Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

Oh, same things. ... hm. Seemed to make more sense the other way you wrote it.




​

 

I must say, I admire your sarcasm. But again, I do apologize for my spelling error; it was not intended.

Anyway, you did not respond to my other point.

It is a shame, really, that you would rather use a sarcastic, irrelevant response and ignore my point than respond in an efficient manner.

I am trying to have an intelligent debate, not attack others; so please, feel free to respond to my previous post.

 

You didn't make a point. You made an undemonstrated assertion and asked me to confirm it. I decline. You want support for that claim, find it elsewhere.

And I disagree with your new assertion. I do not believe you are attempting to participate in an intelligent debate. Instead, you seem to spend time making assertions that no one really cares about, frequently involving your religion, and then complaining when folks fail to comment on them.

It's kind of annoying.



​

 

Actually, I did make a point; in fact, I made MULTIPLE points.

I tried to make biological, anatomical, natural, moral, and even a political argument to support Big Earl's.

Unfortunately, not one liberal on the entire thread responded efficiently with evidence.

I only brought religion into this to add to my list of points, but I guess trying to enrich the discussion results in name-calling. Oops.

I'm glad you think nobody cares about my claims; that alone provides evidence that liberals constantly perpetuate lies in order to further their agenda.

I am not complaining; I am merely asking you to comment on my scientific, political, and moral points, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I am acting as the defense, and my side is currently blowing yours out of the water. I'm trying to help you here.

Thank you, sir, for insulting me, yet again.

 

I agree. But we have many who want decide on who should be treated certain way because they were born different than the majority.

 

You don't have to accept. But you do have to tolerate. Many don't want hypocritical sinners telling them how they should live.
I think the poster understand way way more than you.

 

I'll concede you tried to make points, but if you succeeded I didn't see them. I'm not even sure what you're trying to establish.

You are complaining. It's annoying. You're welcome.



​

 

Do me a favor, read pages 30-36 for this thread. Then try to tell me I didn't succeed.

I'm trying, and succeeding, to refute your claim that I did not make any points.

I am not complaining; in fact, you are complaining and if the best you can do is claim that I am complaining, then I am at a loss for words. Maybe you should spend your energy by responding to my scientific, moral, and political arguments.

Let's get back to this topic. Any response to Big Earl's business right to refuse service to anyone?

 

I don't speak for anyone other than myself.

 

I didn't mean it was you cherry picking. Everyone who is a hypocrite and cites the bible to why gays can't have equal rights are the cherry pickers.
Sorry for confusion.

 

They can have equal rights in a secular setting, just don't call it marriage.

I also did not cite the Bible at all, in the entirety of this thread, and I don't recall anyone who did? If so, please bring it to my attention.

 

He's abusing it.




​

 

here.



.
​

 

Please enlighten me. How? Why do you think he is not entitled to use his right to refuse business to whomever he chooses? Do you not think the gay couple's sexual advances in the restaurant had anything to do with it?

It is quite obvious that Big Earl can use his right as a private business owner whenever he pleases.

 

The word marriage is NOT a bible only word. So get over what they call it. You will lose.
I never said you or anyone cited the bible except the one who i responded to. But this thread is singling out 1 type of sin and rarely do I see threads about divorce/adulterers. Much bigger sin issue than 3-5% of the population. It comes off as extremely hypocritical.

 

That might be because divorcees and adulterers aren't rubbing it in people's faces, dressing flamboyantly, marching down the streets in garish displays of obscenity, and demanding special rights. When they start doing that, there might be some backlash.

 

The two young men deny there were any sexual advances and no reference to any such behavior was made when they were denied service.

The couple was denied future service because of the lunch counter's policy which is "to put it plainly, we don’t serve F(*)(*)(*) here." Similar abuses of this "right" to refuse service have resulted in federal intervention through civil liberties legislation in the past.

There are limits to Big Earl's privileges to run a private business that serves the public. If he keeps recklessly abusing them, he will accelerate legislation or possibly just loose his business license (which he's probably most worried about).

​

​

 

I have not seen any of what you posted. People have posted pics, but pics don't bother me as I don't have to look at them.
And I see many parades. And why would there's bother you? And there are some that go overboard, but when kept in the closet for ever, sometime folks come out swinging. If hypocritical christians didn't make such a fuss, it would all be over and no on would really care.

 

Posting your stupid picture over and over again doesn't make lifestyle choice a civil right, it just makes you banal and repetitive. And speaking of which, we're arguing in circles now. The restaurant never expressed a policy of not serving gay people, nor did it become an issue until the two creeps acted out obscenely in public. Trying to say it didn't happen is to say that the waitress "detected" they were gay by the Chi they were giving off and then decided to provoke a confrontation and kick them out for being gay because she hates gays. Ridiculous. Only in the warped Leftisphere are people actually like that. Real conservatives don't care about somebody's sexual orientation unless it's pushed in their face, like it was with this incident.

Your premise that gay people are never in the wrong, never misbehave, never act obscenely in public, and never lie is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.​

 

*lose. Just because you corrected my spelling, I will correct yours to start.

Anyway, I hardly think this is an "abuse." He reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. What is so difficult to understand? There are no limits to this right; it is straightforward. I think you need to calm down; it's his business, he can serve whomever he chooses to serve.

Using this right will not prompt any legislation, calm down.

And of course the couple will deny it! They were the "victims" here. People lie to further their agenda.

 

My premise is people are innocent until proven guilty.




​

 

You're pretending that gays don't purposely act as obscenely and obnoxiously as possible with the intent to offend. I don't live in the land of Make Believe and not being a Leftist, I don't delude myself the way you all do. These people are shoving their lifestyle down our throats belligerently and the rest of us are just fed up with it. They aren't victims, they're bullies. And we all learned in the schoolyard how you deal with bullies.

- - - Updated - - -

You certainly haven't been operating on that premise this whole thread, so don't you dare preach it to me. Have a nice day, you're done.

 

That's not a right, it's a slogan. There are limits to every right (even the ones people make up for themselves). Lunch counters that used to proudly announce "to put it plainly, we don’t serve N(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s here" are out of business. Demonstrating how far that right get's you.

But I agree, people lie. Which is why I'm not wiling to accept the version of the story Big Earl conveniently came up with the next day, until or unless he's willing to release the security footage he concedes exists but is choosing to keep private.



​

- - - Updated - - -

Of course I have.



​

 

Why don't you read the entire post before making things up.
I said there are some that go overboard. I also stated when kept in the closet for all of humanity, some tend to come out swinging.
And how are those few that flaunt affecting your life? I don't get upset with nudist colonies where I'm quite sure there is flaunting going on there.