Gay group ejected out of restaurant for kissing.

Halifirien said:
Posting the sign isn't a legal protection against violating anti-discrimination laws. A public restaurant is considered a public accomodation. They can't refuse service to a customer simply because they're black, Jewish, atheist or gay.
Click to expand...

Here is how it will go down: They didn't kick them out because they are Gay, they kicked them out because of the PDA. That's fully within' their rights. Now, the guy who decided to do this may have a strong hatred for the Gay community which lead to this, but as long as he doesn't say, "I did it because they were Gay" he's in his rights to do so.

As for my opinion, I'd have let it slide. I don't mind PDA and I don't care about other peoples concerns enough to run the guys off instead of them possibly runnin' others off. I'd be rather hypocritical to hate on the two fellas though considerin' if they were women I'd have probably turned into that wolf from our cartoons of old.
 
It doesn't matter if they're a privately-owned business. Civil rights laws trump their desire to keep out certain groups, even if they they find them objectionable. Witness the well-deserved level of shit being dumped on the pool who just asked 65 Philadelphia kids to leave because they weren't white.
 
Halifirien said:
Witness the well-deserved level of shit being dumped on the pool who just asked 65 Philadelphia kids to leave because they weren't white.
Click to expand...

Were they the only kids in the pool or did they single out all the "non-white" children and tell them to get out?

I skimmed the article but I have nosey co-workers that get all bitchy when they see me doing anything but work, even when I'm done :p
 
Mirewen said:
Were they the only kids in the pool or did they single out all the "non-white" children and tell them to get out?
Click to expand...

They were a day camp who paid $1900 to swim at the Valley Swim Club. Everything was hunky-dory until the kids arrived and they saw they were black and Hispanic. Then the white kids started climbing out of the water and the pool attendants told the black kids they'd have to leave because they didn't allow minorities in the pool.
 
A day camp of "black and hispanic" children? The white kids that climbed out weren't a part of their camp? Sorry if I read that wrong, we don't have camps that cater solely to one race here. Regardless, it's a shitty thing to do to children.
 
Halifirien said:
They were a day camp who paid $1900 to swim at the Valley Swim Club. Everything was hunky-dory until the kids arrived and they saw they were black and Hispanic. Then the white kids started climbing out of the water and the pool attendants told the black kids they'd have to leave because they didn't allow minorities in the pool.
Click to expand...

Show me in that article where it says one time where "the pool attendants told the black kids they'd have to leave because they didn't allow minorities in the pool"

It says they couldnt accomodate so many kids in the pool at one time. Say they allowed them to stay and a kid drowned, would they be accused of letting the kid die cause hes black?
 
What some of you dont understand is that this restaurant gets frequented by mostly DRUNK TEENAGERS AND ADULTS at that hour of the night, so lots of PDA tends to happen. Problem is (and I've been there at those late hours and been guilty of PDA) they don't say shit to people who are heterosexual, and this isn't the first time they have kicked out homosexual couples for PDA, this is just the first time someone made a big deal out of it. Many people inside the restaurant were actually angry at what the guards were doing if you read the article all the way.

Again, I'm not too cool with PDA (even though I've been guilty of it) but as long as its kept fair and heterosexual couples are thrown out in the same fashion, I won't assist in making a big stink about it.
 
Meh, giving your partner (whether it be homosexual or heterosexual) a peck on the lips or a hug, who the fuck cares? If they’re full on making out, then yea they should be told to leave no matter what their sexual orientation is, some people need more self control.

My ex-boyfriend goes to that place all the time, he didn’t hear about it till I told him lol.
 
Halifirien said:
It doesn't matter if they're a privately-owned business. Civil rights laws trump their desire to keep out certain groups, even if they they find them objectionable. Witness the well-deserved level of shit being dumped on the pool who just asked 65 Philadelphia kids to leave because they weren't white.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I could have been any more clear with you, let me try again. They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA. That is what makes this different from the country club in Philli just kickin' kids out the pool because they were minorities. That is an inexcusable and illegal reason to kick someone out of a public place, not so sure about private though.

They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA.

That's the surface, the only thing that matters if the two idiots and the Al Sharpton's of the Gay community want to spark a flame. You want to start a war and call somethin' unfair? Find some better stuff, this doesn't even have a foam column to support it.

