Gay Couple Told Not To Return To Texas Restaurant

Hypersensitivity (aka DRAMA QUEENS)

(from the Best Yelp Reviews)

People like this give homosexuals a worse name than Big Earl gives rednecks.

 

No they are not. With marriage you and your partner are guaranteed a multitude of legal rights under the law. It's a combo package deal you know.

So what? Do you have a problem with gay men and women having an equal relationship status to those of heterosexual couples?

What is with your obsession with this word? It's just a word. Get. Over. It. You gonna have a cow every time a gay man introduces his husband to you and says they're married? There you go, the definition of hypersensitivity. Having your feelins' hurt by the use of the word marriage by those you do not approve of.

 

Viewed from a religious perspective, heterosexual people can be just as sinful as homosexual people. I never said that gays are lesser than other people. But to answer your question, yes. Gay men and women shouldn't have a "marriage status" relationship. I support their right to civil unions, but not marriage. I look at the issue from a moderate perspective. By "moderate" I mean, I'm not totally against gay rights, but I don't jump on the political correctness bandwagon and support same sex marriage, which is morally wrong.

It's not just a word. Words have meaning.

 

Ok well guess what? You religion means nothing to me and a multitude of other people. Your religion does not OWN the word marriage either and it may be used by others however they like. Enjoy!

I totally agree, they do. Like the 'f' word used for gay people and the 'n' word used for blacks. Very powerful and cruel words.

 

Can we at least agree on this?

Even if my religion does not own the word marriage, it still does not mean that I should lobby to legalize gay marriage, or support lobbyists, or vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

 

You can vote however you want to Sam, provided you're 18 years of age of course.

But I will continue to correct you on your misinterpretation that your religion, or any religion owns the rights to the word marriage and so therefore have the right to limit it to certain persons of your choosing however.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. This is not hypersensitivity (aka drama queens) this is perfect and hilarious Internet trolling.

If you have never seen a troll do it right, well this is how you do it right.

 

You do realize I hope that 'gay marriage' is not 'polygamy'.....at least I hope.

I have been married over 20 years- my marriage is not threatened by John and James getting married.

Why do you think your marriage would be threatened if they can get married?

 

Religions have the right to restrict marriages in their place of worship. For example, I don't think a christian church (or any religious place of worship for that matter-mosque, temple, etc) should be required to preform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple.

 

Are you saying that polygamy should be legal? If so, I can respect the consistency of your opinion.

 

Guess I'm not an expert on trolling... what I see is a bunch of drama queens trying to damage a guy's business. Probably the same type who march for gay rights. Nothing like screaming for tolerance while destroying a man because his daughter called someone a (*)(*)(*).

Drama. Gays thrive on it.

 

I wonder if these guys would have been told not to return?

View attachment 27759

Was playing footonballs what triggered her to tell them they weren't welcome or was it something else

 

Really? I'm surprised. You seem very good at it after all, posting this thread to start some drama.

But nope, that's just trolling. And good luck proving all those Internet trolls who commented on Yelp are actually gay.

- - - Updated - - -

Who knows? She never actually told them to stop what they were doing, she just told them that they don't serve gays as they were leaving. But how could they have known that unless they put it on the sign? The sign says, "No saggy pants." Perhaps if they want to avoid having gays in their establishment they will adjust their sign?

 

Which is fine. No one is arguing for or fighting to force churches to marry people they don't approve of. For example only Mormons may attend and be married in the Mormon church. Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, etc. are not allowed into the temple. They may discriminate and segregate however they like.

However courthouses are not allowed to discriminate against who they marry as they are government run.

 

You know Smartie, I think you have proven your point with this thread. Everyone is hypersensitive about everything and everything we say and do has consequences. These two guys played a little "crotch footsy" as you put it and subsequently got called '(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s' for it. The waitress, instead of politely asking them to stop their behavior chose to inform them that they don't serve (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and subsequently it made the news and brought them bad press. I guess we should always be careful with what we say and do lest we end up being called nasty names or on the news with bad press.

 

Well, that's the point isn't it? You 'dunno'....nor does anyone else.

 

Like his daughter supposedly said "We don't serve "F***' here"

 

Haha nice.

 

Back to media 'reality'

“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'

The gay couple said:

“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"

Not exactly a strong denial.....but say they WERE doing the 'nasty' under the table for all to see? Is that acceptable? Would it be acceptable for a hetero couple to do given the same set of circumstances?

 

And why shouldn't they have marriage status, apart from the fact that you find it contrary to your religious beliefs?

Why are you okay with giving them "civil union" status?

Do you understand that the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION is just that - civil union status? Government recognition of a marriage provides it a legal status. Civil unions provide a legal status. So what's the difference? (Apart from the fact that civil unions are not capable of providing an equal legal status to same sex couples)

Is it because you think marriage also gives a couple social status? Is this what you want to deny to same sex couples? That makes even less sense, seems downright mean. Whether or not something is accorded a social status isn't a legal matter - it's up to individuals. Why do you want to take away the freedom of individuals to decide whether or not to accord a same-sex union a social status in their mind?

 

I agree. Legal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages wouldn't require any church to perform religious rites blessing or sanctifying a marriage.

But if a Christian church chooses to do so (and some do), it's still not up to you to dictate whether or not they can.

And that's really what this debate over same-sex marriage is about - some people thinking they have a super special right to boss gay people around.

 

If they really were doing the nasty under the table why didn't the waitress say something right then and there? Why did she wait until they were leaving and why did she just say, "We don't serve (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s here." instead of "What you did was highly inappropriate and you're not welcome back."?

 

As for the restaurant incident, the whole thing sounds fishy. If a patron was doing something that was disruptive to business, why wasn't action taken to stop it? Why did the response only come after the fact, and in the form of derogatory name-calling that suggests the issue wasn't really the couple's actions, but the owner and his daughter being anti-gay?

It's a question of whose story is more believable. It's not that I wholly trust the story as relayed by the couple; I just see a lot less reason to trust the restaurant owner or his daughter, based on their actions and statements.

Bottom line, people shouldn't be rude, whether it's doing something genuinely disturbing (not merely due to a hypersensitive perception of all things gay as disturbing), or calling people names. Yet, people are rude. A rude business owner deserves to lose the patronage of those he or she offends, and someone acting in a way that is disruptive cedes any right they have to occupy space in that establishment.

 

It does sound fishy... I'm beginning to think the gays were on a mission to 'expose' the owner. Unfortunately, people have short memories so I doubt there will be any lasting effect. Just another black eye for the gay community. Too bad.

 

Yeh, that make sense. The gays were out to "get" the owner by simply existing.
Everyone loves being called a derogatory name and kicked out of a restaurant. Not to mention all the free business this loving Christian will receive with all the bigots flocking to his restaurant.

The ability of some here to engage in mental gymnastics to justify their hate is astounding. If someone is engaging in inappropriate behavior you do not wait until they have paid their bill and are leaving, you stop it then.

 

The inability of some members to even consider gays might be in the wrong is equally baffling. Its like engaging in butt sex gives one poetic license to behave badly.