Politician Refused Service at TN Restaurant

[Kelya]

If you want a place where everyone agrees with you and discussion so enrages you perhaps this is not the place for you.

Substitute "you" with basic belief in not martyring violent, murderous oppressors who finally get a taste of their own medicine, and yes, I would love a place where that was a basic belief. I find it astounding you don't.

Discussion where ignorant shitbags like you attempt to legitimatize oppression through shitty logic and screaming about equality for oppressors is incredibly enraging and always should be. Fuck your condescending attempt to decide where my place is. I think your place is isolated on an island at sea.

ETA: oh, wait, you really think that magically, waiters will have access to your medical records and be able to deny you services as such. Right. Logic and reason is not your strong point, evidently.

[valsa]

Society does not have the right to develop a thought police.

There's thoughts and then there's actions.

You can think whatever you want about gay people being pedophiles and women who've had abortion being murderers, but once you've used your political power to try and strip people you don't like of their rights- you've gone way beyond anything involving thought police.

[Aurora]

There's thoughts and then there's actions.

You can think whatever you want about gay people being pedophiles and women who've had abortion being murderers, but once you've used your political power to try and strip people you don't like of their rights- you've gone way beyond anything involving thought police.

No, I don't think so, because that's political and legal - if that asshole can get other assholes to support him and vote for him on those decisions, then that's terrible enough. But if people are treated differently in everyday life based on their beliefs/thoughts, that's a "thought police" developing.

[treemom]

This has been a bad week to be a sentient Tennessean. Our TEA party wants to "teach the controversy" about slavery. (?!?!)

So, thank goodness for Martha at the Bistro.

How did I miss this? Can you send me the details? I am in Memphis where the achoolpocalypse is another to happen and I just am more and more unhappy with the Tennessee school situation and I adore public schools.

[treemom]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/22 ... look-good/

Oh for fucks sake. I know that guy, Hall Rounds, in the article. I never took him as an outright idiot...but apparently she is. And I thought the TEA was the Tennessee education association....luckily it is just the tea party which is a lot of recycled libertarian like Hal

[meda]

No, I don't think so, because that's political and legal - if that asshole can get other assholes to support him and vote for him on those decisions, then that's terrible enough. But if people are treated differently in everyday life based on their beliefs/thoughts, that's a "thought police" developing.

Huh? The political and the legal is everyday life. This guy is using political means to pass laws that fuck with people's ability to live every day lives that most people take for granted. He was not being refused service for is thoughts, but for his actions. You really believe that people who disagree with him and chose to express their disagreement by legally refusing him a commercial service are the thought police? Should there be any social consequences for bigotry, or should we all just look the other way and play nice?

[StarrieEyedKat]

If this business wants to ban people for a certain POV a conservative business can do the same to liberal politicians tit for tat and it would be hypocrisy to laud one and castigate another.

Uh...they may not be politicians, but conservative businesses are already discriminating and refusing service to gay people (and athiests for that matter.) You know, like gay couples that have been denied service by bakeries for wedding cakes? Or Jessica Ahlquist, the athiest teen that just got the prayer plaque removed from her school - at least 3 different conservative flower shops refused to send her flower bouquets because of her beliefs.

My point is, it's already happening, and the other conservatives are usually supporting these businesses saying that it's their right as the private business owner, which it is, even thought it's disgusting. So the same applies here. If someone owns a diner and does not want to serve someone based on their bigoted beliefs, then it's in his right to do so, just like that politician has been discriminatory to others, only in much more personal ways.

[Aurora]

You really believe that people who disagree with him and chose to express their disagreement by legally refusing him a commercial service are the thought police?

No, but that is not what I said - if you read the posts above a bit more carefully, you'll see that what I and others wrote is a bit more nuanced. Words like "developing" and "slippery slope" were used.

A society where everybody had to think the same way all the time would have a thought police.

I would be dismayed if such behavior on the part of businesses were to become acceptable.

[meda]

No, but that is not what I said - if you read the posts above a bit more carefully, you'll see that what I and others wrote is a bit more nuanced. Words like "developing" and "slippery slope" were used.

A society where everybody had to think the same way all the time would have a thought police.

I would be dismayed if such behavior on the part of businesses were to become acceptable.

Such behavior by businesses toward gay people is already acceptable. One way of making it less acceptable is to exert social pressure on politicians that encourage such bigotry. It's called political protest, and has a rather long history in this country.I don't understand how you see this as a slippery slope to "everybody thinking the same" unless you also think that civil rights for gay people is just so much PC foolishness.

[valsa]

No, I don't think so, because that's political and legal - if that asshole can get other assholes to support him and vote for him on those decisions, then that's terrible enough. But if people are treated differently in everyday life based on their beliefs/thoughts, that's a "thought police" developing.

It's also legal to deny someone service for non-protected reasons.

And I don't see anyone here that being treated differently based on their beliefs/thoughts- it's on what they're doing with their beliefs/thoughts. Again, it's about actions.

Basically, we have a man who is trying to take real, actual rights away from certain people. This man comes to the business of someone who he has likely tried to take rights away from, and that person doesn't want to serve him. There is a big difference between the actions of these two people. I'm sure you think black history museums should be required to provide tours to groups of KKK member too.

