People in restaurant stand up for gay couple

[Ziggy Stardust]

To the homosexuals in my community a long term commitment works out to about six months normal people time, maybe a year.

Sure, the homosexuals in your community. What kind of number are we talking about?

I'll tell you one generalisation which I have found to be true. There's a lot of homosexuals working in fashion. My girlfriend also works in fashion. Through her I have met quite a few gay couples who've all been together longer than my and my girlfriend have (12+ years). I meet them again and again every company party. And I have to say, from the top of my head, I cannot recall any of them showing up with a new lover every time.

Considering how many of them seem to have a new partner every week the average is probably that or less

Maybe the average in "your community".

(I was working on a political campaign and so know too much about the homosexual community).

It sounds to me you know Jack and the last name which cannot be written about the homosexual community. Methinks you may know a couple who you cherry picked to represent the homosexual community.

Please. Stop acting like your some kind of authority on homosexual communities because frankly, you're full of it and your distasteful generalisations are baseless wankery.

 

[Flying Pig]

Proof that Southern manners isn't just a myth. Credit to all those who stood up, I just hope people would be like that everywhere you went.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

My sexual feelings toward females is minimal and feelings towards males is nonexistent. I've never had a crush, never looked at porn, never masturbated and am entirely fine being friends with females who many males want to screw.

You might have a serious hormone imbalance bud, might want to see a doctor about that.

 

[Aegis]

Donovan, the second guy in the video, wrote a very touching letter to the family. I am impressed that someone took the time to write that out & deliver it in person. Consider my faith in humanity partially restored.

Also: 29 states make it legal to refuse to serve gay & lesbian people?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Also: 29 states make it legal to refuse to serve gay & lesbian people?

I agree with the 29 states, not because I think people should refuse to serve gays and lesbians, but because of free market. You don't have to allow anyone on your property that you don't wish to. But I doubt anyone could actually get away with this due to boycotting, and such for the better.

 

[Flying Pig]

I agree with the 29 states, not because I think people should refuse to serve gays and lesbians, but because of free market. You don't have to allow anyone on your property that you don't wish to. But I doubt anyone could actually get away with this due to boycotting, and such for the better.

Free market trumps 'all men are created equal'? That seems just a bit extreme.

 

[Aegis]

I agree with the 29 states, not because I think people should refuse to serve gays and lesbians, but because of free market. You don't have to allow anyone on your property that you don't wish to. But I doubt anyone could actually get away with this due to boycotting, and such for the better.

The civil rights movement says otherwise.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Free market trumps 'all men are created equal'? That seems just a bit extreme.

All men are created equal, yet with that comes a right to private property.

The civil rights movement says otherwise.

I don't agree with all prospects of the Civil Rights Movement, though the repeal of the Jim Crow Laws was absolutely necessary.

 

[Arakhor]

It makes a mockery of the US Pledge of Allegiance as well, I think: "... one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Private property operating a public business isn't really private property, now is it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It makes a mockery of the US Pledge of Allegiance as well, I think: "... one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Private property operating a public business isn't really private property, now is it?

Yes it is.

It is just opened for public use. They can make any restrictions they want to on its use.

Now realistically, nobody really wants to put "No blacks allowed" on their restaurant, and very few want to put "No gays allowed' unless its an application for a Church office, so really, that's only intellectual.

A more realistic example is, say, smoking. Some states have banned smoking in restaurants. This is nonsense because it should be up to the restaurant owner. The fact that it is "For public use" doesn't mean the government can dictate its use.

 

[Truronian]

Just because you own a restaurant/shop/haberdashery, doesn't mean you get free reign on what goes on inside. We don't let shop owners mug their customers, nor do we let people discriminate against their customer based on race, sexuality or any other irrelevant quality.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just because you own a restaurant/shop/haberdashery, doesn't mean you get free reign on what goes on inside. We don't let shop owners mug their customers, nor do we let people discriminate against their customer based on race, sexuality or any other irrelevant quality.

Mugging your customers is doing something active that harms your customer. Not letting "X group" into the business is refusing to provide services to certain people. As ugly as that is, I can't see any moral reason to tell them they are not allowed to do this on their property.

Now, if this were going to cause serious harm, you could argue "Ends justify means" but realistically, if someone puts up a "No blacks allowed" sign, I think its not just blacks they'll be keeping away, there will be boycotts all over...

 

[Arakhor]

Smoking is something active that harms your customer. As for no moral reason, I can think of a couple and I'm not even trying.

 

[civver_764]

I agree with Dom. You don't have to let black people into your home if you don't want to, why is it any different with a restaurant or shop that you own? I have a problem with the whole property rights thing in general, but inside of that I don't see how you can justify laws like this.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Smoking is something active that harms your customer.

Some people like to smoke. If the restaurant says "Smoking allowed" people know when they go in that there will be smoking.

I agree with Dom. You don't have to let black people into your home if you don't want to, why is it any different with a restaurant or shop that you own? I have a problem with the whole property rights thing in general, but inside of that I don't see how you can justify laws like this.

You really can't, and I'm glad you aren't misunderstanding me. I'm not saying "Oh, its just fine and dandy that you won't let black people in your restaurant" I'm saying "Most people aren't going to be bigoted, but you can't justify a law against it, but no doubt the restaurant will be boycotted."

While I do have a somewhat low opinion of humanity, most people aren't bad enough to see "No black people allowed" and just walk in, not caring. I think the market NATURALLY punishes people who are bigoted like that, and far better than big brother could do it.

 

[Arakhor]

Some people like to beat up their wives, but the state rules that illegal. If the state chooses to make smoking in public places where food is prepared and served, that is an entirely sensible law.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Some people like to beat up their wives, but the state rules that illegal. If the state chooses to make smoking in public places where food is prepared and served, that is an entirely sensible law.

Beating your wife is non-consensual. Entering a restaurant where smoking is allowed is consensual. And the law is total nonsense.

 

[Arakhor]

So, either a smoking restaurant forces waitresses, cooks and so on to all be smokers or to work in a environment that is injurious to their long-term health. The first is likely unattainable and the second is illegal.

 

[civver_764]

While I do have a somewhat low opinion of humanity, most people aren't bad enough to see "No black people allowed" and just walk in, not caring. I think the market NATURALLY punishes people who are bigoted like that, and far better than big brother could do it.

There are a lot of places where people would be ok with "no gay people allowed" though, for sure. However I think ultimately the responsibility rests in the hands of the population rather than the government to fix that.

Anti-second hand smoke laws are ok I think. Second hand smoke is definitely harmful to people.

 

[Flying Pig]

I agree with Dom. You don't have to let black people into your home if you don't want to, why is it any different with a restaurant or shop that you own?

Because people in a free society expect to have to provide a good reason to just come into your house, but expect to be given a good reason why they can't be served in a shop or restaurant. It's also attitudes - why do you think Martin Luther King cared so much about buses? Because he knew that the only way he could stop people from thinking it was acceptable to lynch black people was to make it so that they understood that they were no different from white people; which is completely contrary to any reason behind banning them from somewhere.

However I think ultimately the responsibility rests in the hands of the population rather than the government to fix that.

So why have a government at all if it doesn't govern? Actually looking at your avatar it might not be a good idea to answer that.