Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

funny how when the Mozilla CEO was forced to resign for supporting traditional marraige groups, that was ok.... "freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence" (which I do agree with)


but when
http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashv...porting-same-sex-marriage/Content?oid=3241892

a gay supporter gets fired for his support of gays.... it's discrimination, it's ignorant, the bosses are homophobic, and bigots....



Heck, Obama was against gay marriage the same time the Mozilla CEO was against it. Should Obama also be forced to resign?

 

What would you call it?

The ONLY source of that has been Big Earl himself. That's one source, not "various".

Oh, do tell us of your woes. When is time last time you were fired from a job, denied public accommodations, asked to leave a restaurant, ejected form a cab, etc. for being Christian? Please. Tell us. Quit your crying, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You mean not letting religious people hide behind their religion in order to legally justify discrimination? You're damn right that's the agenda.

Really? Isn't that part of the very basis of this country?

We can do more than one thing at a time.

Well, I hope you're including yourself as "disgusting", because you sure are talking about it a lot. If you don't want to talk about it, then quit talking about it. Pretty simple.

It is a big deal. And what do you mean, a "family restaurant"? Do you mean to imply that gay people do not have families?

 

Well,(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) is a rather bigoted term, pretty ugly, in my wise and generally correct opinion.

If you say so. Personally I view that as kind of a passive aggressive desire to be painted as the victim to generate sympathy.

Yeah, unfortunately Big Earl's and his daughter are not repenting. They are standing by the use of the therm (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), totally unapologetic about it. Standing by their bigotry, because Big Earl is a Christian (according to him) and served his country for 20 years!

Love the "that girl was asking to be raped for wearing that shirt" mentality.

 

Hmmmmm.....99% of Big Earl's potential client base is non-USD. The vast majority of the non-USD population would rather eat breakfast with surroundings that won't make the puke, such as having to watch USD's make out in public.

The fact that Big Earl wasn't gutless and stood up to the Gay Fascists and all this free publicity is probably helping revenues, right now.

When are the USDs' going to file their planned lawsuit?

- - - Updated - - -

What's unfortunate about a man standing up for his rights?

Oh.

That's right.

The Rodents don't like MEN.

 

"Stupider." I'm on the floor. I love the diction you're using in your responses. I attend high school and take AP English; I know better than to use a word like that.

Actually, it is that simple, either eat there or don't. What is so difficult about that?

Your silly example about walking in front of a bus has no relevance whatsoever; please focus on BUSINESS RIGHTS.

And I am hardly in denial; I think you need to respond intelligently in order to refute my claim.

Raised Right: 2
Goldwater: 0.

 

Don't know Texas state law?

You don't have to. You don't even know the Constitution.

The Constitution, under the First Amendment, protects Big Earl's right to refuse to associate with anyone he doesn't like.

The Constitution, under the First Amendment, protects Big Earl's right to discuss bundles of firewood.

The Constutition, under the Fifth Amendment, protects Big Earl's right to own property. The word "ownership" also implies "control".

The Constitution, under the Ninth Amendment, protects the Right of Refusal.

The Constitution, under the Thirteenth Amendment, protects Big Earl from involuntary servitude, which means he can't be forced to serve meals to bundles of firewood, or people resembling the same.

The Constitution, under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits people from being disriminated against under the law, which means Big Earl can't get special punishment for excercising his rights protected elsewhere.

NOWHERE does Texas law usurp the Constitution, hence there is no need to be knowledgeable about Texas law to understand what Big Earl is allowed to do when it comes to refusing to serve people he does not wish to serve.

And, naturally, Big Earl isn't wrong. The Little People who don't like freedom are intolerant of people exercising their freedoms in ways they disapprove of. Which is what being free is all about.

- - - Updated - - -

You are asking FAR TOO MUCH of people that STILL defend Obama.

 

My mistake, hahaha.

 

I answered all your points in my post though. Funny how you did not respond. I also dispute your claim of being "extremely intelligent" given this response to his post.

 

Ah, I apologize. I responded to the other two liberals, not you. I genuinely take responsibility for that.

Please allow me to respond; I will search through my notifications.

 

Oh, how benevolent of you. Given that you think discussing this topic is "disgusting", I'm surprised you have the time.

 

Let me start from the bottom-up, if that's OK.

No, that is not my implication whatsoever; I am merely stating that family restaurant includes children. The fact that these children were exposed to sexual advances is not right and proper punishment was given to the "couple." And please, it is not one of the most important things our country is facing at the moment; so no, it is most certainly not a big deal.

I am only speaking about it to spread awareness of liberal hypocrisy; gay entitlement mentality; the importance of business law.

This government clearly cannot do more than one thing at a time; they have proven to be incapable of doing so.

Sure, I suppose you could argue that it is part of the very basis of this country; aren't the rights of small, private businesses fit in that category as well?

I, myself, have never been denied a job, etc. I'm only a high school student who happens to take AP classes. I have no personal experience, but I have done my research and keep tabs on what is happening in the world around me.

Actually, I believe many other customers at the restaurant have said they witnessed some sexual advances.

Finally, I would call it private businesses' right to refuse service to whomever it chooses. Please tell me how that is an unreasonable thought.

 

I never said anyone was talking about rape. I said your excusing the blatant bigotry of Earl's daughter by blaming the victim is similar to saying the woman deserved to get raped for what she was wearing.

No one made Big Earl's daughter call folks (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. She did that all on here own.

