Here’s why right-wing Christians think they are America’s most persecuted

[Lurky]

13 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

What if the only funeral director in town refused to bury your loved one or the best medical specialist refused to treat you you because you were LGBTQ.

Exactly this.  What if the car mechanics in your town refused to fix your car, and the breakdown service refused to pick you up?  That's someone who can't then get to work, as one example.  What if the plumber refuses to fix your washing machine, for example? 

As I asked upthread (and didn't receive a reply to), where's the line for acceptable services to give or deny?  And as I asked upthread, does it change with groups?  Is it ok, for example to refuse to let an openly gay couple eat in a diner, but it would be wrong to refuse someone in a wheelchair, or someone who's Black? 

And for people who think a gay person should accept not having the same services, because a cake isn't important - do you also believe Rosa Parks should just have taken a seat in the back of the bus?  It's like saying she shouldn't have made a fuss, because she still could get from A to B, better not to sit next to someone who might be racist at the front, right?   Or the big anti-racist campaign in the UK, the Bristol Bus Boycott - why didn't those Black people get a job elsewhere?  Better to work with people who aren't racist!

I just can't buy this idea @Soulhuntress seems to be saying, that it's better to have a service refused than face the possibility of sabotage - why on earth are those the only two options? 

I'm also co-signing everything @formergothardite says on this topic, and like FG, I am really disturbed that people here are blasély suggesting that I as a lesbian, or a Black person, or a Jewish person, should just suck up being denied services because of someone's prejudice.  It really, really hurts to be treated as a second class citizen and told I am not entitled to the same services as my neighbour over something I have no control at all over.  

If everyone took the "suck it up" attitude, we'd still have buses segregated into sections for white and black people. 

[Cleopatra7]

4 minutes ago, Lurky said:

I'm also co-signing everything @formergothardite says on this topic, and like FG, I am really disturbed that people here are blasély suggesting that I as a lesbian, or a Black person, or a Jewish person, should just suck up being denied services because of someone's prejudice.  It really, really hurts to be treated as a second class citizen and told I am not entitled to the same services as my neighbour over something I have no control at all over.  

If everyone took the "suck it up" attitude, we'd still have buses segregated into sections for white and black people. 

I've noticed that the people who are saying that minorities should "suck it up" with regard to discrimination can say this because they themselves don't have to worry about being turned away from a business because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity, etc. They can say in the hypothetical sense, "I wouldn't want to patronize a business where the owner wouldn't want to serve me," but I can guarantee that if these persons had to defecate on the side of the road because no diner or gas station would let them use the facilities, they wouldn't be so sanguine about the supposedly urgent need to have a "right to discriminate." Plus, if one really believes in a "right to discriminate," then why the fuss over the supposed persecution of white straight Christians? Aren't us evil secular feminist types allowed to discriminate as well or does this right only extend to fundies? 

[feministxtian]

Around here, many businesses have signs saying they refuse the right to serve anyone. Ok...fine. 

HOWEVER...in certain situations (and it has happened) certain professionals have refused to provide care to certain members of certain minorities. In the case of law enforcement or medical care, there is where the line should be drawn. The oath LEOs take is to serve and protect the community at large...so...no discrimination allowed (although, let's face it, you can get killed for driving while black or brown). Medical personnel, same thing...FIRST DO NO HARM. If the hospital you're working at or the practice you are part of does not discriminate, then you don't get to either. 

Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers...who the hell cares. 

And, yes, I am a minority who has been harassed by LEOs. 

 

[PennySycamore]

I was thinking of this thread the other night.  The movie Giant was on Sunday night.  If you've never seen Giant , it's about this family of Texas ranchers and a neighbor who is an oil wildcatter.  There's this one scene near the end with the Benedicts stop at this cafe to get a bite to eat.  Bick and Leslie Benedict's daughter-in-law is Latina.  A Latino family comes in right after the Benedicts do and sit down at a booth.  The owner doesn't want to serve the Benedicts, but Bick points out that the Benedict name once meant something in that part of Texas so the waitress takes their orders.  Meanwhile, the owner is kicking the Latino family out.  The bald discrimination against that Latino family strikes Bick as unjust so he gets into a fist fight with the owner of the diner.  He will not have any of that shit!  Bick loses, of course, but Leslie has never been more proud of her husband.  

[SilverBeach]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

Around here, many businesses have signs saying they refuse the right to serve anyone. Ok...fine. 

