IHOP Kicks Lesbian Couple Out For Friendly Kiss

[Hissyspit]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/ihop-kicks-out-lesbian-couple-for.html

IHOP kicks out lesbian couple for friendly kiss
by John Aravosis (DC) · 3/19/2007 01:03:00 PM ET

As the article notes, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations, employment, or anything else. Discrimination against gay Americans is 100% legal under federal law, and in most states. It's a fact. More from the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16913352.htm

COMMENTARY
Lesbian kiss falls flatter than a pancake
By MIKE HENDRICKS
Columnist

- snip -

“It was a kiss I would share with my uncle,” Blair Funk told me. Except it wasn’t her uncle she kissed. It was her honey, Eva Sandoval.

Two young women sharing a kiss didn’t seem inappropriate to the other couple in the restaurant booth that night, Jackie Smith and the woman with whom she shares her life, Toni Smith. But someone watching the scene was offended.

So later, the manager confronted them in the lobby and told them to get out. The way Blair tells it, “He said, ‘I have to tell you, we’ve had some complaints about public displays of affection, and we’re a family restaurant. We can’t accept it, and we won’t accept it.’

- snip -

“Many people are shocked to hear that people can be fired from their jobs for being gay or being perceived to be gay,” says Julie Brueggemann, executive director of the Missouri gay rights group Promo.

MORE AT LINK

[BOSSHOG]

1. Okay

A family restaurant which opposes displays of affection??

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I used to live in the suburb where this happened

and I ate at this IHOP many times.

It's a very redneck, truck driving, blue collar area. And VERY conservative. WAY too many churches. Our neighbors were continually bugging us about coming to church with them.

This incident didn't surprise me at all, Hissy. I did post it in the MO forum and no one commented. That surprised me.

[cboy4]

80. "WAY too many churches."

:spray:

Let us pray, amen.

[Divine Discontent]

271. you're too rich, sugar!

loved that one...

God bless!

[Fovea]

317. I won't be eating there or any IHOP in KC

again.

My SO and I are a bit apart in age, and we get endless crap from tiny minded fucks like this all the time. It seems to have gotten worse since I have had to walk with a cane.

She has watched my body make a sincere effort at dying twice in our ten years, and has been there for me through it all. For more than five of those years I have been disabled.

Love takes its own shape and makes its own rules.
It may seem unlikely or ungainly, but all love is equally sacred.

I say, ridicule it on peril of your soul.

[helderheid]

3. (not that I ever go) No more IHOP for me.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Families with kids that cry, scream, yell, and throw food are still OK at IHOP, right?

:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

6. exactly, and you don't want those poor kids catching "teh gay"

[KansDem]

29. Don't forget the high-fructose corn-syrup that passes for "maple syrup"

...with all its artificial favorings and colorings.

To hell with IHOP and all the other "family-oriented" restaurants that serve up this crap.

[Hepburn]

57. Well, the last time I was in an IHOP...

...that is a pretty good description of the customers.

IMO, totally out of line what IHOP did. Bunch of up-tight azzholes. I am female and straight and when I have met my friends in a restaurant for a meal, often we hug/kiss hello and good-bye. What's next? Me and my little old senior friends are going to be asked to leave because of a public display of attention? Bullshit on that, IMO. Geeeez, is someone gonna label us as gay and therefore "unacceptable?" This discrimination against gay people is really, really totally out of line. No question about it.

This really angers me ~~ and I can tell ya, IHOP is OFF my list and they are getting an email from me as to why. If friends cannot exchange a friendly hug or kiss in a restaurant, then that is somewhere I do NOT wish to go and spend my money. They can take their pancakes and shove them!

JMHO

[quinnox]

5. IHOP can do this

Just like any business can refuse service for those who have no shirts or shoes, they can refuse service and ask to leave the premises anyone for any reason.

[donco6]

10. And I can refuse to eat there, as well as raise hell . . .

. . . about them to anyone I want. Which I would think would not be good for business.

[quinnox]

11. that's true

[The Doctor.]

13. So if they tossed a black couple for being black,

they would be well within their rights?

[quinnox]

17. I doubt it

I think it depends if they said they were telling them to leave because they were black, then that might be against the law. But if they told them they had to leave for some other reason, maybe they were being too loud or something, then that would be OK.

[The Doctor.]

35. Perhaps they will kick the black couple out for having noisy kids while

leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone.

Would that be discrimination?

[quinnox]

43. probably

I'm not a lawyer but I guess it might be, they have to kick them both out if they are both being loud and obnoxious.

[The Doctor.]

49. Right.

Although legally entitled to kick gay couples out, it is nothing more than discrimination based on their being gay rather than their display of affection. Otherwise they'd kick the heteros out for the same behavior.

The manager is plainly a homophobe, and acted entirely based on his prejudice rather than on policy... even though he used 'policy' as his excuse.

It's just as much bullshit as if he had kicked a black couple out for having noisy kids while ignoring the white folks who let their little shits run rampant.

[Lex]

54. Agreed.

nt

[NMMNG]

53. So it's not ok to throw them out because they're black,

But it's ok to throw them out because they're gay?

