Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
How would they know? Given the mindset of the homophobe, one would assume it's easier to identify two homos than two christians, right?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
why would an "intolerant Christian" want to do business in a gay place of business? I really doubt that that is an issue for you.
But, you never explained why a gay couple would want their cake baked by a baker who does not accept homosexuality as normal. Would you want to help the profit line of someone who does not like you?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
why would an "intolerant Christian" want to do business in a gay place of business? I really doubt that that is an issue for you.
But, you never explained why a gay couple would want their cake baked by a baker who does not accept homosexuality as normal. Would you want to help the profit line of someone who does not like you?
Of course, some of the more religious posters would disagree. Lol.
I think we have a lot of other more important issues to think about.
While I agree there far more pressing issues at hand this is still important in terms of the expansion of individual liberty. This issue seems to wrapping up and I hope more folks turn an eye towards are crushing debt. We'll see though...
This issue is old and tiresome, IMO. We can be done with it by just legalizing gay marriage with the same stipulations that there are for heterosexuals. I don't think churches should be forced to marry them though, because that would be violating their liberties. I have a feeling that is going to be the next "issue." I'm kind of hoping it gets legalized and then fades away and we can get to more pressing matters.
People like SeaBytch are actually turning me AGAINST it
That you are obsessing over something that didn't happen and you are trying to make it relate to the topic?
You look pretty stupid even when you've not been drinking.
Sorry that such a reminder upsets you so much......I guess I must be wrong....you sure don't act like one....
You guess ? I can assure you that you are rarely right.
Well, your attitude suggests I'm right.......must have bothered your conscience some for you to reply the way you did.....
