Lesbian couple ejected from mall meet with property managers

www.cnn.com...

(CNN) -- A lesbian couple who say they were asked to leave a North Carolina shopping center after sharing a kiss and a hug met with the center's property manager on Saturday.

"We welcomed the opportunity to sit down with the women and offer our sincere regrets over last week's incident," said George York, president of York Properties, which manages the Cameron Village shopping center in Raleigh, North Carolina. The incident took place Wednesday at Cameron Village.

I must confess that displays of affection between two women doesn't bother me in the least.
But when I see two guys kissing it makes me uncomfortable. I've always thought of myself as a very tolerant person about sexuality, race, occupation etc. But I suppose my Texan macho upbringing still has an influence on my over all psyche and attitudes.

I don't think that your reaction is abnormal at all, but put your anti-flame undies, voicing unPC opinions on this topic always get the poster burnt at the stake

You brought it on you!

As a side note, I have the same feelings myself, but (normally enough) my wife feels the opposite. Probably something deep seated in the DNA or whatnot. Hey, that might be a good homophobic defense...I was born that way!

I know I'm gonna steal some of you flames with that one, but I don't believe in holding any topic so sacrosanct that a bit of humor can't be tossed at it!

_____________
So as for the OP topic: How lame. Unless they were making a scene (ie extreme PDA, groping and what not) there was no reason for them to be ejected. Really, it's friggin 2010, even in the south.

Disclaimer: No I am not homophobic, don't get your panties in a bunch, learn to laugh. And I'm not gonna defend myself either, my serious postings on the subject speak for themselves. Have a nice day.

Gay people have the same feelings when I see straight couples kissing -- discomfort, squeamishness, etc. Guess who tolerates it more? I should certainly hope that all of us don't actually care because they have a little thing called perspective? Why stop people from showing affection to one another? Because we don't want to be "subjected to looking at it"? Who cares? Get over it.

Sounds like a dumb a** security officer over stepping his bounds to me. I was once asked to leave a mall just because I was not dressed right to be there. What really made me mad was I was only there to buy some nice cloths for my mother's funeral.

reply to post by whaaa

I must confess that displays of affection between two women doesn't bother me in the least. But when I see two guys kissing it makes me uncomfortable. I've always thought of myself as a very tolerant person about sexuality, race, occupation etc. But I suppose my Texan macho upbringing still has an influence on my over all psyche and attitudes.

I have no issues with homosexuality, but as a woman I am just the opposite. Two guys kissing, not a problem, I may even think to myself, "Awww, what a cute couple." but two girls kissing grosses me out a bit. at the very least is s sure fire way to keep me from being "in the mood" for a while.
Its certainly not because I think its wrong. I think its a case where mentally you think one thing but your body has the opposite reaction.

This story has a lot of holes in it IMO.

1st, the woman involved was a gay rights activist. Any time any type of activist claims they were discriminated against, I feel a little sceptical.

2nd, we only hear her point of view. She says she wasn't doing anything inappropriate or provocative but, we only hear her side of the story. The merchant saying he doesn't care who he sells to doesn't count IMO, he never commented on whether the women had been acting provocatively, he only says that what they were doing wouldn't stop him from taking their money.

3rd where is the guard's side of the story? Why don't we hear anything about what led him to throw her out? It is entirely possible that he was responding to a customer complaint or had seen the women groping each other in an overly affectionate manner which would make people uncomfortable even if it was a strait couple. We don't know because we only heard one side of the story.

It is entirely possible that this may be the results of an over-zealous rent-a-cop but, I would like to hear both sides of the story before I render judjment.

I say get your gay on, as if I could care.

reply to post by whaaa


My first reaction is that any news story that ends with the words:

Breedlove is a gay activist, but she says the incident wasn't planned.

WRAL reported that the American Civil Liberties Union may take legal action over the episode.

suggests a lot.

I think that we've all had unfortunate moments were somebody crossed a line with us. I've been asked to leave places of business for no good reason before. When that happened I contacted management, complained, and was offered an apology and a gift card for my troubles.

I did NOT involve the ACLU.

Are we seriously becoming a nation where some yahoos stupidity becomes a national debate and gets cited as "hate" or "discrimination"???

Fire the guard, apologize to the women. Anything more is ridiculous.

~Heff

I wish us white heterosexuals could come up with a cool financial scam like this.......it won't happen, but whoever thought this up in the gay community was a genious. I'll act up, get thrown out, and then have the professional extortion group known as the ACLU collect my money for me.

So, what we're saying is... discrimination cannot happen to civil rights activists? Everything is planned and is a scam? Why so quick to label?

reply to post by Brood


Previoous incidents all point to the same thing....gay activist, offended, ACLU, huge settlement. No brainer really, just a way to rip off another business while filling their pockets for free.............