[0KidsAndHappy]

WAHH WAHH HE DESERVES TO BE TREATED EQUALLY EVEN THOUGH HE LEGALIZES TREATING OTHERS LIKE SHIT WAHH EQUAL TREATMENT ONLY GOES ONE WAYYYYY /end heavy sarcasm

Oh my fucking god I can not even believe this thread. Thought police?! Equality for murderous oppressors? THEY HAVE ALL THE EQUALITY, ALL THE PRIVILEGES, THEY DO NOT NEED ANYTHING ELSE Oh boo fucking hoo. Go eat shit and die you fuckfaces. Oh no! I'm calling you fuckfaces because you're oppressor protecting shitheads. You should campaign for equality now so you have something to cry about.

My point was pretty much agreeing that it was a good thing the restaurant did, but okay...

[Kelya]

My point was pretty much agreeing that it was a good thing the restaurant did, but okay...

Sorry, I was being sarcastic sort of with you, like oh noes! how dare you be concernz!, then got swept away into fury upon reading the rest of the thread at that point.

[JesusFightClub]

Well it is simple, no?

I dunno if this happened to anyone here but I have been barred from a pub (or two) before when I was young and stupid. They refused me service and told me not to come back. In one case I had a very loud argument with a friend and when the bouncer came to separate us she spat in his face. So if I had just imagined the scenario, who would know? But by me and my friend's actions we caused an unpleasant time for everyone else. So we were told "Leave and don't come back."

Likewise if this bloke just called gays paedos in the privacy of his head, alright (well, not, but you get me). If he goes around the place doing such things and trying to get homophobic laws passed, well, he's going to make the gay clients in the restaurant feel really uncomfortable in his presence. It could cause a scene like me and my mate did. He's a known dodgy bastard who causes trouble. Those people get refused service in pubs and restaurants.

Seems quite simple. It's like I wouldn't wear a Rangers top to a Celtic pub. Actions have consequences, so if a gay friendly place doesn't want to serve a gay hating type, well alright.

[jaelh]

if someone makes clear they hate you, and try to limit your rights or freedom that said person(s) should be free not to serve you coffee, if they choose.

[Constance Vigilance]

No, but that is not what I said - if you read the posts above a bit more carefully, you'll see that what I and others wrote is a bit more nuanced. Words like "developing" and "slippery slope" were used.

A society where everybody had to think the same way all the time would have a thought police.

I would be dismayed if such behavior on the part of businesses were to become acceptable.

This shows an astounding lack of awareness that such behaviour is seen as perfectly acceptable and happens every day, both on the part of businesses and (more worryingly) on the part of state and local government. It's just that normally minority groups are the targets.

The reason you guys are able to talk about this calmly and Kelya is not, is because she knows this fact (and has experienced it for herself). Bleating on about equality is ignoring the reality that the situation is stunningly, stunningly unequal. And if you think protesting against this by refusing to serve one of its architects is somehow being "thought police", I don't really know what to tell you.

[Aurora]

Yeah, well, if you are concerned about equality then PLEASE STOP with the Frobama and Yobama jokes on the Makaziville thread.

Yakobo does not look like President Obama just because they are both people of color. Sorry but the irony of racist jokes on a thread supposedly against racism pisses ME off.

[sriracha]

I hardly think the word "equality" needs to be interjected into a discussion where the worst an anti-gay LAWMAKER has to face in terms of social backlash is being unable to order his french fries.

[Cran]

A restaurant is a private business, they have the RIGHT to decide whom they'll serve. As much as I have the right to decide whom I'll invite into my flat, and nobody is "discriminated" against if I don't.

Public buildings, institutions etc. are an entirely different thing. So, if this business can afford to turn customers away, they might do so at will.

[jericho]

For those who think the restaurant owner was justified in his actions, just remember that you also will have to justify if the roles are reversed.

[Anxious Girl]

I bet that what this politician doesn't realize is this is how it would feel if he passed anti-BGLT laws for marriage would persuade this kind of segration. Sadly, he may feel that his religious affliation is right for the country and the country should be whatever religion he is in because according to him that's the right course of action. He would probably flip a shit if there was a law that made it illegal for heterosexual religious couples to not get married... Hypocrite. :naughty:

[0KidsAndHappy]

For those who think the restaurant owner was justified in his actions, just remember that you also will have to justify if the roles are reversed.

That's the point. The roles have already been reversed. This man believes homosexuals are of a lesser class and should be denied basic human rights.

[emmiedahl]

For those who think the restaurant owner was justified in his actions, just remember that you also will have to justify if the roles are reversed.

You are allowed to discriminate personally for whatever the reason. And by personally, I mean on an individual basis. You can refuse to serve someone who has blue hair, or someone who calls you a pedophile.

You are *not* allowed to discriminate based on the person's group. You cannot discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, etc.

Is that clear enough? I cannot refuse to serve you because you are Christian, I can refuse because you are an entitled asshole.

[jericho]

That's the point. The roles have already been reversed. This man believes homosexuals are of a lesser class and should be denied basic human rights.

I'm talking about an exact situation with this the restaurant. For example if a lawmaker pushing for homosexual rights was refused service by an anti LBGT restaurant owner, then there shouldn't be any bickering from the people who are condoning this situation.

[emmiedahl]

Is the person pushing for homosexual rights trying to take away the rights of the anti-LGBT owner and calling them a pedophile? In your situation, at least?

[slickcat79]

I'm talking about an exact situation with this the restaurant. For example if a lawmaker pushing for homosexual rights was refused service by an anti LBGT restaurant owner, then there shouldn't be any bickering from the people who are condoning this situation.

I don't think there would be. I would support that person's right to refuse service to the pro-gay rights lawmaker, while calling him a bigoted douchebag. It's the same way that the WBC is entitled to the same free speech and free congregation rights as everyone else, even if what they say is vile.