gay related. Listening to stories from him over the years at Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc...,many times it seems as if he goes out and does certain things as if he were on a mission to be seen and heard. He loves the attention, and provocation of doing something he knows makes others feel uncomfortable.

What I am getting at here is that many in the gay community purposely put themselves into certain environments, acting a certain way, doing/saying certain things that can offend people. They know anything gay/race related is a hot button topic and will help to further their agenda.

So I am not surprised if other incidents like this have happened and have never made the news. Why would they? Who cares if some teen couple is making out and gets kicked out. Nobody cares, and those teens aren't going to cry out for attention over it. Nor do they have an extremely charged and passionate rights group behind them waiting for the next story to latch onto.

Get what I am saying?

originally posted by: Euphem
Yes I get what you are getting at, but you are harping on me for lack of proof when you don't offer any against what I am saying, and offer nothing but a personal anecdote your self. Hardly evidence as many would agree.
You then go on to assume, and feel you have the right cause you know gay people, that this couple was like the family member you describe where as you have no proof for that either.
You seem to be implying they did this to push an agenda or putting themselves in the situation on purpose, which I don't see how you can know that.

Again, as it is stands and until you can show me different. Big earl has banned a gay couple for PDA under the guise of men acting like men and women acting like women, which who is he to say how that is either way.
But no record of a straight couple getting the same treatment, so again, where is this two way street?


And of course he can not control all of his employes but this was his daughter, so I think big earl did have a think or two to do with her thoughts.
And as always, your employe's will always be an extension of the owner/establishment and their views can and will be taken as those as the establishment unless said employee no longer works for the establishment.

originally posted by: markosity1973
True, but believing a leopard can change it's spots just because you read about it from a 'scientific' website doesn't mean what you read is solid unshakeable reality though.

Why place "scientific" in quotes? Just because you don't agree with the data?

originally posted by: markosity1973
For instance, I was once visited by a group that represented the infamous and now extinct exodus ministries. They told me that gay people are gay because if one of 5 reasons. They were 100% adamant that I am gay because I had a distant father. This is total bollicks because my dad is a farmer and worked from home. I wasn't sexually abused, so that ruled that out. I did not fit the other three categories either, so broken logic dictated it was dad's fault. I'm not sure how Dad would feel about that.......

But hey, my and everyone else's testimony can't be right if science says so and you agree now could it?

You didn't state your reasons. Your own case might not fit those standards, but many cases do. I have personally known people that became homosexual as a result of abuse. Some left later, some didn't. Their STATED reason was the abuse. Another person I know stated flat out that being raised by her lesbian mother and partner was what made her that way. Her statement, not mine. When the science I read agrees with personal testimonies from people I know and have known, then yes, I tend to believe the science. "Everyone else's" testimony isn't the same as yours. Some might be, but a LOT are not. It's a complicated thing, as I already stated. Not all will have the same cause.

originally posted by: markosity1973
As far as the behaviour in the restaurant goes, there's a major difference between putting your leg up on someone and kissing and heavy petting. I've already stated I'm not a fan of PDA's but I've been to enough restaurants with my partner and have witnessed straight couples do a lot more than put their leg in a lap and nobody bats an eyelid.

One rule for everyone is where this needs to go. If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the same restaurant has banned heterosexual couples for doing the same thing then the last 20 pages of this thread are just hot air.

Oh, I agree. Simply propping up legs shouldn't be an issue, unless it caused some damage to a seat, which isn't what was stated here. However, it's very possible that a lot more than that went on. I have seen straight couple do that and then move on to some seriously inappropriate behavior. That, coupled with a ban for paying customers, is what makes me inclined to believe the couple in this case was likely doing something like that, and was thus banned. I have seen people react to that kind of thing, too, depending on how busy the place was, and who noticed. Sometimes people complain, and sometimes they don't. A complaint would have been warranted in those cases, though.

Very good rule. The problem would be in locating such a case, because even when they happen, they don't tend to get media coverage, and in a small Texas town, people aren't likely to talk about it it it happened to them. Plus, if someone was banned, it seems unlikely they'd come forward and talk about it now. It would clear things up if some did, though! Likewise, if a homosexual couple went in, didn't do anything but eat and talk, and wasn't banned, that would show the same thing. If it was shown that a straight couple got away with it, that would be strong evidence that this pair was targeted, too. It would be nice if we had more witnesses, or video.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Fair enough. A personal anecdote is never going to be proof, but I wasn't really trying to prove anything. Sometimes real world experiences are better than what you are going to read on the internet.

I was not insinuating this couple was purposely doing anything. Just using common sense that going to a place called "Big Earl's Bait house and country store" that has a fat redneck guy with a fishing pole on the sign...might still be a bit backwards and less tolerant than the rest of the country... don't ya think? Maybe I am crazy, but that sounds like a place I would try to avoid if I were a gay person.

Like I said before, nobody is going to whine and moan about getting kicked out for PDA if they are a straight couple. Nobody in the news would care...think about it...why would they? So no I probably won't find proof of this happening with a straight couple, and even if I did nobody would care...including you.

Look...is Big Earl uncomfortable with gays in his establishment? Is he a bigot? Possibly....but they didn't get kicked out for being gay, they got kicked out for PDA...and there are far worse things going on in this world than some stupid # like this.

a reply to: macman

It's not that I don't agree with pretty much everything you have to say - it's that I am astounded that weapons are legally protected, but human decency is thrown by the wayside in the guise of protecting free speech.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

if only straight people would just shut up and refrain from speaking their minds.

Straight people are and always will be entitled to their opinions.
.

Only if the opinion resembles the ''opinion'' propagated by the gay movement. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest media driven ''its all about equality and rights'' argument that is parroted to silence the opposition.

No. What you're pissy about is that the very people that you dislike are fighting back and winning.

as far as the texas restaurant mentioned in the op is concerned, they are the ones fighting back and winning. Right?

They certainly will get a heap of toothless hicks at their establishment who want to support Earl and his daughter, that's for sure!

The one thing we agree on is that the couple ought to have shut up about this, because you're right - the business will do a roaring trade.

That doesn't detract from the fact that you're anti-homosexual and pro-stupid religion and I'll fight those opposed to what's good and right until the day I die.