There seems to be some sort of disconnect here. I would suggest reading the post you quoted. I never said Earl would never repent. I said he is standing by his daughter's bigoted comment. I could not tell you what a person like will do tomorrow.

Ni idea what this nonsense is supposed to mean. I apologize for not answering some off topic questions that have (*)(*)(*)(*) all to to with Earl, but I am not sure what you playing chess has to do with anything here.

 

No, I don't.

There are indications folks are a couple other than "footsie." Holding hands is one example. And the folks weren't told not to come back because of any alleged playing of footsie, they were told "to put it plainly, we don’t serve F(*)(*)(*) here."




​

 

ahh, so again, avoiding footonballs. Who is to know that if it was a girl/boy playing footonballs that they would have said "we don't allow perverts"

You don't want to get past a name and consider that the accusation of footonballs might be founded.

 

Gay people have kids too. And there is absolutely no proof that what Big Earl said is true. He is the only source of that claim and it is definitely questionable.

"Gay entitlement mentality"? Entitled to what? Being treated in a decent manner?

No, the government does all kinds of things at the same time. Look at this forum.

Not when it comes to discriminating against people just because of what they are.

Then provide me with examples.

Really? Then provide us with links to what these customers said. Should not be difficult.

It's unreasonable because this business in particular is open to the public. If they want to discriminate against people, they have the option to make this business a private club. Otherwise, a business open to the public serves the public.

 

You're going in circles; this argument seems just about over. You are avoiding my claims on my previous posts, so it is clear you're ready to concede.

You implied Earl would not repent, due to your excessive negative depiction of his character. Try reading what you quoted next time; maybe that way, you can better support your claims. The post you chose to quote was certainly not nonsense. Here's another theory: You have no intelligent response to give, so you present the classic, "it's off-topic!" case. Please, learn how to refute examples given by your opponent.

The couple started making sexual advances toward each other in a family restaurant, and you think they shouldn't have received a negative response from ownership? Wow.

And please, for future reference, quit using the sacred "b-word." It can only take you so far, my friend.

 

Gays may have kids, but that does not mean other kids should be exposed to intimate homosexual activity.

The gay entitlement mentality is very real. They shove their sexuality in America's face, and if someone disapproves, they cry homophobia. Please, homophobia is the fear of gays; we're not scared.

The government CAN do more than one thing at a time, but they are certainly not good at it, especially your idol, Obama.

I will provide links as soon as I can.

Finally, quit playing the discrimination card. If someone is doing something you don't like on your property, you make them vacate the premises. Same logic applies here.

 

Oh God...you're one of those kind of posters.....keeping score using your own scoring system that ironically has you ahead by two...........where does one begin to unwind that.....

Here is simple.

Christmas is alive, well, and very rich.

God continues to make gays every day.

More and more states are marrying gays, and soon the supreme court will prohibit states banning it.

Conservative white Christians, the GOP's base, is shrinking faster than almost any other demographic. .

 

Excuse me? One more time- you have absolutely no proof that any such thing occurred in the restaurant in question.

Really? Who is having sex in front of you? Tell me. Or is merely holding hands, "shoving it in your face"?

BTW- a little information to make you more "intelligent". I assume you are familiar with the dictionary?:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

You haven't been around long enough to even make that appraisal. And I have no idols or gods. That's your side.

You should have been able to by now. I mean, if it's so true and all.

One more time, there is absolutely NO PROOF that any such activity took place.

 

From what I gather in the article, it does not appear they were discriminated against. They were asked to leave for showing excessive affection and it would have happened even if it were a man/woman combo.

 

Read the article again. No such thing was said to them.

 

exactly. I was at a sports bar and saw a manager ask a party to leave due to a guy had his hand down a girls shirt. Of course the profanity erupted when they were asked to leave. There are certain levels of decorum which need to be followed in public places.

 

I read the article again to verify what I read and here is a snip it
Cheney says the reason Dewberry and his partner were asked not to return was because of their actions.

“What I saw was one of them half way under the table with his legs stretched out into the other guy’s lap. And he kind of looked really possum eyed at me as they say it in East Texas, he kind of looked at me like ‘uh-oh’.”
But Dewberry says nothing inappropriate was happening.
“We’re sitting on separate sides of the booth and really not even doing much talking. Because it was early in the morning and we were just sitting around waiting for our breakfast.”
He says after the incident, he went to the city for help. “They suggested that I not try to contact him… one of them used the word bigot.”


Sounds like a he said/she said type. Owner says they were being innapropriate, couple denies it and throws the because I'm gay card. The waitress is the one who made the comment, not the owner. Owner even says it was her own words not his. Also goes on to say they should learn how to act in public. then goes on to say what I typed. Big Earl even goes further after the little snip it.


And in the very end
Gay Rights Attorney John Nechman says there really isn’t any legal recourse for Dewberry and his partner to take.

John claimed it was because of lack of protections for gays in Texas. That is BS as the EO law covers the entire country Reality is it is because the EO law was never violated

 

Also in the end a Gays Rights attorney says they have no legal action they can take. He used the excuse of no protections in most parts of Texas. Well alst I checked all of Texas is America and EO laws cover America. reality is no laws were broken

 

Well, here's the only thing I can find that was actually said to the couple:

That's all I can see by way of what was quoted that anyone said. And neither party is disputing that quote.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/05/29/gay-couple-told-not-to-return-to-east-texas-restaurant/