Would you refuse to dine at a 'Straights Only' restaurant?

how could that even be practiced? even gay bars aren't exclusive to "gays only"

if I'm dining at your establishment, you have no way of knowing if I'm gay, bi, or straight

 

I would dine there regularly just to (*)(*)(*)(*) of the culural fascsits.

 

I'd go since I am straight.

 

They wouldn't have to know, they'd only have to suspect (or maybe the word should be fear) that you're gay. There are fairly simple clues to suggest the difference between two friends eating together and a couple having a romantic meal. Even if they get it wrong, it's hardly a positive. I wonder how many of the defenders of such a rule would feel if they were publicly ordered to leave the restaurant because the owners thought they were gay?

I'm also curious what those people would do if they went to the "straights only" restaurant and saw something they knew to be gay eating there (with a group of platonic friends, causing absolutely no problems).

 

So you're dodging the question. Got it.

 

I would go if I were gay. How the hell are they going to know? As a straight guy I likely would not go.

 

what? seriously? cuz that could actually be enforced. Like a "people who like Ralph Nader only" restaurant, there's no real way to verify that. Just because, I'd go in and act all flamboyant-like.

What, two lines is tl;dr now?

 

This makes me want to see the law pass just so a straight pair of people who gay-bash get kicked out of a restaurant and then scream discrimination. If I was a gay business owner in Phoenix, I'd put a no-gays sign up, and then kick out some straights just to spite their asses. Then I'd switch the sign to "no straights".

Then you weren't discriminated against hard enough. Discrimination is also unconstitutional, but I guess you skipped over the part about "equal protection of the law" in the 14th Amendment. Equal protection means that nobody can be discriminated against without a valid and compelling government interest. Limiting marriage is no longer a compelling government interest.

Just like those people that say bullying is something that can be overcome with "manning up", those idiots don't realize that bullying is the root cause of many kids coming to school with firearms. For people who say "I was bullied in school and I retaliated" I say "you weren't bullied hard enough to consider yourself bullied unless you considered ending your own life more than once."

 

Two irrelevant lines don't make a point. I'm not asking if it is verifiable. I'm asking if you'd refuse to eat at a 'Straights Only' restaurant. Whether that is feasible or not is irrelevant because it's now legal in Arizona.

 

He said he would go in the restaurant and act flamboyant.

 

Are you sure? Looks more like he's saying it wouldn't be verifiable 'just because' he went in acting all flamboyant.

 

I answered the question directly the first time, and put it in bold and italics the second. Who knows, maybe the third time's the charm?

what? seriously? cuz that could actually be enforced. Like a "people who like Ralph Nader only" restaurant, there's no real way to verify that. Just because, I'd go in and act all flamboyant-like.

For the record I checked no, since I'd only be going in to poke fun, as my original answer stated.

 

It looks more like you're saying 'they won't be able to verify that just because I'd go in and act all flamboyant-like.'

 

^_- separate clauses.

"what? seriously? cuz that could actually be enforced. Like a "people who like Ralph Nader only" restaurant, there's no real way to verify that." then, separately, "Just because, I'd go in and act all flamboyant-like."

It makes more sense when you see the period between "that" and "Just".

 

I have gay friends. If I they have good food, I could never enjoy a meal there with them, which is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). So no, I wouldn't eat there.

 

Gays don't have a rainbow-colored halo over their heads, and most straight people don't have a reliable gaydar. There are gays that slip right past many straight folks. So being gay isn't verifiable.

 

YEP, I'd go elsewhere! Same as when I called a vendor in 1991 when they sent out a memo saying they would not produce any items for the LBGT community (it wasn't even called that then). They were a well known vendor in my industry. I found another vendor and with the past 20+ years I have given that vendor at least $250,000 in business.

 

Do the other restaurants say "GAYS Welome" or do they not have a sign at all? If there is a sign, I wouldnt eat there either.

 

I've eaten at Hunkies... does that mean I'm gay now?

 

Since these are basically just troll posts I guess the trend will be that tomorrow it will be "Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't allow women?" and then the day after it will be "Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't allow American Indians?". This is boring and tedious and its going to have virtually the same exact results as the other thread about *gasp* "Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't allow black people?"

Don't forget to make threads for Hispanics, handicapped people, veterans, gingers and ugly people. Don't want to leave anyone out.

 

Texans. Everybody hates Texans.

Colorado has bumper stickers saying TEXAN GO HOME.

 

It's now technically the LBGTE community and even the people that I worked with at the LBGT club on my campus said it was getting ridiculous. I can't wait for people to start demanding that all of Facebook's 50 sexual "identities" have to be included in the acronym as to not offend anyone.

 

nope but if there is a sign gay or straight, it means the food probably is awful as there isnt enough focus on the food which is the purpose of the restaurant not making political statements.

 

If Colorado didn't want anyone from TX coming over they should not have legalized pot. They are going to have way more visitors from every state.

 

Yep, they will get Rocky Mountain high in more than one way. John Denver was right.