Example time because we love examples:

If the owner of DB's Tacos told the two men to leave because they were Black, Gay, Jewish, Obese, etc. that'd be a problem, but he didn't. He kicked them out for PDA, somethin' he can kick anyone out for just the same as he can for not weain' shoes or a shirt. Again, they weren't kicked out for bein' GAY. Was the guy more inclined to kick out two men suckin' tongue and slappin' ass than two women? You bet he probably was, but it doesn't fuckin' matter as long as he never let's out his mouth he gave them the boot because they are Gay.
 
Strid said:
I didn't think I could have been any more clear with you, let me try again. They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA. That is what makes this different from the country club in Philli just kickin' kids out the pool because they were minorities. That is an inexcusable and illegal reason to kick someone out of a public place, not so sure about private though.

They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA.

That's the surface, the only thing that matters if the two idiots and the Al Sharpton's of the Gay community want to spark a flame. You want to start a war and call somethin' unfair? Find some better stuff, this doesn't even have a foam column to support it.

Example time because we love examples:

If the owner of DB's Tacos told the two men to leave because they were Black, Gay, Jewish, Obese, etc. that'd be a problem, but he didn't. He kicked them out for PDA, somethin' he can kick anyone out for just the same as he can for not weain' shoes or a shirt. Again, they weren't kicked out for bein' GAY. Was the guy more inclined to kick out two men suckin' tongue and slappin' ass than two women? You bet he probably was, but it doesn't fuckin' matter as long as he never let's out his mouth he gave them the boot because they are Gay.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the guards said "No se hacen cosas de jotos aqui" which translates to "We don't allow faggot stuff in this place" so yes, it was turned into a gay issue when the guard opened his trap and uttered those words.
 
Strid said:
I didn't think I could have been any more clear with you, let me try again. They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA. That is what makes this different from the country club in Philli just kickin' kids out the pool because they were minorities. That is an inexcusable and illegal reason to kick someone out of a public place, not so sure about private though.
Click to expand...

First off, do remember that the stated reason of the pool club wasn't that the children were minorities, but rather that there were too many kids, etc.

It's almost undoubtedly bullshit, but you're apparently accepting the stated reason of the restaurant in the prior example without reservation, so bear in mind that in both cases the offending party has a thinly-veiled justification to their actions.

In the case of the restaurant, however, there's an important caveat. If there is, in fact, a "No PDA" rule in effect at the restaurant, and it's not enforced in situations where heterosexual couples are breaking the rule, then it ceases to be something that you can selectively apply and fall back on as a justification.

It's like trademarks. If you don't defend them every time, you will ultimately lose the right to them.

I suspect that both sides are spinning the situation to suit their agenda, but as usual it's impossible to know from the outside.
 
People are prude now-a-days.

People can't seem to mind their own business.

There's nothing wrong with PDA otherwise it would be described as Public Display of Indecent Affection. Not just plain old affection.

Sheesh.

It's probably because it was a gay couple.. no surprise there. I hope the restaurant either punishes their staff or losses a high volume of business from this. Greater than what's been lost due to picketing.
 
Strid said:
I didn't think I could have been any more clear with you, let me try again. They didn't kick the Gay people out for bein' Gay, they kicked them out for PDA.
Click to expand...

It's not that you weren't clear. It's that I disagree with you. It's pretty obvious the only reason the PDA was an issue was because the couple was gay. I don't doubt the restaurant's lawyers will argue the PDA was the issue -- what other defense do they have? -- but the plaintiffs' lawyers could tear that to shreds because of what the guard's statement and the threats made by the cops.
 
Halifirien said:
It's not that you weren't clear. It's that I disagree with you. It's pretty obvious the only reason the PDA was an issue was because the couple was gay. I don't doubt the restaurant's lawyers will argue the PDA was the issue -- what other defense do they have? -- but the plaintiffs' lawyers could tear that to shreds because of what the guard's statement and the threats made by the cops.
Click to expand...

Who fucking cares... seriously. The restaurant is bad towards gay people... stop fucking going to the establishment.

