Gay Couple Says Waitress Told Them 'We Don't Serve Fags Here'

[Nutz]

Is that what happened in his restaurant?

Did you know that it would be 10 times easier for me to find and post pics of mostly nude heteros behaving promiscuously? But would that be pertinent?

Well yeah, considering the gay population is 2% I would hope it would be easier...I just wonder why it is so easy to find so much gay smut considering the percentages.

 

[Nosmo King]

You should read all of the hate spewed by the gay left on his facebook page. It ranges from accusing his daughter of being a dyke to death threats.

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

 

[LockeJaw]

They identify according to their sexual orientation, Nutz...if that is what defines them then them acting like pervs is what the majority of images of them will show.

And I was going to say the same thing about them being 2% of the population. Great minds think alike!

 

[Nosmo King]

Were any of those individuals in Big Earl's at the time? Would Big Earl object as strenuously to holding a wet t-shirt contest? Are there not as many egregious actions by heterosexuals that would merit Big Earl's protection? Is it promiscuity you object to? Are there instances of heterosexual promiscuity you find offensive?

But Big Earl didn't have wet t-shirt contests...now did he? What the gays are posting on the Yelp page is what the gay mafia wants. They want to destroy traditional family values by turning his restaurant into a celebration of the gay lifestyle.

By patronizing his business? Really?

 

[bodecea]

Were any of those individuals in Big Earl's at the time? Would Big Earl object as strenuously to holding a wet t-shirt contest? Are there not as many egregious actions by heterosexuals that would merit Big Earl's protection? Is it promiscuity you object to? Are there instances of heterosexual promiscuity you find offensive?

But Big Earl didn't have wet t-shirt contests...now did he? What the gays are posting on the Yelp page is what the gay mafia wants. They want to destroy traditional family values by turning his restaurant into a celebration of the gay lifestyle.

And why is that, do you think? (Big Earl perhaps needed to be careful what he wished for)

 

[Katzndogz]

You should read all of the hate spewed by the gay left on his facebook page. It ranges from accusing his daughter of being a dyke to death threats.

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

No one got their rights as citizens repressed. The gays were served. No one told them to leave. They were told not to come back. The waitress really didn't say they don't serve fags. She said "we don't like fags here". There is no constitutional right to be liked.

 

[bodecea]

They identify according to their sexual orientation, Nutz...if that is what defines them then them acting like pervs is what the majority of images of them will show.

And I was going to say the same thing about them being 2% of the population. Great minds think alike!

Actually. YOU identified gay people for ages by our sexual orientation. We have just learned from you to take that identification and "run with it", so to speak.

 

[Nosmo King]

You should read all of the hate spewed by the gay left on his facebook page. It ranges from accusing his daughter of being a dyke to death threats.

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

No one got their rights as citizens repressed. The gays were served. No one told them to leave. They were told not to come back. The waitress really didn't say they don't serve fags. She said "we don't like fags here". There is no constitutional right to be liked.

Should Big Earl, his staff and his 'supporters' expect some blowback after his employee acted so callously?

 

[bodecea]

You should read all of the hate spewed by the gay left on his facebook page. It ranges from accusing his daughter of being a dyke to death threats.

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

No one got their rights as citizens repressed. The gays were served. No one told them to leave. They were told not to come back. The waitress really didn't say they don't serve fags. She said "we don't like fags here". There is no constitutional right to be liked.

You are correct....and there will be no court case over this....but, when people discriminate, there is no constitutional right to be immune from the "court of public opinion" either. Right?

 

[LockeJaw]

I just noticed Nosmo King is actually "No Smoking"...a discriminator mad about discrimination...that's funny!

 

[Katzndogz]

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

No one got their rights as citizens repressed. The gays were served. No one told them to leave. They were told not to come back. The waitress really didn't say they don't serve fags. She said "we don't like fags here". There is no constitutional right to be liked.

Should Big Earl, his staff and his 'supporters' expect some blowback after his employee acted so callously?

Their business has increased as support grows. Just like Chick Fil A. Cracker Barrell found out about blowback when they removed Duck Dynasty merchandise. Are customers within their rights to deliberately patronize Big Earl in support of his position.

There is no right to be liked. There is no right to freedom from callous treatment.

 

[jknowgood]

Did the customers in question proposition Big Earl or any of his customers? The story did not mention that. Were the customers in question nude or did they expose themselves before customers or Big Earl?

It seems to me after reading the account in the story that Big Earl is looking to Woolworth's in 1961 to establish his cause for discrimination. What a glorious position to hang your hat on! I'll be just like the Jim Crow bigots! That'll show 'em!

No, he is trying to protect his business from this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

All images and desires posted by the gay mafia on his yelp page.

Were any of those individuals in Big Earl's at the time? Would Big Earl object as strenuously to holding a wet t-shirt contest? Are there not as many egregious actions by heterosexuals that would merit Big Earl's protection? Is it promiscuity you object to? Are there instances of heterosexual promiscuity you find offensive?