HOWEVER...in certain situations (and it has happened) certain professionals have refused to provide care to certain members of certain minorities. In the case of law enforcement or medical care, there is where the line should be drawn. The oath LEOs take is to serve and protect the community at large...so...no discrimination allowed (although, let's face it, you can get killed for driving while black or brown). Medical personnel, same thing...FIRST DO NO HARM. If the hospital you're working at or the practice you are part of does not discriminate, then you don't get to either. 

Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers...who the hell cares. 

And, yes, I am a minority who has been harassed by LEOs. 

 

You can only decide for yourself what to care about or not. I do care. Those signs don't mean shit if service is denied for illegal discriminatory reasons. Don't want to serve lawyers, dog lovers, folks with no shoes or shirt? Have at it. But to tell me you won't make a fucking cake because I'm black? Hell no, I'm not running around looking for a non-racist baker and gay folks shouldn't have to run around looking for a "gay-friendly" baker. That is pure bullshit. 

[feministxtian]

when you own your own business, you are free to serve whomever you please. You can discriminate all you want. Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? yup. 

I'm a minority, my children are minorities, my grandchildren are minorities. My grandson has a double strike...black and Latino. Fortunately we all live in a part of the country where discrimination isn't really a problem. 

The one and only time I had a problem was in Mesa Arizona...I was talking to my son in Spanish and some bubba-looking MCSO deputy decided he'd do his master's bidding and start giving me shit like wanting to see my green card. I explained, in my best southern sailor's wife vocabulary that I didn't have nor need a green card and he could take his bullshit back to his boss and get fucked. 

Once again...like with anything else...patronize the businesses that treat you well. I have a list of businesses I won't patronize because I don't like their stands on things, starting with one I used to work for...and businesses that have not given me good service. However, I truly think that people on both sides are getting way too heated up and are going to slit their own throats in the long run. 

[SilverBeach]

@feministxtian, do you know nothing of the civil rights movement? What do you think those lunch counter demonstrations were about? It is absolutely illegal to refuse to serve someone due to race and no you cannot do what you damn well please because you own a business any more than I can do what I damn well please in my house because I own it.

I can't believe I'm arguing against bigotry on FJ, its kind of making me ragey.

 

[Destiny]

3 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

I can't believe I'm arguing against bigotry on FJ, its kind of making me ragey.

If it helps at all, I can't believe that I'm reading your arguments against bigotry on FJ. :/

Edit: by that I mean, I can't believe this is a conversation FJ even needs to have. I thought we were all in agreement that this shit is bad. 

[SilverBeach]

As for both sides getting heated up...sounds perilously close to Trump's Nazi apologetic rhetoric about the Charlottesville rally. Ugh.

[feministxtian]

13 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

@feministxtian, do you know nothing of the civil rights movement? What do you think those lunch counter demonstrations were about? It is absolutely illegal to refuse to serve someone due to race and no you cannot do what you damn well please because you own a business any more than I can do what I damn well please in my house because I own it.

I can't believe I'm arguing against bigotry on FJ, its kind of making me ragey.

 

Let's see...I was born in 1964,,,I remember the riots. I know what it's like to be looking over your shoulder, remember, my mother was an illegal immigrant. I also believe I stated that my grandson was Black/Latino. I also believe I stated that I got harassed by a LEO in Mesa Arizona. I also stated that boycotting or refusing to patronize certain businesses is a way to get things to change. Did I ever say it was right? No I did not. I did say that's the way it is, LBGTQ and illegals are the new discrimination targets. 100 years ago it was Jews, Irish and Italians. It happens. It's not right, but there are no laws enforcing non-discrimination. Dr, King was right when he advocated non-violence. Thing is, this whole suing people shit just turns everybody into a victim and further polarizes the population. 

There are laws in place regarding discrimination due to race (although some places ignore them). There are currently no laws regarding discrimination due to gender/sexual identity. Yes that needs to change. Is it going to change right now? Nope. In the future? I hope so. But, until anti-discrimination due to sexual identity is codified into law, well...business owners can pick and choose.  

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

when you own your own business, you are free to serve whomever you please. You can discriminate all you want.

WRONG. You do not get to discriminate all you want when you own & run a business that can be classed as a public accommodation:

Spoiler

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country. 
OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

The homophobe baker's business is a public accommodation. So, yes, if he's going to do business with one sector of the public he must do business with other sectors, barring bona fide reasons for not doing so (e.g., he's already booked for a particular date or time). If he decides to exercise his homophobia, he can get his ass sued.