[Lex]

59. Under federal and state law, YES.

Gay people are not a protected class of persons such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin as written into state and federal law.

[kiahzero]

73. Only if you adopt the perverse (yet common) understanding of Title VII

In a rational implication, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as with discrimination on the basis of any other gender role, is discrimination on the basis of sex.

[Lex]

82. If you've got a Fed or State case to site that includes GLBT people as a protected class

just the same as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is protected, then I'd love to read it.

[kiahzero]

93. Sadly, I haven't found such a case.

That merely means that judges have, so far, been cowardly in their application of the law, and allowing political concerns to get in the way of their reason.

[Lex]

96. I agree. I think they should be what the law calls a "protected class"

too. So that discrimination in housing, employment, lodgings, restaurants, etc. is illegal. Sadly right now it's not in most all states, and certainly federally.

[kiahzero]

104. Perhaps this is a narrow distinction.

I'm saying that it is illegal under the text of the law, and the law is being underenforced out of judicial cowardice (can't be a "judicial activist" by actually doing your job).

[MGD]

200. What about the equal protection clause?

I'm pretty sure that our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for ALL U.S. citizens.

[kiahzero]

227. Yes, but IHOP isn't a state actor.

Additionally, most forms of discrimination need only meet a rational basis standard of review. For instance, a State discriminating against opticians by providing that they make make lenses only if there is a prescription from an optometrist or ophthalmologist would be in the clear, as far as the Equal Protection Clause is concerned.

[MGD]

248. True; however, IHOP is not authorized to refuse service to someone based on race or religion

This then is also unconstitutional.

[kiahzero]

268. That's because of the Civil Rights Act.

It's statutory law, not constitutional law.

[MGD]

269. It isn't equal protection under the law which is constitutional law.

The state is giving protection to one group of people and denying it to another. Because it isn't equal protection under the law, the state must either stop enforing title VII type anti-discrimination laws aimed at the private sector or it must guarantee the same rights to homosexuals. It seems pretty clear and obvious to me; although, I must confess, I am not a lwayer. You can not afford legalislative protections to one class of citizens and deny those same protections to another class of citizens. It is forbidden by the sumpreme legislative document of our land, the document that is the very foundation of our country, the document that is supposed to define who and what we are as a nation and a people, and the document that millions and millions of Americans have sworn an oath to uphold and defend even to the death if need be.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[kiahzero]

278. Your understanding of the Equal Protection Clause is incorrect.

While I'm not a lawyer yet, I will be in a little over two years. Interestingly, I'm dealing with the Equal Protection Clause right now in Constitutional Law, as well as Title VII in Employment Discrimination, so two out of my four classes are relevant to this discussion. :D

While I can understand why you would think the Equal Protection Clause means that, it really doesn't. All citizens are protected against discrimination on the basis of race and sex (laws subject to strict and intermediate scrutiny, respectively), but the Equal Protection Clause does not demand that all classes of citizens be treated equally. The archetypal example of this is Williamson v. Lee Optical; Oklahoma had a law preventing opticians from making lenses without a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The Court held that this law, despite discriminating against opticians, did not violate the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Aside from race and sex, all other classifications are subject only to rational basis review - it should be noted that it's nigh impossible for a law to fail to meet the burden that rational basis examination imposes.

Now, you may be wondering why I denounced the current interpretation of Title VII as judicial cowardice, and don't do the same here. There are two reasons for this. First, the understanding of the Equal Protection Clause you propose is really impossible; the government must classify people based on relevant differences and discriminate on the basis of those differences. For instances, the government must have the ability to discriminate on the basis of possession of a medical degree in order to license doctors. Second, unlike the current understanding of Title VII, this understanding of the Equal Protection Clause is consistent with the Court's prior precedent. On the other hand, if one takes existing precedent as given, applying Title VII to discrimination on the basis of gender roles (including sexual orientation) is logically necessary.

[MGD]

285. What then is the rational basis for a state to deny Title VII protection to a group of citizens?

[kiahzero]

307. "We didn't want to" is pretty much sufficient, honestly.

Challenging a law under rational basis scrutiny is pretty much impossible... I'm trying to think of a law that's ever been struck down under that standard of review, and coming up empty.

[LostinVA]

243. In some states they most certainly are

And, also in some municipalities.

[Lex]

250. Not enough. Not until there's full constitutional protection.

Otherwise, the few states and municipalities are nice, but not nearly enough.

[LostinVA]

297. You're talking to someone who was once fired for being gay

I'm agreeing with YOU.

[liberalEd]

149. There's legal and there's ethical

Even if it's legal, shame on them for doing it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

156. That's a problem with ethics

The IHOP manager probably was being ethical within the ethics of his Klan. Ethics is not as absolute as law. It's always relative to the "customes" of a group.

[liberalEd]

162. Of course all discrimination should be illegal, meanwhile

the manager of the IHOP should have understood the "ethics of his Klan" what ever that is, are out of date and that all discrimination is wrong.

