Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

I dunno - there is nothing clear-cut in the media report of this incident (so what else is new?) but it would appear that the proprietor considered the actions of the two young men to be unacceptable, and in breach of the house rules as laid down by himself.

If they were engaging in a sexual act in a public place, that would be considered unacceptable by most people, irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation. It would also be in breach of the laws and ordinances governing public behaviour, and the proprietor had every right to object.

However, we have only the word of the waitress concerned - there is no evidence that other customers complained of the alleged behaviour, and under those circumstances, any action brought in respect of the incident would fail in a court of law.

In my view, the proper course of action would have been for the proprietor to approach the young men, and politely but firmly ask them to stop doing whatever it is they were doing, or to leave his establishment.

As for the alleged act, I have seen young women stretching their legs out and resting them on their male partner's legs in fast food restaurants (and in waiting rooms and on aircraft,) and thought little of it. It is an intimate act, but I do not consider it an overtly sexual one. It is possible that the restauranteur is a touch homophobic, and this informed his waitress daughter's behavior.

I was going to say 'the lady's behaviour', but her alleged choice of language rather precludes that title. And anyway, who would want to eat in a place that sells fish bait?

 

Right up there with eating shrimp. (Leviticus 11:9-12)




​

 

The key words are:

"they shall be an abomination unto you: "

Think of that as a Devine Public Safety Announcement.

God does not call eating shrimp a sin but merely an unsafe practice that could make you sick.

 

They should, that sounds like a good battle to have. But full faith and credit was established to apply to marriage already. All the federal courts needed to do was strike down the bans that hs occurred.

The chl should be a full faith and credit issue. License to drive is, marriage licenses are. But many licenses don't go from state to state.

 

All sinners will answer to God.

 

Nope, Leviticus calls eating shrimp an abomination Leviticus 11 " ...10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you...."

 

Anyway, back to the convo.


It would appear that the full power of social media is on display when it comes to Earl's.

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/yelp...nge-on-we-dont-like-(*)(*)(*)(*)-r-1584239561

 

Great choice in media! I mean, there doesn't seem to be an agenda there or anything... NOT.

It really is funny that you didn't include the massive support it gained on Twitter and other sites.

Bottom line: Big Earl's will continue to be successful; again, this may be hard for you to understand, they reserve the right as a private business to refuse service to ANYONE.

 

Indeed. I think the owner of social media can be a double edged sword, and in this case, there appears to ba a backlash against Big Earl.

Was it successful to start with? I am not aware of the bait shop/restaurant model that serves frozen pizza selling franchises across the US.

As for the reserve the right comment after the petty insult, I don't think I have ever applauded otherwise. Certainly as it is Big Earl's establishment, I think they can refuse service to whomever they please.

But calling folks (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s on the way out seems like a bad way to drum up business.

 

That should tell you all you need to know. Many many humans were involved. Scholars could not even get the sea of reeds correct in the translations.

 

I grew up 15 miles from Pittsburg.................the population is very small. Social Media is only helping Earl on this one.

Its a bait shop for Christ sake..................how much do you really think this will hurt his business?

And sadly, in the area where Earl's place is..................his business will boom temporarily until his 15 minuets are up

 

1) only if they believe in one of them
2) that would be true for every sinner, not just gays. So why the singling out?

 

Quite frankly, they can say whatever they choose to say. If they don't like it, the gay folks can leave; in fact, they did.

And if they (the gay couple), were playing footsie in a Texan, conservative restaurant, they were pretty much asking for it; to make things worse, they did it in front of the owner's daughter. They were clearly not being discreet about it.

That would be like saying the n-word in Harlem. Really? You're asking to get a negative response.

It doesn't really seem to be a "bad way to drum up business" considering that their clientele agree with them on this issue. I don't think anyone in Pittsburg, Texas really finds this to be a big deal except the liberal minority.

 

The usual cherry picking of bible verses to get something to mean exactly the point 1 is trying to make.
According to the bible, everyone on earth is a sinner. Yet for some reason, gay sin is somehow ranked higher than all the others to some sinners. Those that seem to be holier than thou, I guess.

 

Nobody is singling anybody out. At the end of the day, all sinners who do not repent will have to answer to God.

However, this is not a religious discussion; you still failed to explain how this is relevant to Big Earl's establishment.

 

Beg earl's singled them out.

 

Mostly because most Christians are hypocrites.

The seem to forget "let he is without sin cast the first stone"

- - - Updated - - -

Point is that is between the sinner and God...............not the sinner and you

 

I think you're missing the point here.

For the millionth time, Big Earl's has the right as a private business to refuse service to whomever it chooses.

It just so happened that the liberal media made a big deal about this; the bottom line is it is Big Earl's right.

They can "single out" whomever they choose, but I am sure there are instances when previously convicted felons have been denied service, as well as adulterers. So please, cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

 

Really? And who gets to decide what that point is? You? Somehow I didn't see that disclaimer written anywhere in the Bill of Rights but maybe I've missed something all these years that you can clue me in on.

 

I know. Blame the victim. Big Earl's daughter was not in control of her actions, and her spewing her bigoted vitriol was beyond her control.

And those women that wear short skirts? Frankly, if they ad not worn them, they would not have been raped. Those black guys that got lynched? well, if they had only thought ahead of time not to be boprn black, then they would not have gotten lynched.

I am impressed with your logic.

 

I don't know why you people are stuck in the Old Testament. Well actually I do, it's to try to use the Bible against Christians even when you have no clue what the message of the Bible is, not sin and death but life and salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord. Trying to use the Bible as a rule book and thinking it gives you some kind of clout when discussion religion is more than a little absurd and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian faith.

 

Cool. When did Jesus call someone a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)? Isn't the Christ myth about love and acceptance?

 

15,000 manuscripts in existence that corroborate each other and produce an autograph (collusive consensus) that can't be ignored. No human work in history has been verified so many times. If you don't want to believe what the Bible says, that's up to you, but if you think you can undo the Bible by claiming it's corrupted, you're going to set yourself up to look like a fool.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus called all sinners to repentance. That includes me and that includes you. Everyone stands equal before a holy God in their desperate need for redemption, something that can only be gotten through God's mercy in Jesus Christ.

 

Lovely how you didn't quote my next line, which gave a perfect example of what I was trying to say. I guess you just like to pick and choose your quotes?

If you are saying the n-word in Harlem; openly playing footsie in a Texan, conservative restaurant; etc, you're asking for it.

However, don't be absurd. You can't help being born black; I don't recall bringing that example into this discussion.

So please, do yourself a favor, read my entire response before you make assumptions. Then again, why am I surprised? You attacked my religion, claimed I was a racist, and accused me of homophobia.

 

Nope it is not I that look like a fool. You didn't even address the simple mistranslation of the sea of reeds.
Are you reading the original words? Does anyone know where the original written words are? Is what you're reading done in the original written language.
You can believe anything you want, but if you think translated words mean the same in one language as another your language skills would be lacking.