The statement earl sent out, also stated their behaviour was inappropriate no matter their sexual orientation.

 

[bodecea]

I just noticed Nosmo King is actually "No Smoking"...a discriminator mad about discrimination...that's funny!

And? Are you a smoker? During the fires here, we were STILL seeing smokers toss their lite cigs out car windows. That's how some smokers seem to roll.

 

[Katzndogz]

And all because one of the businesses employees insulted customers and repressed their rights as citizens. What a shame!

No one got their rights as citizens repressed. The gays were served. No one told them to leave. They were told not to come back. The waitress really didn't say they don't serve fags. She said "we don't like fags here". There is no constitutional right to be liked.

You are correct....and there will be no court case over this....but, when people discriminate, there is no constitutional right to be immune from the "court of public opinion" either. Right?

The court of public opinion has doubled Big Earl ' s business. Are you okay with that verdict in the court of public opinion? Were you okay with public opinion when Chick Fil A had lines around the block?

 

[Nosmo King]

I just noticed Nosmo King is actually "No Smoking"...a discriminator mad about discrimination...that's funny!

Actually, Nosmo King was the name of a character on a locally produced children's show here in Pittsburgh back in the 1950s and 60s.

Now, we have seen the lengths to which you are capable of jumping just to come to the wrong conclusion. I suppose we can apply that same paradigm to your feeble arguments defending homophobes as well.

 

[Nosmo King]

No, he is trying to protect his business from this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

All images and desires posted by the gay mafia on his yelp page.

Were any of those individuals in Big Earl's at the time? Would Big Earl object as strenuously to holding a wet t-shirt contest? Are there not as many egregious actions by heterosexuals that would merit Big Earl's protection? Is it promiscuity you object to? Are there instances of heterosexual promiscuity you find offensive?

The statement earl sent out, also stated their behaviour was inappropriate no matter their sexual orientation.

And yet the staff at Big Earl's decided to go the homophobic route. the nuclear option. Rather than address inappropriate behavior, the staff cast aspersions on homosexuals. If Asian Americans acted inappropriately in Big Earl's, would the staff be in good ethical standards to say "We don't serve slopes here."?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Then you would be wrong on that certainty as it is NOT illegal to refuse to serve homosexuals in Texas, they don't have a Public Accommodation law. Owners can refuse to serve Blacks or Asians, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Russian, Straight or Gay.



>>>>

Wouldn't the federal civil rights laws trump all that ?

Nope.

The Federal law is the United States Code 42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

It states...

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.​

Sexual Orientation isn't listed.


42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | LII / Legal Information Institute



>>>>

What about those instances where the Portland baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or the photographer who didn't want to work a gay wedding. They got slapped down, and wasn't it the feds ?

 

[jknowgood]

Were any of those individuals in Big Earl's at the time? Would Big Earl object as strenuously to holding a wet t-shirt contest? Are there not as many egregious actions by heterosexuals that would merit Big Earl's protection? Is it promiscuity you object to? Are there instances of heterosexual promiscuity you find offensive?

The statement earl sent out, also stated their behaviour was inappropriate no matter their sexual orientation.

And yet the staff at Big Earl's decided to go the homophobic route. the nuclear option. Rather than address inappropriate behavior, the staff cast aspersions on homosexuals. If Asian Americans acted inappropriately in Big Earl's, would the staff be in good ethical standards to say "We don't serve slopes here."?

She spoke her mind, if she would've told a man and a woman doing the same thing, we don't like perverts. Would you be outraged at that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wouldn't the federal civil rights laws trump all that ?

Nope.

The Federal law is the United States Code 42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

It states...

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.​

Sexual Orientation isn't listed.


42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | LII / Legal Information Institute



>>>>

What about those instances where the Portland baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or the photographer who didn't want to work a gay wedding. They got slapped down, and wasn't it the feds ?

Yes, it wasn't the feds.

Sweetcakes by Melissa was a case under Oregon law, not Federal law.

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes​

Elane Photography was a case under New Mexico law, not Federal law.

New Mexico
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;
New Mexico One Source of Law®​

Those laws exist under the 10th Amendment's power of the State to regulate commerce within that state.



>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

The statement earl sent out, also stated their behaviour was inappropriate no matter their sexual orientation.

And yet the staff at Big Earl's decided to go the homophobic route. the nuclear option. Rather than address inappropriate behavior, the staff cast aspersions on homosexuals. If Asian Americans acted inappropriately in Big Earl's, would the staff be in good ethical standards to say "We don't serve slopes here."?

She spoke her mind, if she would've told a man and a woman doing the same thing, we don't like perverts. Would you be outraged at that.

Do you see homosexuals being conflated with perverts as a proper association? Are homosexual committing a crime by simply being homosexuals? It occurs to me that perverts are committing crimes.