[NMMNG]

169. Finally an answer that makes some sense

Thank you. :-)

[Lex]

21. NO, because there are federal and state regulations against racial discrimination

in accomodations open to the public. Even if it's private property open to the public.

[The Doctor.]

31. Correct, but it is still a form of discrimination

to kick out a gay couple for the same kiss a hetero couple might share.

Perhaps they will kick the black couple out for having noisy kids while leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone.

Would that be discrimination?

[Ninja Jordan]

42. Yes, it would be an equal protection violation.

[The Doctor.]

45. Right again.

The point is that the discrimination in either case is based on prejudice and not policy.

If they tossed everyone out for a simple kiss, then I would say that it was not discriminatory. But this absolutely was.

[Ninja Jordan]

69. It would hinge on whether the court considered sexual orientation a 'fundamental right'

Prejudice based on race is clear (it is written into the 14th Amendment), but areas like gay marriage etc. are not. In situations where rights are unenumerated, the court has to decipher whether they exist (e.g. freedom to raise children, to use contraception). Would THIS current Supreme Court find the freedom to engage in homosexual necking in public a right so fundamental that it should be afforded protection? I doubt it. But does this preclude the individual states (or Congress) from passing anti-discriminatory legislation, protecting such individuals? No, the states are free to protect their citizens beyond what the Federal Constitution requires.

[The Doctor.]

102. My friend flys in from Jordan,

We meet at a restaurant, presumably an establishment comparable to IHOP. He embraces me warmly, we greet each-other with a kiss. It is cultural greeting.

We are subsequently kicked out for being two men who kissed.

Sexual orientation is not at issue, but is presumed by the homophobic (and culturally ignorant) manager to be the case.

The issue becomes 'public displays of affection', not sexual orientation.

Does anyone have a 'fundamental right' to engage in moderate displays of affection, and who determines what is 'moderate'?

Now the same display is immoderate when the subjects are the same sex, but moderate when different?

That is the issue the court would have to address, not whether there is a 'fundamental right' to act gay in public.

And yes, I'd be happy to litigate this one.

[Ninja Jordan]

124. In that case you may be able to argue that its a religious infringement

which would be easier than arguing a 'right to show affection.' Most states have laws in place that protect against religious discrimination. Of course, the manager will argue that he merely kicked you out because he doesn't like anyone kissing, but the discovery and trial process would uncover whether his motives were truly insidious. I think in some muslim cultures it may be part of the religious culture to do such things.

[The Doctor.]

129. It would have to remain an issue of affection,

otherwise the religious argument would only apply to those that can show their religion respects or requires such things.

I can see the ultimate solution now;

A new religion, based perhaps on some form of Christianity, that respects and requires homosexual marriage and all implicit 'practices'. LMAO! That would be brilliant!

[Ninja Jordan]

134. If you're only willing to argue 'public affection,' then you likely have no remedy

unless the state has a statute in place that protects against gay discrimination.

[Leopolds Ghost]

335. What has religion got to do with it? In most cultures men kiss as a greeting, hold hands etc.

America is an isolated exception. No religious angle.

Even counting the IHOP manager's beliefs about what is
moral in the bedroom I fail to see how religion encourages
him to kick people out of his establishment because they
look or act funny. Does he do that to homeless people?
If so, he's actually violating the tenets of his religion.

[Maven]

106. First of all

race is not explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Only equal protection, which is meant (and has been interpreted) to prohibit laws that discriminate based upon race unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

That doesn't apply to discriminatory business practices, housing, or employment (even with regard to race), which are covered by statutory measures like the Civil Rights Act.

So for the type of discrimination we're talking about here, in states where sexual orientation is recognized as a protected category (and it is an inherent trait, btw, not a set of behaviors as you seem to assume), race and sexual orientation are treated by the same area of law.

"No, the states are free to protect their citizens beyond what the Federal Constitution requires."

And that's exactly what has been done with race, gender, and increasingly, sexual orientation.

[Ninja Jordan]

123. Actually it CAN apply to private business practices if you want to get technical

If those private business actors are deemed "arms of the state," the 14th Amendment WILL apply. Secondly, the 14th Amendment via incorporation of the 13th clearly established race as a protected class. The exact language escaped me. Other than picking on a semantic point, none of what you said rebuts the accurate positions I've portrayed.

[Maven]

126. We're not talking about "arms of the state"

Again, race is not specified in the Constitution as a "protected class." It is treated as a protected class under strict scrutiny. In other words, there is room within the constitution to expand equal protection to other categories.

I didn't pick on a semantic point, btw--I pointed out a major misunderstanding in how different types of discrimination are handled under the law. Please reread.

[Ninja Jordan]

130. You're right in that statutory relief would be the answer here (because there isn't a state actor),

but you're clearly wrong about race. Had the IHOP patron been thrown out because of his race, he doesn't have to appeal to a statute to protect him--he is protected by the Federal Consitution (via the 14th Amendment).

[Maven]

135. No, he isn't.

He is protected by statute.

Equal protection does not bind private entities unless they operate under some government authority. You misunderstand the scope of the amendment.

