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

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Or you could actually do the research or just cheat since we've all done it already and posted it here and then you wouldn't have to guess or make assumptions on what happened.

Their behavior was hardly something to make a fuss over. One was resting his legs in the lap of the other across the table. That's it.

a reply to: mOjOm

According to one post, one of them was well up underneath the table, which means a lot more than simply legs touching. You are assuming nothing inappropriate happened, but you have no actual evidence to prove that. The couple says one thing, and the restaurant people say quite another thing. Unless you have video proving they didn't act in some way that warranted their removal, then my opinion is just as valid as yours. All of the articles plainly state that the restaurant owner told them to leave because of how they were acting. If I was half under the table, acting all sexual in a restaurant with my husband, they would be right to kick us out. Behavior, not preference, was the issue here. This pair acting that way, in that of all places, is clearly planned to make a fuss. They need a lesson in manners, and to grow up.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Prove it!!!

When asked to show the footage of it, the restaurant refused. Who do you think is the liar here?

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: HandyDandy
a reply to: James1982

I was assaulted by a buch of black teens as a white man. It WAS considered a "hate crime". How does that coincide with your "special" theory?

I'm not sure what you're asking? I don't think ANYONE should be charged with a hate crime.

So you are somehow more important of a victim because your attackers were black and attacked you for being white? Sorry, no. You were a victim of assault, your color and the colors of your attackers don't make the crime and more or less severe.

You seem to be attributing thoughts to me that aren't mine...

Um...you dumb #e. You said that white straight males weren't "special". I just showed you wrong and you moved the goal posts? Go back to the damn dark ages if you want. Me...I'll be in the majority of actual thinking people who realize how dumb you are.

a reply to: HandyDandy

I wouldn't post footage that showed offensive behavior, either. Plus, who says they HAVE footage of every table, or underneath one? The couple was misbehaving under the table, which would be visible to other patrons.

You prove they weren't. Until you can, my speculation is as valid as that of anyone else.

my 2 cents... The customer may be king, but even kings depend on non-king types for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The restaurant owner has the RIGHT to pick and choose what kind of people do business at his place...customers always have the option of eating somewhere else. Its not the end of the world if homosexuals are refused service at a place operating on ideas opposed to theirs.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
my 2 cents... The customer may be king, but even kings depend on non-king types for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The restaurant owner has the RIGHT to pick and choose what kind of people do business at his place...customers always have the option of eating somewhere else. Its not the end of the world if homosexuals are refused service at a place operating on ideas opposed to theirs.

Exactly and if there's a restaurant that has a sign expressly forbidding christians or muslims or jews or even people with beards or long hair from eating at their restaurant - same thing, no big deal.

The man owns the business and can operate it as he pleases.

I always thought you and I were on different pages, but it seems we aren't after all.

originally posted by: charles1952
"Here's how people respond to Big Earl." I said with a touch of moral superiority. "My bottom line is this isn't a place and these aren't people I'd personally want to be around, so I'd avoid them."

The spectre smiled and said "I'll bet that's exactly what Big Earl said. But Big Earl is stuck in one location and all he can do is keep people he doesn't want to be around away from him."

Exactly, spectre. Mutual respect was exactly what I was trying to say. He warns me, and I stay away. Not a lick of judgement there. Just no one I'd choose to be around for 1000 reasons.

(But hey, the poor thing stuck in one place trying to make money off only those who behave as he wishes them to. That's his prerogative. Laughs.)

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Well, at least here in the west we can say nobody got stoned to death like they probably would have under Sharia law.

As you can see though Skorp, the west and 'Christian' nations that you so passionately dislike still stand against the same issues. The big difference is nobody has to die,

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Well, at least here in the west we can say nobody got stoned to death like they probably would have under Sharia law.

As you can see though Skorp, the west and 'Christian' nations that you so passionately dislike still stand against the same issues. The big difference is nobody has to die,

this topic has NOTHING to do with Shariah or even religion for that matter...Clearly, you have some sort of a chip on your shoulder...as far as some religions are concerned.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

I am merely pointing out the difference in ideology of pluralism and the old outdated mode of a single religion being the power of state. Christianity made the same mistake too in the past, but we have moved on from it now for the most part.

You are pushing your view which comes from religion that certain groups of people should be denied service.  

Gay people gotta eat too you know. PDAs are unnecessary, but I've witnessed enough stomach churning heterosexual displays in public where nothing gets said or done to know that hypocrisy is the big factor at play here with the OP story.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
my 2 cents... The customer may be king, but even kings depend on non-king types for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The restaurant owner has the RIGHT to pick and choose what kind of people do business at his place...customers always have the option of eating somewhere else. Its not the end of the world if homosexuals are refused service at a place operating on ideas opposed to theirs.

Exactly and if there's a restaurant that has a sign expressly forbidding christians or muslims or jews or even people with beards or long hair from eating at their restaurant - same thing, no big deal.

The man owns the business and can operate it as he pleases.

I always thought you and I were on different pages, but it seems we aren't after all.

well, I'd REALLY appreciate it if restaurants were honest with their attitudes towards groups they have a problem with. A little sign saying 'we dont serve youre types' is far better than walking into a place where the owner / staff hates my type and makes me pay for food they spat into. Acceptance cant be enforced.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

 

Gay people gotta eat too you know. .

let them eat at places without signs saying they arent welcome. How difficult is that?

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

 

Gay people gotta eat too you know. .

let them eat at places without signs saying they arent welcome. How difficult is that?

You mean so we can return to times like this?



I don't think so.......

*edit My apologies to any person who sees that pic and is offended by it. Apartheid was one of the cruelest and most unjust things man has ever concocted. It is however a visual demonstration of what is being suggested.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

 

Gay people gotta eat too you know. .

let them eat at places without signs saying they arent welcome. How difficult is that?

You mean so we can return to times like this?

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

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, which then equates to discrimination.

It's not discrimination when you display say a halal poster or a gluten free sticker to let certain people know food is okay for them to eat for their dietary / religious needs. It is however discrimination when you start advertising you don't serve homosexuals or Hindus etc.

It's not rocket science.

In a country of 300 million plus every once in a while one of those 300 million speaks ill will of others, we all know it is rare, but it should be posted across the country, and endlessly debated on.

originally posted by: markosity1973

Gay people gotta eat too you know. PDAs are unnecessary, but I've witnessed enough stomach churning heterosexual displays in public where nothing gets said or done to know that hypocrisy is the big factor at play here with the OP story.

Some PDA is ok and even sweet, some is gross... Call me human I guess but I don't categorizes all PDA in the same bucket. I'm sure each of us has their own unique list of what is acceptable or not.

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 do such a thing. What about you?

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. It should NOT be through signs saying this is where gay people eat and this is where straight people eat etc.

For instance, I purchased my 4wd based upon a number of considerations such as brand, features, price, practicality and fuel efficiency. Not for one single second did I consider whether it was suitable for people of my sexuality / religion / race and nor should I have needed to. The same principle applies to restaurants.

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'