Texas Restaurant: "We Don't Serve ****" (accuse, spend, businesses)

[daylux]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

I felt the same way back in the 1960s when all those uppity ******s kept demanding service where they weren't wanted.

Not the same thing at all. This is about behavior. Gays are allowed in his restaurant, and this couple wasn't refused service.

The owner just seems to prefer a certain socially acceptable behavior to not scare his other customers away.

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

I don't think this is really about homosexuals. I think the restaurant owner is more concerned about people conducting themselves in a dignified, respectful manner.





No public displays of affection.



[that's not too much to ask in his restaurant]

if he was worried about being respectful and dignified, he would have brought up his daughter better than to use the words she used. dignity and respect for others is not big earl's best suit.

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by shadowne

These guys were not refused service.

that wasn't the question I posed.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by shadowne

These guys were not refused service.

Daughter to gay couple: "We don't serve **** here."

That's discrimination, straight from the daughter's mouth, BS backpedaling from the father notwithstanding.

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Daughter to gay couple: "We don't serve **** here."

That's discrimination, straight from the daughter's mouth, BS backpedaling from the father notwithstanding.

And yet they were served and finished their meal.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

According to the law, not the Constitution.

And?

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

if he was worried about being respectful and dignified, he would have brought up his daughter better than to use the words she used. dignity and respect for others is not big earl's best suit.

Agreed.

[but either way, this thread and the article are misleading]

[cruxan]

I guess the don't serve twinkies>>

[weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

I don't think this is really about homosexuals. I think the restaurant owner is more concerned about people conducting themselves in a dignified, respectful manner.





No public displays of affection.



[that's not too much to ask in his restaurant]

Why is he REFUSING TO SHOW THE VIDEO??
What does "their legs were touching" even mean? Would they have been all pizzy about it if it was a hetero couple "touching legs"?

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

And?

I'm just saying the Supreme Court can't order the law to prohibit discrimination by private establishments based on anything - be it sexual orientation or race or religion or anything else.

That doesn't mean I don't think the law should prohibit it. My posts here have simply stated the law (with one exception, where I was playing devil's advocate.) I am somewhat undecided. On the one hand, discrimination is wrong and people should be free to go where they want. On the other hand, private businesses are private and we do have a thing called freedom of association.