[mondo joe]

136. You're arguing with a poster who doesn't believe marriage is a civil right.

Except he think it sometimes is - as in Loving v Virginia. But not other times - like when referring to same sex couples.

[Maven]

137. I come across clients like this all the time.

It's nothing new.

[Ninja Jordan]

140. Wow, where have I said that? I'm simply repeating what has already been held.

The right to marry IS a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court. They haven't, however, held that gay marriage is a fundmental right. In my opinion they will not do so (it is a conservative court). I personally think gay marriage is a fundamental right.

[mondo joe]

145. Perhaps I've misremembered something. Is marriage a civil right or not?

Thank you.

[Ninja Jordan]

146. My post didn't answer it for you?

[mondo joe]

148. No. Is marriage a civil right? Yes or no?

Thank you.

[Ninja Jordan]

152. "I personally think gay marriage is a fundamental right."

The fact that I didn't use the word "civil" is immaterial.

[mondo joe]

154. It's not immaterial to me. Is marriage a civil right or not?

Thank you.

[Ninja Jordan]

157. It means the same thing. In the context of this debate, 'fundamental' is proper.

Thank you.

[mondo joe]

160. I thought you wouldn't say it. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Ninja Jordan]

172. You thought I wouldn't respond to a smart ass, stand-off?

yep.

[Lex]

50. If, as you say,

"they will kick the black couple out for having noisy kids while leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone" then it's racial prejudice, and once again that is against the law.

[Ninja Jordan]

38. Courts have construed the 13th Amendment as prohibiting this type of private discrimination as well.

[Lex]

52. Provide a link please.

Thanks.

[Ninja Jordan]

70. A link to what, cases?

see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer co., it's the case that generally states the 13th Amendment (Section 2) allows Congress to regulate private behavior. Congress may rationally determine the "badges and incidents of slavery" and the authority to translate that authority into effective legislation. In the example of a restaraunt, discrimination based on race is rationally related to the badges and incidents of slavery, generally speaking.

[Maven]

107. Jones v. Mayer applies to the sale of private property only.

And it wasn't directly interpreting the 13th Amendment. I dunno where you're getting that from. It was interpreting 42 U.S.C. 1982 (a federal statute relating to property rights).

It has nothing to do with restaurants or behavior in private establishments generally.

[Ninja Jordan]

122. Mayer is first in a series of cases giving Congress broad power under s.2 of the 13th Amendment

to prohibit private racial discrimination.

Of course it was a 1983 action, as are many claims of constitutional infringement. The court held, which you clearly seemed to miss, that a 1983 action applies to prohibit private discrimination and that Congress has the authority under the 13th Amendment to adopt the law. As the decision clearly notes, "Congress has the power under the 13th Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation."

Cases such as Runyon, Patterson and Griffin piggy-bakced Mayer and further elaborated Congress' power under the 13th Amendment. You can read them if you'd like.

[Maven]

132. Right.

Congress had the authority to pass 1982 based on section 2 of the 13th Amendment. 1982. Just to get your terms straight, a 1982 claim is not a claim of "constitutional infringement" (btw, you infringe a right, not a constitution). The Court did not determine that Congress had a broad right to regulate private racial discrimination, only that that particular statute was constitutionally authorized.

Runyon is based on section 1981. Again, statutory. Patterson had to do with the appropriation of funds by a public school board for the purpose of furthering racial discrimination. Irrelevant to this issue.

[Ninja Jordan]

139. 1981, 1982, 1985 et al all regulate PRIVATE racial discrimination! A power given by s.2 of the 13th

I don't know how to be any more clear: THE 13TH AMENDMENT GIVES CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PRIVATE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION--AS EVIDENCED BY VOLUMINOUS FEDERAL LAWS (1982 etc.)--CONGRESS GAINS ITS AUTHORITY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--IN THIS CASE THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

[Maven]

141. Right.

But they are statutes that Congress has passed. Just like the many other statutes that Congress passes either based on its enumerated powers or based on similar authorizing provisions of other constitutional amendments.

They are not constitutional provisions, and they don't have any "greater" power by virtue of their legal basis.

[Ninja Jordan]

144. Wrong. The federal government owns only the power given to it by the Constitution.

In this case, the 13th Amendment awards them the power to pass legislation prohibiting private racial discrimination. There is nothing 'unenumerated' about it.

[Maven]

147. Again, no.

The 13th Amendment gives Congress the power to effectuate...wait for it...the 13th Amendment, proscribing slavery and its incidents. That is all. It does not give Congress a blank check to regulate all behavior by private individuals deemed racially discriminatory whether in purpose or effect.

Congress's "enumerated powers" are those listed in Article II. You're getting mixed up.

[Ninja Jordan]

150. You misunderstand the concept of 'enumerated rights'

I'm not mixed up at all. The right to free speech, religion, bear arms, be free from slavery and its incidents (13th amendment) are all enumerated rights protected by the Constitution. UNENUMERATED rights are those the court deems "fundamental," i.e. privacy, marriage etc.

[Maven]

151. No, lol.

Now you're mixing up rights with powers.

Ayayay.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

155. Get through law school.

And get back to me.

