Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

It's unfortunate that someone would find that insulting. To a person who doesn't believe in your God, that's the correct word. And choosing to be insulted because someone demonstrates their lack of belief in your unproven assertions about seemingly impossible ancient events ... well, that doesn't seem very reasonable.

myth noun \ˈmith\
: a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence​

​

 

The Constitution prohibits discrimination by government, not by private individuals. Do you need for me to explain the difference?

 

Is it really up to the orator of offenses to decide whether what he says is offensive or not? What's amazing is how quickly the Left gets offended even by words such as "flamboyant" or "hoodie" but thinks nothing of spewing offenses far more conspicuous toward the people they hate.

 

No, but just like with the weapon, they can leave the more in your face aspects of that identity AT HOME...

“The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut up”

Robertson Davies quotes (Canadian Journalist and Author. 1913-1995

 

MOD EDIT - OFF TOPIC

Anyway, Big Earl's will do just fine and continue to succeed in its conservative environment and serve its clientele with great food, as well as fantastic service to those who deserve it.

MOD EDIT - OFF TOPIC

 

You believe a landlord can legally tell a man he won't rent to him simply because he's black? You think Wallmart can legally fire a man simply because he's a Jew? There are protections imposed on the private sector as well as the public.

When private business become numerous enough, large enough or central enough to a community, the private choices their owners make impact the community. We respect the right of folks to free association, even to bigotry, but we draw the line when those choices become divisive to the community as a whole. When your bigotry creates walls or segregates our town, state, or nation the government will and should intervene. When you threaten this nation, this nation will reduce or suspend the rights it's promised you.

We have laws that restrict how the government may and not not discriminate between citizens. We also have laws that say how private businesses may and may not discriminate between citizens. Do you understand the difference?

​

​

 

My quote was address the other quote not the one with one with the stand in at the dinner.

 

The fact that you want government to intervene in the actions of private businesses is truly sad. It seems as though you rely on government to solve your problems. This is not a case of discrimination; rather, an example of a business reserving its right to refuse service to whomever it pleases.

You are blowing this way out of proportion, my friend.

 

I understand that. Do you understand you repeated what others said about the picture you wrote under 50 years ago?

Do you see why that repeated assertion is treated with greater skepticism today, when you apply it to another group of young people at a lunch counter?




​

 

First off, I don’t hate gays. So don’t even try and float that. Lets reverse this for a second and change the location. Say you have a business in San Francisco. Someone writes that your Anti-Guy, now given the location, do you think that is going to help or harm your business’s reputation?

 

If they didn't do anything obscene, why did they get kicked out? You think they just said we'll kick these people out? No, they did something that caused them to be banned. That is the original quote. Lets get back to that. My position on it still stands. If they weren't doing anything that were to catch the eye of the owner, then it begs the question, what were they doing? They must have been doing something in order for the owner to kick them out, Which is legal.

 

The right to to refuse service to whoever you please is discrimination. The question is what kind of discrimination will we as American's tolerate at our lunch counters.
​

​

 

Oh, please. It is private businesses' right to refuse service to whomever they choose.

Stop playing the race card to justify your claim.

 

No there aren't. Not in the Constitution. The document was never designed to try to control people.​

 

Yes. By all means post it.

Great foods? I see no evidence of that.

 

Now you're going to insult their cooking because you don't like the guy? This conversation is waning sophomoric.

 

I simply said I did not see any evidence of his having "great food". Going by his website, he appears to have frozen pizza, and little else.

 

You have to forgive him. He is very angry.

Keeps interjecting religion in every post, the crying to Mods when its thrown back at him

I'm pretty sure he has most of us on ignore by now.

He is even now the defender of Earl's cooking...........

He is a hoot to watch though.

 

Because genital preference and RACE are "the same", right?

No matter how many times this Liespeak Meme is repeated, is will not be true, sorry.

 

Quit the name-calling, guys. Let's focus on the issue.

Any more thoughts on Big Earl's before we declare this case in favor of the business?

 

Name calling??

 

And are these the same people who still believe in Santa Clause, or that global warming is real?

 

I didn't read it, only yours.

It doesn't matter to faith if Jesus was a real fellah or mythical entity.

 

********* NOTICE **********

I'm going to explain something to everyone that should be an easily understood concept. We can discuss religious abstracts without making it personal. So claiming that when somebody mentions a religious principle, they've got nothing to complain about when you attack their religion on a personal level is in error. You can either address the religious abstract or not if you don't like discussing religion, but when you make it personal, you're in violation of the rules. So let's discuss the ISSUE on every angle, even religious, and not discuss the PERSON, ok?

Any anyone who I've ignored I'm taking off ignore right now.

 

Yes, name-calling. Now, can we please continue with this discussion?

I would actually like to see a liberal efficiently refute the argument that Big Earl's has the right to deny service to whomever it chooses.