Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

As long as the arguments are the same as they were in Greensboro in the 60's, I see no reason to change the response to the them.



​

 

I am, because the current minimum is set so low and a lot of states choose to follow that minimum. 14,500/year is no way to live in any part of the country, especially when you factor in a spouse and a child. Also if working class on full time can't even make it above poverty, who do you think pays the difference? We do. Which is why I support a 10.00 minimum(poverty level for family of 3 is 20,000/year), or 12.50 over 3 years, then set it to inflation/deflation. meaning it goes up or down every year almost. anything over 12.50 and the problems people talk about with high prices and rising unemployment stand a high chance of occuring. And by making it gradual, the economic impact will be softened, as companies adjust to the new higher wage costs(the 4% that pay min wage). Also support raising the tipped min wage to 3.50-4.00/hr, or doing away with that system entirely and going to a min wage across the board.

 

Probably many of them. The scientific community is in consensus on global warming and the Vatican vouches for Nikolaos of Bari. I think they still have his bones.

But if you disagree, you can test your belief that homosexuality is a choice. Pull up a picture of Wesley Snipes and Halle Berry. Stare at them. For just a couple minutes, choose to be sexually excited by someone of the same sex instead of someone of the opposite sex. I'm curious if you find it as easy as you imagine.




​

 

Preferred genitalia is NOT RACE, despite your ongoing , desperate pretense otherwise.

Keep trying the same LGBT-meme LIE, every day, because that will make it "true". Der...

Keep infuriating black Americans with that INSULTING LIE.

 

Ya, remember the customers were called F(*)(*)(*).



​

 

In favor of the business? Does the business somehow have the moral high ground because one of their employees called a couple of folks (*)(*)(*)(*) and they stood by the bigotry, hatred, and homophobia of the business?

I am of the opinion that "the business" is laden with bigoted idiots. i am not sure how that is favorable.

 

Didn't say the lunch counter announced their policy was "to put it plainly, we don’t serve N(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s here," I said the customers were told "to put it plainly, we don’t serve F(*)(*)(*) here."

I'm just pointing out the similarity between the two policies.



​

 

Homosexuality is not defined by "genital preference", whatever that means. It is which gender one is attracted to.

 

My friend, you are operating under circular reasoning. You are repeating the sane things over and over again.

Big Earl's reserves the right to refuse service to whomever it chooses. Also, they can express any opinion they wish, under the First Amendment. If people choose to be offended, so be it; Big Earl's has garnered enough support and publicity to the point where arguing that their success will wane is preposterous.

Case closed; I am ruling in the favor of Big Earl's in a secular setting.

Fortunately, this is not a discussion about morality and forgiveness; only God can answer to their sins. The best we, as humans, can do is help correct our homosexuals brothers' and sisters' behavior. Again, in my opinion, the sin does not lie in the inclination, but in the act of homosexual intercourse. The gay couple at Big Earl's was getting a bit sexual, so proper punishment followed.

Only God can answer for the name-calling; not me. I am only answering as to the punishment the gay couple was given - refusal of service seemed sufficient to me.

There you go. Rebuttal?

 

Nobody can know what people put in their hearts. Repentance doesn't mean you never sin again otherwise repentance would make you into Christ.

I don't, I encourage them to be who they are.

That doesn't really answer this: Accept them? Accept them how and as what exactly?

You don't really have any authority to do that. Saying you are a Christian means you are evoking the biblical meaning. All have sinned and fall short of the grace of God. So you don't have any authority in which to accept anybody. And if you don't personally believe somebody is a Christian, that doesn't mean they aren't. Basically put, your acceptance means (*)(*)(*)(*).

That's right, Christ makes that call. You aren't involved. You are just another sinner dependant on Christ. You and your church of haters don't have any authority to bar people from Christ. good bored guys all act like you are the almighty himself.

Accepting Christ means you are Christian. I have accepted Christ.

Accepting Christ as God? I have done that. I understand it pretty well. I just don't understand why you think you have a monopoly on Christ. Or why people that fancy themselves "real Christians" think they are the way, the light and the truth. And if you don't think that of yourself, than your acceptance is irrelevant. Nobody is good but God. I am going to listen to what Christ has to say and not what you have to say that includes what you say God says. Because you have no authority to speak for him. You aren't good because only God is good.

What flaw?

 

You are free to leave at any time.

Really? Hmm. Maybe it is me, but I would not frequent a business where the waitresses call people (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. I am of the mind that is not an appropriate thing to do.

 

You have, it seems, missed my point. I am a supporter of LGBTQ rights.

 

The majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of the minority.

That's why you're losing.

 

Live bait. He also sells worms.



​

 

I say the same to you, nice dodge, to bad your straw man was so pathetic.

 

I stand duly corrected

 

Could you please respond to this point? I am genuinely curious to see if a liberal can refute this argument.

Big Earl's reserves the right to refuse service to whomever it chooses. Also, they can express any opinion they wish, under the First Amendment. If people choose to be offended, so be it; Big Earl's has garnered enough support and publicity to the point where arguing that their success will wane is preposterous.

Fortunately, this is not a discussion about morality and forgiveness; only God can answer to their sins. The best we, as humans, can do is help correct our homosexual brothers' and sisters' behavior. Again, in my opinion, the sin does not lie in the inclination, but in the act of homosexual intercourse. The gay couple at Big Earl's was getting a bit sexual, so proper punishment followed.

Only God can answer for the name-calling; not me. I am only answering as to the punishment the gay couple was given - refusal of service seemed sufficient to me.

There you go. Rebuttal?

Also, I don't believe that political correctness is relevant in a secular setting, especially with regards to business law, so your response does not refute the quote you chose.

 

No thank you. Your "religious" beliefs have nothing to do with my position.

 

Appealed? By who?
The voters don't get to make laws discriminating against sex. That is unconstitutional. The judge did what he was supposed to do. That doesn't make him an activist.

It is unconstitutional. to discriminate against sex. The voters had to be stopped. They are spitting in the constitution.

It's the law kiddo. I am not going to spoon feed it to you.

 

Actually, I was referring to my first paragraph; in which I discussed the business rights of Big Earl's.

Also, again, I don't believe that political correctness is relevant in a secular setting, especially with regards to business law, so your previous response does not refute the quote you chose.

If you could respond effectively, I suppose we can get some intelligent discussion going. That is my hope.

 

The question has been answered. The law has nothing to do with my position on the matter. As far as I know, nothing illegal has been done.

 

LGBTQ? I wasn't aware they added a 5th letter. Can't imagine what it stands for.

 

Case closed ... ok, I recognize that you're done listening, you have "ruled" on this in your mind and you do not want to hear any further "sane things."

If anyone else wants to assert their opinion, I encourage them to visit Big Earl on FaceBook. The thumbs up or down vote on the worm shop / lunch counter which "doesn't serve F(*)(*)(*)" is currently 250 ish to 2,000 — against.

​

(visit Big Earl)​

 

Exactly. Since you brought morality into this discussion, my fellow conservatives and I brought up religion; religion and morality go hand-in-hand.

Therefore, your claim that religion has nothing to do with this topic is invalid.

Thank you for realizing that nothing illegal has been done by Big Earl's. Please inform your fellow liberals of this fact.

 

I apologize for my spelling error; I meant to say "same things."

And hey, I didn't know anyone used Facebook anymore.

You may want to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of tweets that claim support of Big Earl's.