I think you'd do well there, but you need a little more background. Also, don't overlook "semantics" as you call them. It's a professional hazard. ;)

[Ninja Jordan]

158. I have a year left, am on a journal, and am published.

Enumerated and unenumerated rights are central to a proper analysis of the EPC and DPC.

[Maven]

159. OK, superstar.

Well then, as a 2L you should have mastered the difference between rights and powers.

And you should have some grasp of the scope of a particular holding.

You'll get better with practice. ;)

[treestar]

133. No, that's the point the OP makes

The civil rights laws would make IHOP liable if it were based on race. If has an effect on interstate commerce, so the federal government can regulate this sort of thing by making laws against discrimination, even for private entities.

[Lex]

23. NOT for any reason. Not for reasons protected under Fed and State law

like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. And that is why sexual orientation must be a protected class.

Gay people can also be denied housing and fired. Are you okay with that, too?

[sniffa]

40. you need to get over it

there's more important things than your pet issue.

[Midlodemocrat]

44. Word.

:rofl:

[Lex]

56. .

:evilgrin:

[Madspirit]

210. Here we go again...

...pushing our agenda on people. :rofl:
Lee

[we can do it]

62. Unfuckingbelievable

[Bluebear]

75. Why am I not surprised that you're OK with this? nt

[MADem]

83. IS the poster you're asking actually OK with it? I see commentary on the existing law, not

a rah-rah siss-boom-bah cheer for it.

[Bluebear]

88. Pattern, pattern, pattern. nt

[MADem]

99. ????

Are you referring to other threads? Because I don't see one here.

I'm just being fair. Sometimes, if people just "explain" simple facts on this forum, I've noticed that there are "assumptions" about how people feel with regard to an issue. And sometimes, those assumptions are in error.

I don't know that to be the case in your interactions with the individual in question, but it isn't evident to me from the exchange I am seeing on this thread.

[Bluebear]

101. Yes, other threads

[MADem]

109. Oh, OK. NT

[cboy4]

84. I hope they're kicking the blacks out too. You know how distracting

those people get when they get slow service.

Any reason, right?

:eyes:

[HRC_in_08]

86. In this instance, you are correct. eom.

[Bluebear]

89. I'll leave it for others to decide if it's correct. nt

[LostinVA]

209. No, not necessarily

You can't refuse service to anyone. You can't refuse to serve blacks, etc. And, depending on the state and/or municipality, not gay people, either.

[niyad]

7. so I see that I could have complained every single time I witnessed PDA's from het couples openly

necking in the booths?

[MADem]

15. And they'd tell ya "Aww, they's jus' havin' a little romance."

The only thing these clowns are objecting to is GAY folk.

And they actually have the law on their side. Sad, innit?

[The Doctor.]

8. If public displays of affection are against IHOP policy,

that's one thing.

But this smacks of discrimination.

I doubt they toss a hetero couple for the same offense.

[wicket]

12. I kissed my bf at IHOP a few weeks ago

We didn't get thrown out, nor was anything said to us. Hmmm....

On edit - won't be going back to eat there any time soon.

[MADem]

22. Well, see, that's fine with them. If you kissed yer GIRLFRIEND, though, you'd be out on your ass.

They don't like gay people at that restaurant...that's pretty plain.

And no doubt the national offices, and other franchises, will feel the pain for the actions of that nitwit manager.

Perhaps it will cause the national office to rewrite their restaurant rules, even if the states or feds don't get the spirit.

[wicket]

28. Fuck IHOP

If they don't want our gay brothers & sisters to eat there, then I won't be eating there either. FUCK 'EM!!! :grr:

[Hepburn]

64. Totally agree.

ANY kind of discrimination is WRONG. PERIOD. I will NOT patronize ANY establishment that discriminates. They don't want my gay friends there? Well, then they don't want me and my straight dollars either, IMO.

[yardwork]

164. Thanks, wicket!

As a lesbian, I get chills every time I see these articles. This could happen to me.

[wicket]

305. It's so messed up

It's so messed up that this shit is still happening in this day and age!

:hug:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

60. Yer right..........

If PDA's is OK for the straight folk and verbotten for homosexuals, then I'd call the ejection actionable.

Screw IHOP. Folks should make their own pancakes and waffles at home - its not that hard and they taste better.

[MADem]

77. Freedom from discrimination, AND transfats and high fructose corn syrup, all in one breakfast

at HOME!!!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

92. BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS!

[MADem]

9. Hmmm. Add those assholes to the list, then.

Cracker Barrel.

Denny's.

IHOP...!!!

[gollygee]

19. Wow, those will be difficult restaurants to avoid

they're among my favorites!

:sarcasm:

I'll pass word onto people I know who do like them anyway. Well, who like Cracker Barrel and IHOP. I have never met anyone who actually liked Denny's.

[MADem]

33. Cracker Barrel and Denny's like to make Black folk wait for hours.

And then serve them cold food, if at all. Or more egregious still, make them pay in advance for shit food and service.

I won't go near them, ever. They're on my permanent "shit list!"