[feministxtian]

20 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

WRONG. You do not get to discriminate all you want when you own & run a business that can be classed as a public accommodation:

The homophobe baker's business is a public accommodation. So, yes, if he's going to do business with one sector of the public he must do business with other sectors, barring bona fide reasons for not doing so (e.g., he's already booked for a particular date or time). If he decides to exercise his homophobia, he can get his ass sued.

and every time they get sued, they scream persecution...like I said, the law needs to be clearer with established penalties up to and including forfeit of all business profits and incarceration. However, it'll never happen. 

[BobTheWalrus]

On 9/16/2017 at 11:11 PM, feministxtian said:

Fundie persecution complex...I've had that argument. Try explaining that the whole marriage "debate" is based on constitutional law, not the bible. The whole "separation of church and state" thing. There's nothing that says a clergyperson MUST marry a couple they don't agree with. I've explained that pastors/priests/rabbis have refused to marry people for years and any challenge to that has been lost. Now the bullshit over the baker...I think both parties fucked up. One baker wouldn't do it, well, carry your ass on down the road and find another baker. Get the fuck over it. 

The problem is FEAR...they're not the majority anymore. White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian males are rapidly becoming a minority and they're scared of losing their perceived power. They need to get the fuck over it. 

Re: the bolded. That is what I've heard concerns about in the UK - that if laws go a certain way, clergy will have to marry a couple they don't agree with. It's not the case at the moment, though.

The same with the baker. As I understand it, the issue wasn't making a cake for a gay person, because that would obviously be discrimination. It was decorating a cake with a slogan promoting something the baker disagreed with. Of course you can still call that BS if you want, but it frustrates me when people are judged based on inaccurate reporting.

[BobTheWalrus]

On 9/16/2017 at 11:35 PM, Lurky said:

Genuinely interested, why do you think it's ok to say LGB people should just "get the fuck over" being denied services?  Would you say the same about a black, or disabled, or Muslim person who was refused the same service?  Or if it's because you see baking as a frivolous service it's ok to refuse, where's your line?  Would it be ok to refuse to sell a phone just because someone doesn't like an integral part of them?  A car?  Would it be ok for doctors to refuse to treat LGB people?  I'm always fascinated where these lines are for people.

Judging from what I've read about this debate, it's about drawing a very fine line between a general service, ie medical care, selling a phone, servicing a car etc, and being asked to do something which expressly goes against my ethical beliefs, eg: performing an abortion, printing a banner which says "Hitler had the right idea", performing a same sex wedding. So (and I'm being a bit ridiculous to make a point), a Christian might argue that there's nothing in the Bible that says a gay person can't drive a car, but there is stuff which says homosexual activity is wrong, and that God's original design was one man, one woman in a committed relationship (and I do recognise there are differing interpretations on this, but for the sake of illustration I'm using a standard orthodox viewpoint). It's not that baking is frivolous or anything like that. It's the distinction between serving a person, and that person asking me to agree with or promote something I think is morally wrong.

[Cleopatra7]

6 hours ago, feministxtian said:

Thing is, this whole suing people shit just turns everybody into a victim and further polarizes the population. 

Suing racist businesses and government agencies is and always has been one of the main strategies in the Civil Rights playbook. Using this strategy, the NAACP Legal Fund has been responsible for overturning numerous unjust laws and holding racists to task:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_Legal_Defense_and_Educational_Fund

Its most famous victory was Brown v. Board of Education, but there are many more cases that are lesser known but no less significant. Social change doesn't happen by oppressed groups "being sweet" or waiting around for racists to have a road to Damascus moment. It occurs because oppressed people challenge unjust laws and social structures and force a change.

[Lurky]

27 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Social change doesn't happen by oppressed groups "being sweet" or waiting around for racists to have a road to Damascus moment. It occurs because oppressed people challenge unjust laws and social structures and force a change.

This, a thousand times.   I am so sick of being told that if I am nice, sweet, quiet, don't make a fuss, those bigots will change their minds.  It doesn't make a difference, and legislation does.

1 hour ago, BobTheWalrus said:

It's not that baking is frivolous or anything like that. It's the distinction between serving a person, and that person asking me to agree with or promote something I think is morally wrong.