Crikey, two people kiss and it's like they've mugged an old lady or flashed their genitals at passing shoppers.

I mean come on, all those that are grossed out by seeing members of the same sex kissing must be also grossed out by two unattractive people kissing, or old people. What about seeing disabled people kissing? Should only straight couples be allowed to do it in public?

Ok, you can't help being grossed out by it, don't bleeding look, they're not asking you to join in!

As for the, well she's a gay rights activist so that explains it, where did deny ignorance go?

Yes you can assume she was trying to make a point and trying to get a message out, she may have even been confrontational when she was approached by the Officer and asked to stop. The facts are she was only kissing and hugging, no more no less, or she would have been accused or charged with something else.

I've been grossed out by the sight of many people kissing in public but it doesn't give me the right to stop them, unless they take it further.

More shown love in the World, less hate.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
I wish us white heterosexuals could come up with a cool financial scam like this......

It's called marraige.

reply to post by Tykonos


Nah, I can't kiss my wife in public and then sue when I offend someone. Neither am I an activist looking for to financially rape a business with the aid of professional extortionists. That sort of thing just isn't even on the same plain..........

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Tykonos

 

Nah, I can't kiss my wife in public and then sue when I offend someone. Neither am I an activist looking for to financially rape a business with the aid of professional extortionists. That sort of thing just isn't even on the same plain..........

Imagine you did kiss your wife and you got thrown out of a shopping mall because of it. I'm sure you would sue!

What makes you know the lady in question is looking to financially rape a business? You pressume she does because she is an activist.

reply to post by Tykonos


Proven track record of both gy activitsts and the ACLU..............get rich scheme that works.
How do you assume this was an unplanned thing?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Tykonos

 

Proven track record of both gy activitsts and the ACLU..............get rich scheme that works.
How do you assume this was an unplanned thing?

It wouldn't work if there wasn't discriminatory people on every corner, would it? You said yourself, if there was a method that straight, white people could do this, you would do it, too! So, you should be blaming the security guard and stupid people that allow these lawsuits to happen because they are stupid enough to bring their ignorant "opinions" to their work and start enforcing them as if that's where they belong. Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder big enough to cover your eyes.

reply to post by Brood


Nope, no chip, just seeing what it really is.......a money making scheme.
It's funny that the ACLU thinks people don't see them for what they truely are.

Personally, I find all public displays of affection to be nauseating. I don't care if it is straight, gay, lesbian, or aliens doing the hand-holding, nuzzling, googly-eyes, and kissing. Regardless of who is doing it, it is downright disgusting to those of us who are jaded and cynical about love. PDAs (and Valentine's Day too) should be against the law no matter who is doing it! (I primarily jest, especially about that last part, but figured it would prove my point.)

Well, all privately owned business have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as it is not arbitrary and whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. Some stores kick out shirtless red-necks while others kick out shoeless hippies, and some kick out lesbians committing PDAs. The Federal Civil Rights Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act does protect groups of individuals from discrimination, however it does not necessarily protect individuals themselves from discrimination if the discrimination is not arbitrary. About the only recourse one has in such a case when they are refused service at any establishment is to organize a boycott or protest.

So, if the Mall kicks out any people displaying PDAs, whether they be straight, lesbian, disabled, illegal-aliens, or reptilian, then it's perfectly legal. The Mall has the legal right to refuse service to anyone based on any non-arbitrary reason that would not discriminate against an entire group of individuals. However, if they are letting straights show PDAs but not lesbians, hippies, or disabled people, then it is wrong and a violation of State and Federal laws.

Originally posted by fraterormus
Personally, I find all public displays of affection to be nauseating. I don't care if it is straight, gay, lesbian, or aliens doing the hand-holding, nuzzling, googly-eyes, and kissing. Regardless of who is doing it, it is downright disgusting to those of us who are jaded and cynical about love. PDAs (and Valentine's Day too) should be against the law no matter who is doing it! (I primarily jest, especially about that last part, but figured it would prove my point.)

This will be the argument that the defense will likely have, and it will hold up in court if the women cannot provide ample evidence to prove that PDAs are allowed when done by heterosexuals... and I'm not going to pretend it's going to be hard for them to snap some pictures of some heteros necking at the mall .

Well, all privately owned business have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as it is not arbitrary and whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. Some stores kick out shirtless red-necks while others kick out shoeless hippies, and some kick out lesbians committing PDAs. The Federal Civil Rights Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act does protect groups of individuals from discrimination, however it does not necessarily protect individuals themselves from discrimination if the discrimination is not arbitrary.

This is the one they'll be going with:

The Civil Rights Act of 2005 [AB 1400] adds sexual orientation, gender, and marital status to the Unruh Act, explicitly strengthening nondiscrimination protections to clarify that businesses that provide services, goods or accommodations to the public cannot discriminate against LGBT people. The law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments" covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners' associations.