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

Bingo.

 

This is inconsistent with what you said earlier.

Guess I should know better than to respond to you.

 

Maybe the sign is just there to say "you aren't welcome".... knowing that many will then not try to enter, and has nothing to do with throwing people out.

If you're going to create silly threads based on hypotheticals, you can't argue with the people who respond.

Why be so crude?

No one cares how you take it.
Just be respectful of those repulsed by it, and others who don't come here to read juvenile garbage like that.

 

and what is that? You state that a restaurant would not serve because they suspect the person to engage in gay sex. Let's review that bakery who sold baked items to homosexuals but did not wish to be involved in a gay wedding. Now, one could say that it's just another baked good while another could argue that a gay wedding is against their religion. In that case, it's simply the gay wedding and religion however general sales continue.

You'll find that trying to draw any similarity to race and sexual activity is utter nonsense

 

Except the sign is backed by a law that allows them to refuse service to gays...

I can't argue with people for responding. But I can argue with people who provide lazy, half-witted responses.

Another lazy argument. I don't care if someone is repulsed by gays being gays. I care if people think that being repulsed by gays gives them the right to refuse service to gays.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the hypo in the OP is about a restaurant. Not a bakery refusing to work at a wedding. Honestly, I find that less objectionable than places of accommodation refusing to serve.

 

As long as you agree comparing racial discrimination to homosexual discrimination is stupid.
You even agreed:

I agree there is a tinge of contradiction in my comments, but I stand by the question. Since homosexuality and race are being discussed in the other thread, why create a new one where homosexuality and race are to be discussed.

Rhetorical, I'll just look forward to "Would eat at a place that said pedohpiles only?" or something else just as hypothetically stupid.

You certainly aren't required to.

Did you not see the sign.... "No Stupid Responses Allowed Here".

 

No it's not. That sign doesn't exist.

I didn't say anything about being repulsed by gays.... I said repulsed by your statements of how you "take it".

Respect for others who are reading is what I was addressing... which as you said... you clearly have none.

 

While I think the two are the same, others obviously disagree. Thus, two threads were warranted. People discussing homosexuality in the other thread are off-topic. Not that I care about that.

 

but how does someone know that you are gay?

are you not comfortable in the lifestyle you've chosen? Why do you feel that you need to find a bogey man?

It does not bother me that you sleep with other men, that is your choice. Your vote for Obama and Democrats bothers me more.

Supporting liberals says a heck of a lot more about a person than how they have sex does

 

I don't think you understand how a hypothetical works.

1. Perhaps you shouldn't use pronouns like "it" when they create ambiguity.
2. I'm not gay, so I don't take it up the ass. Though I understand how it may confuse you that a non-gay would support gay rights.

People are really going to be offended by that? Just lol dude. Just lol. HAY GUYS ITS MY FIRST DAY ON THE INTERNET HOLY (*)(*)(*)(*) WHAT'S THIS ABOUT TAKING IT IN THE ASS? OH MY EYES

 

Support gay rights but not religious rights.

 

I don't believe people should have the right to refuse to serve others out of bigotry, even under the pretext of religious freedom.

I don't believe requiring businesses to accommodate everyone who does not pose a legitimate threat to the business is a significant infringement on anyone's rights.

 

What makes you think your religion gets to trump the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause?

 

Correct.

And technically, it is not about orientation at all. Because it is likely that (if they are only judging by appearances) fruity straight guys would also be denied service.

Justin Beiber would be denied service.

 

You're right, 3link... and I shouldn't have made a comment about it. I apologize.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh....

 

They won't, that is the point but do you believe that they should be forced to participate in something that is not part of their religion under threat of law? The law is not about business serving anyone, that is the canard the gay rights advocates are pushing. The law protects religious freedom. There is nothing in Christianity that says you cannot serve someone that is gay. In fact Jesus consorted with the lowest in society. Do you think that Muslims should have to be forced to go to a pig roast under threat of law? I doubt many would. Now do you think a Christian should be forced to go to a gay wedding? Same difference.

 

for the same reason you think gay rights trump religious rights

 

it's always humorous to me when people who are the most vocal about gay rights, must also feel the need to make sure everyone knows they don't "take it up the ass"

you and your affinity with taking it up the ass..... hmmmmm, me thinks you protesteth.... to hardeth....

 

There's a difference though, Justin Bieber can be denied service on the justification that his presence in a business would likely bring paparazzi and too many screaming fans that the presence of the "star" would disrupt the business's operations and could have the potential to violate building codes relating to occupant capacity of the premises. That justification is based on the fact that he is a celebrity, not that he looks homosexual. You can't "look" homosexual. I know more regular gay guys that you wouldn't be able to tell they were gay unless they told you than I know flamers. I even know of a few people who could be mistaken as gay because they're characteristically "flamer" but they're straight.

 

So you think he is the only fruity straight guy in the world? LOL

I just used him as an example. There are tons of them now.

I disagree. Beiber looks like a total homo to me.

 

That's where you are either a) stupid, or b) uninformed. I'll leave it up to you, or your comments to determine which one fits best.

Allowing gays to have the same rights as everyone else does nothing to ostracize those who are religious. All it says is you cannot use your religion to discriminate against others in the general public. Acceptance of LGBT individuals will not compromise a damn thing. Religious bigots can still be religious bigots, the only difference is, they cannot use the law to codify their religious bigotry.

First off. I said nothing about Beiber being the only person who looks gay but is straight. Secondly, you did not address the fact that under the Strict Scrutiny doctrine used by Federal courts for the past several decades, discrimination based on how someone looks cannot possibly survive.

 

but who are you to define bigotry? Unless you came right out and told me, I would not know that you sleep with other men. I would take your cash and be happy.


Now, if you were missing a limb or were over 7 feet tall then I could clearly tell that. That is why your group will ultimately have to realize that asking for protection based upon how you choose to have sex is utter nonsense. Nobody can tell what you do in your bedroom.

 

\
However, im sure you would have no problem entering a restaurant that discriminates against smokers? Right?

 

I played poker in a tourney with a guy at a poker room last week that wore a shirt that said "single" in rainbow letters.... They love to advertise, that's for sure....


and then he had the nerve to get upset when, after I got his number, told him I wasn't gay and he got embarrassed and upset and just left the $25 tournament while he still had chips left. They sure do get emotional a lot, too. It's almost like I knew that and found a way to eliminate competition from the tournament


bwahahahaha.


(I took 10th....)

 

Currently in AZ there is no law stopping business owners from putting up "no gay" signs now. Why isn't it happening already? There are gay businesses that are banning straights though and I suppose that is OK.

WeHo Bar To ‘Deny Entry’ To Lawmakers Who Back Anti-Gay Legislation