The thing is, the bakers who don't want to make cakes are NOT being asked to agree with something - they're being asked to provide a service.    And it's completely arbitrary!  Those same bakers don't give people questionnaires to see if, I dunno, the cake is for divorcees, or the bride or groom is having an affair, or is polyamourous, which are also banned in the Bible.  Or if the bride and groom are committing crimes, or are  people of the opposite political party to them (imagine how crazy it would sound to say "You're a Labour party counsellor, and I'm a conservative, so I can't bake the cake for you because I'd be approving of your politics".  Or for secular weddings, if they believe marriage really is about God.

As for people "having to" perform a wedding - this is explicitly prevented in UK/US law, it's not even a thing that's going to happen.

 

[ElToro]

8 hours ago, feministxtian said:

Once again...like with anything else...patronize the businesses that treat you well. I have a list of businesses I won't patronize because I don't like their stands on things, starting with one I used to work for...and businesses that have not given me good service. However, I truly think that people on both sides are getting way too heated up and are going to slit their own throats in the long run. 

Gulp. Not sure I'm ready to jump into this argument but.....

In @feministxtian's defence, wasn't this exactly one of the tools of the civil right's movement?

But it works better if, in addition to the victim-of-bigotry taking their business elsewhere, the whole of society stands by them and boycotts those businesses too.... eg. the boycott around the time of Rosa Parks, the Bristol bus boycott etc. Hell, even South Africa... though that did take a bit longer than the buses.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

2 hours ago, BobTheWalrus said:

It's the distinction between serving a person, and that person asking me to agree with or promote something I think is morally wrong.

So let's say that my religious beliefs impose me not to promote interracial marriages or interfaith marriages (considering that claiming Christianity I can get away with child abuse and medical neglect the example doesn't seem far fetched). Should the law forbid me to be an asshole refusing to write "happily ever after Shanice and Connor" for a mixed race couple but not if I refuse to write "happily ever after Eric and John"?

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, BobTheWalrus said:

It's not that baking is frivolous or anything like that. It's the distinction between serving a person, and that person asking me to agree with or promote something I think is morally wrong.

Say I'm a baker (I'm not).

Someone asks me to put "Happy Birthday, Mr. Hitler" and a swastika on a cake.  I tell them to take their business elsewhere and they can sue their smelly socks off.  My defense:  I refused to participate in hate speech because it is a crime.  I win.

Someone asks me to put a rainbow on a cake.  I refuse because it is a gay symbol.  They sue and I lose because it is discrimination against a protected class.

Someone else asks me to put a rainbow on a cake.  I refuse because I'm an atheist and it means Noah and all that shit and I don't want to promote Christianity.  They sue and I lose.  Discrimination on the grounds of religion.

I think I would refuse to put "Make America Great Again" on a cake, whether or not it was for the Orange Horror.  They could certainly sue but Republicans are not a protected class.

I could go on.  Moral of the story - if you are in business obey the law or suffer the consequences

50 minutes ago, ElToro said:

But it works better if, in addition to the victim-of-bigotry taking their business elsewhere, the whole of society stands by them and boycotts those businesses too.... eg. the boycott around the time of Rosa Parks, the Bristol bus boycott etc. Hell, even South Africa... though that did take a bit longer than the buses.

Boycotts are definitely a valuable tool in civil resistance.   

Interesting little footnote:  Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up her seat, just the most famous.  The boycott was very carefully organised and lasted over a year but essentially failed.

The end of segregation on the Montgomery buses was due to yet another lawsuit:   Browder v. Gayle (4 other resisters who also refused to give up their seats.)  The US Supreme Court finally ruled that the bus segregation was unconstitutional in that case.

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, BobTheWalrus said:

. As I understand it, the issue wasn't making a cake for a gay person, because that would obviously be discrimination. It was decorating a cake with a slogan promoting something the baker disagreed with. Of course you can still call that BS if you want, but it frustrates me when people are judged based on inaccurate reporting.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop

Quote

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Craig's mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding

Nope. In this case the couples just wanted to purchase something the bakery sold, wedding cakes. They were denied service simply because they were gay. Would you feel the same if they were denied service because they were black, Jewish, or a mixed race couple? You really want to go back to white only stores? This isn't a rhetorical question, do you think stores should get to hang up signs that say no black, no Jews, no gays, no mixed race couples? 