Denny's, the history: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_n9_v26/ai_18132744


McNeal, a 38-year-old school security officer, says he was humiliated when he realized Denny's had a double standard for black and white customers. When he asked for an explanation, a waitress told him black customers had come in before him and refused to pay, so the manager was now insisting that all black patrons pay in advance. "In their eyes we were all black and that was enough," he says.

McNeal's story was echoed by thousands of black customers across the country as Denny's restaurant chain, owned by Flagstar Companies Inc., was cited for rampant incidents of racial discrimination against its black consumers. Denny's agreed to settle thousands of discrimination claims for $46 million. While the total payout seems large, most individuals will receive only a small amount because of the huge number of claims. Approximately 295,000 claimants filed suit, meaning most individuals will receive a check for only $177....

The Cracker Barrel follies: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker-barrel_x.htm


Their stories sound like tales from the pre-civil rights era. Terri Wise, 34, of Charlotte, browsed in a local Cracker Barrel store in 2001. Wise, who is African-American, says a white saleswoman followed her.
When she picked up a doll, as shoppers do, the saleswoman took it from her and put it back on the shelf. The same thing happened with a greeting card. When Wise looked around, she noticed a white patron touching merchandise freely — without supervision.

The Rev. Henry Harris, 55, also African-American, says that at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Arkansas two years ago, he and his family watched for 35 minutes as white diners in parties of the same size who arrived after him were escorted to tables. He wound up in the smoking section "with other African-American patrons," even though he had requested non-smoking and tables were open there. When he appealed to a manager, he "politely looked at me and said if we were dissatisfied ... there was a Burger King" around the corner.
John Joseph Hargrove, 57, who is white, visited a Cracker Barrel in midafternoon in Mt. Juliet, Tenn., in 1998 with his wife and their adopted biracial son, Deon, who was 4.

Hargrove says they waited 45 minutes and were never served, even as others who arrived after them received food. "It was flagrant. ... Those people discriminated against me, my wife and my little boy," he says.

[gollygee]

39. I'd heard about Denny's but not Cracker Barrel

and I'd happily boycott them if I ever ate there in the first place, but I know people who eat there who I don't think would if they knew about that. So I will pass along that link. Thanks.

[Sapphocrat]

293. Google Chik-Fil-A...

...(or however it's spelled) as well. Those bastards aren't exactly "tolerant," either; real nice record on firing openly queer employees.

[Midlodemocrat]

46. The Cracker Barrel issue was settled a couple of years ago.

The one near me doesn't practice any form of discrimination at all. If they did, I would be all over them like a cheap suit.

[MADem]

76. I know. But it wasn't the FIRST time, either Fool me twice, shame on ME. Fool me three or four

times, and they can go fuck themselves. REad these cites, and read the links, too.

The CRACKER in Cracker Barrel says something, and what it says isn't very nice.

They settled THIS one for two million:

EEOC SUES CRACKER BARREL: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., which has restaurants in 41 states, was sued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over claims that it discriminated against female and black employees at three Illinois restaurants. The suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, was based on complaints by 10 workers at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The suit claims that women were subjected to sexual assaults, and a black employee suffered disparaging remarks about his race. Cracker Barrel denies that it discriminates against its workers.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/12/Business/Business_today.shtml


Now, read this. Tell me these jerks "get it." Keep in mind the latest incident happened LAST YEAR:

In October of 2006, Rose Rock, the mother of popular comedian Chris Rock, threatened legal action after she claimed that she and her daughter were discriminated against at the company's Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, restaurant <3> due to not being served for over an hour. She said when she asked the manager about the delay, the manager did not try to find the cause of the delay, but told Rock that they could have a free meal, which she refused.<4>

In 1992, Cracker Barrel instituted a policy requiring employees to display "normal heterosexual values which have been the foundation of families in our society." The company refused to change their policy in the face of protest demonstrations by gay rights groups, but in 2002, the company's stockholders voted to rescind the practice after 10 years of efforts by the New York City Employees Retirement System, a major shareholder.

Cracker Barrel was one of eight companies indicted and accused of making alleged illegal corporate campaign contributions to the Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee (TRMPAC), started by Rep. Tom DeLay.<5><6> Less than five months later, however, all charges against Cracker Barrel were dropped. In dismissing the charges on February 2, 2005, the District Attorney acknowledged that "there was no intent on the part of (Cracker Barrel) to violate any laws," and stated that the company "has demonstrated to the District Attorney that it has a history of good citizenship and high ethical standards." For its part, Cracker Barrel admitted no wrongdoing, and agreed to make a charitable contribution of $50,000 to support a "nonpartisan, balanced and publicly informative program" at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, with the intent of reinforcing what it called its "longstanding commitment to good corporate citizenship and proper participation in the political process".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_Barrel

A gay woman in Londonderry, New Hampshire, has sued a Cracker Barrel restaurant, claiming that management did nothing after she complained of employees sexually assaulting her and making crude references to her sexuality. The woman, Bonnie Usher, joined the Cracker Barrel staff as a cook in 2000. In the complaint she filed with New Hampshire human rights commission, she says that she was denied better work shifts and promotions because she is a woman, that she was subjected to abusive language, was groped by a co-worker, and that a photo of the groping was hung on the wall of the restaurant's employee area.

