Would you refuse to dine at a 'Straights Only' restaurant?

Hunkies Hamburgers makes sone of the best burgers in town. Considering their name and the fact the orig restaurant is smack dab in the middle of the gay district means they dont need a damn sign. LOL

 

so long as there are stores that cater to blacks, to gays, to women only..... there should be stores that, if they chose, cater to straight white christians only.

If they can run a business like that... more power to them. Brotha's fashions in my town seems to be doing just fine catering to 21% of the population, and ignoring 79%.

 

As does the Christian Bookstore in the mall.

 

yep....

 

my biggest question is, people are getting upset at the thought that 2 gays can come in, be very open about their sexuality and their intent, and if they are refused service because the owners don't agree with the lifestyle, it's the end of the world ....


however, if the same owners refuse service to a couple that was just as open about their planned adultery.... would pro-gay supporters who scream homophobia in scenario #1, be as equally as outraged if the adulterors were denied service?

 

Looks like we're in for a long line of "Would you eat at a......?" threads from 3link (not sure why this wasn't part of the other thread).

Maybe the one for homosexual votes is next?

 

Depends on how they expect people to prove it.

 

How would they know I was not straight?

 

your 'in your face, accept me or I'll make a scene by calling you a bigot, rainbow shirt wearing' attitude.


That's the hilarious thing about this.... noone is handing out surveys that ask "are you gay" before they take your order. So unless you are just flaunting around your sexuality, which is what pisse s people off more than anything, noone would know.

 

great.... so, since "proving sexuality" is not allowed.... next time I don't get a job I want, or mugged randomly in the park..... I'm just going to say it was because they thought I was gay..... and demand hate-crime prosecution, or the job, whatever the situation demands

 

Which is exactly why the gays comparing their fight to the struggles of blacks, is stupid... at best.

This poll is going to be a whole lot closer than the "whites only" thread this guy started.
Which will clearly show the difference in how this discrimination is accepted, or not.

 

Huh? The point was, if they're only going to serve heterosexuals, they'll need a way to prove it.

I'm thinking something like, the waitresses line up, you choose the one you want, you go into a room and do it, she verifies to management that you're strait, and asks for your order.

That's a good way to work up an appetite, but how are strait-women to prove it?

 

People really have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to this bill. For instance, it would still be against the law to not serve someone gay, but like the cake maker that did not want to participate in a gay wedding, they still serve gays. There is nothing in the bible that says you cannot serve gay customers but when you force a business to participate in something against their religion like participating in a gay wedding, the law protects them. If you refuse to sever gay customers or treat them differently just because they are gay, then you violate the law which will still be actionable. That and it would be a very stupid business practice and something that no one does anyway.

The gay lobby has a lot of propaganda on this and it evidently works for a quite a number of people but then the propaganda is more about silencing religious opposition to gay marriage than it is about the law.

 

So all business owners have to do to avoid liability is say "I don't serve gays because it is against my religion." Wow that really seems like a MASSIVE hurdle.

 

How will you know how is gay, put a tattooed G on the forehead.

 

I don't see how this is any different from the 'Whites Only' poll as long as you are open to the possibility that people can't choose their sexuality just as they can't choose their gender.

I get that it's hard for a business to know who is and isn't gay. But does it have to? Anyone a business owner suspects of being gay can be ejected. Otherwise, the law would be completely unenforceable.

 

Um...how would they know I was not simply a straight liberal? Would they not need to make that distinction before being able to deny me service?

 

Interesting question

what medical test do they perform at the door to confirm that one is heterosexual?

I gather that the concept of this thread is to try and draw the incorrect similarity of race/gender with how one has sex.

 

It is different because race is not something that is easy to mask, but sexual orientation is.

Not saying either is right, but they are not the same for that reason.

 

So it's different because some gays will be able to get away with eating at 'Straights Only' restaurants. But others will be asked to leave under suspicion that they take it in the ass?

 

uh oh

I guess you just inadvertently walked into the revelation that many have been stating. Nobody has a frikkin clue how a person on the street engages in sex.

2 people walking down the street, which one is short?

2 people walking down the street, which one is homosexual

simply remember that quick test and you'll understand why the push for affirmative action for sexual behavior is unenforcable

 

when you see a female with hairy legs and armpits do you automatically assume that she's from France?

When you see a guy wearing calf height pants do you assume that he's Dutch?

When you see a guy smoking and holding the cigarette with thumb and forefinger do you assume him to be German?

When you see a guy with a big belly do you assume him to be American?

 

It is not against Christianity to serve gays. It is however, religious freedom to not participate in a gay wedding.

 

I like how you ignored the sentences immediately following that. Just pathetic.

 

Me either. So why multiple threads? Can we expect lots more?