And the idea that people can just "go somewhere else" is really, really showing a hell of a lot of privilege. Like I said, when I got married there was literally one bakery that sold good tasting cakes I could afford. So if they had denied me service I couldn't have just "gone somewhere else".  When I decide to take my daughter out on a special girls day out, I shouldn't have to worry that we will be kicked out just for existing and gay couples shouldn't either. 

If your religious beliefs prevent you from selling stuff to an entire group of people, well then don't open a public store that sells that stuff. End of story. 

[church_of_dog]

I find it useful to draw a distinction between the two perspectives being presented here -- that of a citizen/consumer and that of service provider.

A service provider needs to follow the law or be prepared for the consequences.  As @Palimpsest said, it's not ok to deny service based on a legally protected class.  Deny service based on other reasons?  Legal, but of course you might hear about it, people might try to sue anyway, or turn customers away via the feedback method, or lash out with violence.

As a customer, there are two different tacks one might choose; both legal, it just depends on the individual's energy level for the issue.  One, the customer could (when options are available, as some have pointed out) choose to "vote with their dollars" and not patronize businesses whose practices or attitudes they don't like.

Or the customer could choose to take a more public stand -- sit-in, lawsuit, civil disobedience, etc.  Neither approach is wrong; it's up to each person to decide how they want to react.

But no choice on the part of a customer, even that of accepting bigoted treatment quietly, means that it's ok for the service provider to behave that way.

 

[Palimpsest]

2 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

But no choice on the part of a customer, even that of accepting bigoted treatment quietly, means that it's ok for the service provider to behave that way.

Tacit permission.  Excellent post, @church_of_dog.

[older than allosaurs]

43 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

@Palimpsest

As a customer, there are two different tacks one might choose; both legal, it just depends on the individual's energy level for the issue.  One, the customer could (when options are available, as some have pointed out) choose to "vote with their dollars" and not patronize businesses whose practices or attitudes they don't like.

Or the customer could choose to take a more public stand -- sit-in, lawsuit, civil disobedience, etc.  Neither approach is wrong; it's up to each person to decide how they want to react.

But no choice on the part of a customer, even that of accepting bigoted treatment quietly, means that it's ok for the service provider to behave that way.

I appreciate the level of discussion going on here, and I think that the "energy level for the issue" aspect deserves more attention that it often gets in hypothetical debate. I've begun to tune out when a statement starts with "If I were [black, gay, transgender, Muslim, whatever, I wouldn't put up with that...." If you are in any of those categories, you know it's more complicated.

I'm WASPy, straight, middle-class and politically progressive. My children and most of my extended family are African-American. I can see daily the difference between a political standpoint and actual life, and it gives me sympathy for feministxtian's take. There's a price to pay for your choices. Most of us here are women, right? So we know that it's not feasible to go to the mat every day over every single misogynist thing we experience or hear. We have to choose our battles, depending on our stamina, our vulnerability, our other responsibilities, as well as on our politics.

We also have to realize that when we do choose to protest or sue, the positive results are likely to be in the future, not for us personally. Those kids who sat in at the lunch counters and were abused, sloshed with ketchup and mustard, and then arrested--they didn't get lunch. They mostly got jail, lost employment, threats to their families and mental anguish. It's only in the long view that it's obvious to most that they were heroes doing something important. We cheapen their sacrifice if we expect everyone to be able to take those stands.

[Lurky]

@older than allosaurs   I 100% support the right for people to pick their own battles, absolutely, and no one is saying that everyone who experiences discrimination has a duty to fight every time, regardless of personal cost.  What a couple of people are saying is that other people should put up with discrimination because it's only a cake/a meal in a restaurant/a seat in a specific part of the bus.

Feministxtian started this by saying:

Quote

Now the bullshit over the baker...I think both parties fucked up. One baker wouldn't do it, well, carry your ass on down the road and find another baker. Get the fuck over it. 

That isn't just a case of "I wouldn't sue myself", that's being scornful because other people have used their energy and resources and privilege to fight for a cause that benefits their community.  It's saying that because they think they wouldn't mind being discriminated against, everyone else is wrong to care about it.  And I'm never going to agree with that, or see if being said without pushing back.

[formergothardite]

26 minutes ago, older than allosaurs said:

It's only in the long view that it's obvious to most that they were heroes doing something important. We cheapen their sacrifice if we expect everyone to be able to take those stands.

I don't expect everyone too, but it also cheapens their sacrifice for people to say the white folks shouldn't have been required to serve them food and they could have just taken their asses down the road to find another restaurant that would have served them. That is essentially what some of the posters are saying.