Usher was fired in 2004, and she is maintaining that the company fired her because she complained about mistreatment on the job. A spokesman for Cracker Barrel says the company was not aware of Usher's complaints.

Bonnie Usher's suit is interesting because it adds gender discrimination and sexual harrassment to a long list of employee complaints over many years. In the early 90's, a Cracker Barrel memo, written by a company executive, was leaked. The memo stated that managers should fire employees who did not "demonstrate normal heterosexual values." One lesbian employee, Cheryl Summerville, said the reason given on her separation papers was "Employee is gay." Summerville's Cracker Barrel was in Georgia, where there is no state protection for gay workers, so she was unable to take legal action against the company. There was a shareholder outcry against Cracker Barrel's policy, and a decade-long boycott of the restaurant by gays and gay rights activists, leading to the addition of a non-discrimination clause in Cracker Barrel's employee policies.........Though any chain can undergo the misfortune of having one of its franchises dishonor the company's non-discrimination policy, accusations--so far, all of them proven--against Cracker Barrel have been so numerous for so long that the addition of a new one does not speak well for the company's desire to change its ways.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/02/cracker_barrel.html

[cboy4]

95. I know you would

:spray:

[Midlodemocrat]

97. LOL. Is my hostility showing again?

:hi:

[cboy4]

105. That's why we love you.

Have a blessed day :hug:

[Divine Discontent]

272. I want in on the hugging, too...

see, IHOP just told me & my kind that we couldn't kiss other GLBT's apparently... so I'm quite needy of hugging... lol (anything to get hugged)

[donco6]

125. I still have never eaten at a Cracker Barrel

Though I think the name is ironic in light of past events, no?

[MADem]

175. Neither have I--I've looked in one once, and I must say, I didn't like the "look" of it, to be blunt

It just didn't give me the impression that it was a very welcoming place....g

[truebrit71]

14. Sue their asses off!

Besides, the food their tastes like shit....warmed up, syrup-covered shit...

[Lex]

Did you forget the part where there is no law against what they did?

From the OP's post -- "As the article notes, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations, employment, or anything else. Discrimination against gay Americans is 100% legal under federal law, and in most states."

[truebrit71]

55. How about for violating their civil rights?

Mr. Pedantic...for as many allegedly 'frivolous' lawsuits get filed every year, there surely has to be some lawyer, SOMEWHERE that can help these two out...

Aren't there gay and lesbian groups that have brought suits before?

[MADem]

91. It wouldn't work. See, the point some are trying to make here is that under present law in that

state, being gay is NOT a protected class. The manager CAN throw the couple out. They have no recourse, save to flip the guy off on their way out the door.

It's not right, but it's the law. Attempts to change it in that state haven't yet been successful.

That idea of doing demonstrations at the restaurant has potential though--impact that bottom line. Of course, if it's one of those "scary-conservative" areas, with lots of guns and pickups, you'd need some brave demonstrators and decent police protection to avoid what those big bellied sherriffs call "trouble."

[Hepburn]

66. And....

...there is NO law that says I have to spend money at any IHOP either.

[MADem]

25. The manager had the "right" to discriminate. Just as any of us who think that's pretty lousy

have the "right" to pass those IHOPs by.

[Alexander]

16. Just as well, IHOP's execs donate to Republicans.

From Buy Blue.

I know if I ever eat there my stomach doesn't quite feel right for a few hours afterwards.

[HRC_in_08]

18. No laws were broken.

Don't go there. I don't.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. It SHOULD be against the law.

It's against the law where I live and it should be everywhere.

[HRC_in_08]

63. Can you tell me what the law is where you live?

Thanks.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

67. Sexual orientation is a protected class in NJ, just like race, sex, religion, gender identity etc.

[cboy4]

90. Oh like he gives a rat's ass. Ironic that his candidate in '08

has the initials "Human Rights Campaign." :eyes:

[HRC_in_08]

98. bwahaha....

HRC endorsement of HRC:

"We do so because she has been a long-time friend of the Human Rights Campaign and to all lesbian and gay Americans and this friendship is rooted in her deeply held belief in equality for all people."

Must hurt, huh?

[cboy4]

100. You're so ridiculous, you don't even understand the irony.

Let me type slow so you can try again.

She was the only candidate to speak at the HRC event recently. YES I understand HRC is fond of her.

Therefore, it's ironic, that someone like you, who doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights, is supporting her.

Do you get it now? "Huh?"

[Kerrytravelers]

318. Let us mourn the dearly departed.

... but not for too long.

[Neecy]

20. hmmmm....

Sounds like this IHOP is ripe for a gay and lesbian kiss-in! Swarm them, say, around dinner hour and make out in the booths. Bet they'd call the cops.

[Lex]

24. Neecy, you rule!

:thumbsup:

[prolesunited]

65. That's an excellent idea

Just like the breast-feeding moms and their nurse-ins.