If the business owner wanted to walk up to the couple and say, "I reserve the right to not serve fags"... then he should be allowed to. Owner has choice over who he serves same as the the customer has the choice of where they want to eat. Now if you and all your lefty friends want to protest and or boycott along with all that other worthless crap you do this restaurant that is fine... but this does not belong in court.
 
Dejavu said:
If the business owner wanted to walk up to the couple and say, "I reserve the right to not serve fags"... then he should be allowed to.
Click to expand...

You're arguing what you think "should" be as opposed to what actually is. In El Paso, Texas, it is illegal to discriminate against gay patrons. If the business owner wants to walk up to couples and say "I reserve the right to not serve fags," he should move to another city.

Want to go back to the days of two water fountains and say it's the business owner's rights?
 
Halifirien said:
You're arguing what you think "should" be as opposed to what actually is. In El Paso, Texas, it is illegal to discriminate against gay patrons. If the business owner wants to walk up to couples and say "I reserve the right to not serve fags," he should move to another city.

Want to go back to the days of two water fountains and say it's the business owner's rights?
Click to expand...

Ah I agree I am arguing what I think it should be just as you are arguing what you think it should be… the only difference is that at the moment the law seems to be on your side. Saying he should move is a side step to avoid the actual issue which is that you are advocating the encroaching of the businesses right to refuse service to whoever it so chooses.

Should we go back to the days of 2 water fountains… sure why not… in fact why don’t we have 3 I am sure the blacks don’t want the greezy Mexicans using their fountain either… we can have whites, blacks and other.

Your argument is fucking insane. If what I wish would happen did happen would it be possible for segregated water fountains to occur… yes it would. Would it happen… I highly fucking doubt it. Why not??? Because if it did the business that did it would probably be out of business. And if you are arguing about segregated pubic facilities I don’t think I have ever even come close to advocating that… There should be no laws for or against segregation. Meaning the government should not be able to enforce Jim Crow laws or anti discrimination laws.

What is kinda funny about all of this is that my understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. puts him about as close to my point of view as yours. He actually believed anti-discrimination laws to be incomplete (but in his opinion necessary for the time being) referring to them as “hollow” because they did not change the opinions of the people they were just a force. He advocated reparations for slavery but also noted that a large percentage of the poor in America were in fact white and they should be helped with that money as well. I believe he referred to it as “a multiracial army of the poor”. Which makes him less of a discrimination law activist and actually an activist for socialism in America (although just incase there is any doubt… I am against this part). What he understood and the current progressive/liberals don’t seem to, is that laws do not fix things they are like band aids. Education fixes problems. I mean yes it was brave of Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on the bus but that was not the factor that actually changed things. It was the economic and social consequences of the bus boycott that followed that actually got the ball rolling.
 
Dejavu said:
Ah I agree I am arguing what I think it should be just as you are arguing what you think it should be. the only difference is that at the moment the law seems to be on your side. Saying he should move is a side step to avoid the actual issue which is that you are advocating the encroaching of the businesses right to refuse service to whoever it so chooses.
Click to expand...

I don't have to advocate it becuase the law doesn't just "seem" to be on my side. It's already illegal. The security guard and the cop who said a business can refuse service to anyone they want were sorely mistaken and were subsequently corrected by the city council and the higher-ups at the police department who actually know and understand the law and are already taking steps to make sure the idiot cop doesn't shoot off his mouth about things he doesn't understand.

To his credit (from what I've read), the owner of the restaurant seems apologetic about the entire incident. It may come down to a lawsuit against the security guard and the cop. That's up for the guys who got thrown out to decide. It doesn't matter if they're liked as long as they get their tacos.

In semi-related news, the mayor of Fort Worth apologized for the idiot cops who raided a gay bar and started roughing up the patrons on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. You know... just to keep the gay boys in their place.
 
Last edited:
Mirewen said:
A day camp of "black and hispanic" children? The white kids that climbed out weren't a part of their camp? Sorry if I read that wrong, we don't have camps that cater solely to one race here. Regardless, it's a shitty thing to do to children.
Click to expand...

Any answer to this?
 
Self-segregation is not an uncommon thing in the United States, sadly.

Part of the reason I despise the multiculturalism movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top