[me b zola]

252. Exactly what I was thinking!

Order only coffee. Heteros who want to join the cause could pair up with a person of the same sex to hold hands, a little petting, maybe a peck or two. :evilgrin:

[lpbk2713]

26. Last time I was at an IHOP .... and I emphasize LAST time ....

at the table in front of me there was a toddler sipping out of a dispenser bottle (syrup? liquid butter?) for several minutes while I was there. The mother and the staff were oblivious. Apparently that was permissable. No more IHOP for me thanks.

[gollygee]

30. Oh ick!

I saw that happen with the parmesan cheese dispenser at pizza place one. Ick. But we mentioned it to the waitress and she picked it up to clean it after they left.

I would never use some shaker or dispenser just sitting at a table. My daughter used to reach for those things too but we knew enough to say NO.

[HockeyMom]

27. Birthday Parties, Winning Hockey Games, etc.

I have taken my daughter there many times. On all of the above occasions, I have hugged and kissed her. A friend (female), who I hadn't seen in a very long time, and I met for brunch at IHOP not long ago. When we saw each other, we hugged and kissed. Nobody complained, or for that matter, even looked. Maybe men don't, but women do tend to show their affection for each much more openly. I guess with this manager, I would have been banned for life.

Would a man and woman, with wedding bands on their fingers, have been thrown out also??? I seriously doubt it.

This manager just had an AGENDA.

[Neecy]

48. I saw the couple interviewed on the news...

They were a butch/femme couple, which generally drives the 'phobes crazy. For some reason, men like this manager don't mind the idea of cute little girlie lesbians kissing but masculine lesbians really set off their bells.

They seemed like nice kids, certainly not wild-eyed radicals out to convert their fellow IHOPers.

[truebrit71]

58. Yeah, 'lipstick lesbos' are fine with the reich wing...but 'butch' is right out...

...bunch of bastards..

[Lex]

61. Uh oh. Not acting and dressing girly enough.

You know how people despise that.

[HockeyMom]

68. My older daughter is a butch lesbian

So is her SO. I have gone to dinners with them where they have given each other a "quick peck" on the lips. I am sure they do so when I am not around also. In the 3 years they have been seeing each other, they have never been thrown out of anywhere.

Lucky? Or perhaps it is more accepted where we live? Personally, I would rather see two people show signs of affection, whatever kind, than have screaming match in a public place.

[Neecy]

78. Probably a lot of factors

Luck, as you say, and location.

Somebody above mentioned this particular IHOP and I'll second the description. It's in freeper central and I sadly wasn't surprised when it happened.

Kudos, by the way, for being such a supportive mom to your daughter. You sound terrific.

[PDJane]

32. That's another restaurant chain I can avoid.

Denny's coffee is barely potable, and the last time I was forced to eat there with friends, I didn't receive one damn thing I actually ordered.

Cracker Barrel is the place.....well, I finally got sort of what I ordered, except I didn't want grits or sausage patties.....I did get a faith healing in the washroom. I think the heimlich would have been more useful. It made her feel better. Remind me to tell you about that sometime. Maybe.

[quinnox]

34. there are plenty of gay friendly restaurants

so I'm not sure not going to IHOP for gays is a huge loss!

Anyway, I won't boycott them because I tend not to boycott stuff, but I can understand the rest of you doing that.

[WI_DEM]

36. I have friends who went to IHOP and got sick afterward and have vowed never to go again

and they tell everybody about the reaction they had to the food.

[lpbk2713]

47. They must have used the dispensers.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

(See #26 above)

[David__77]

51. Hoo! If this happened to me here in CA, there'd be hell to pay!

I'm thinking perhaps I'll have some casual pecks at the IHOP. I've never been into PDA's, but I'll make an exception.

[cgrindley]

71. I'd kick them out too

of course, I'd kick everyone out of IHOP.

IHOP sucks.

[NMMNG]

72. I must say this thread has been beneficial

It's given me additions for my Ignore List.

[MADem]

85. I have to say, I haven't seen anyone ENDORSING the existing law here.

I saw a comment or two on the REALITY of the law, an explanation of what is and is not protected, but I'm not seeing any cheerleading for what those assholes did.

[Atman]

74. Imagine if they'd also ordered a Rooty Tooty Fresh N' Fruity!

Wow. They need to remove "International" from their name. Maybe call it the "Stupid 'Merkin House of Pancakes, and No Gays."

[MADem]

94. Homophobic House of Pancakes, perhaps? NT

[donco6]

127. LOL! Good one.

:rofl:

[Beelzebud]

79. Boycott them. Their food sucks anyway.

[kwyjibo]

108. How about a mass Kiss-In instead?

It'd be hilarious if thousands of couples went to ihop to just make out in the lobby. It's a very peaceful form of protest.

[verse18]

81. Perkins has better food anyway.

I love Perkins and have always gotten good food and service. It's like all the IHOPs were I live are full of pissed off employees who hate their job and don't try to hid it. Plus the quality of their food is hit or miss.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

103. Hello...Kansas City...

Not to defend IHOP for any reason other than my love of pancakes, but chances are that they would not be treated the same way in every IHOP. It depends primarily on the manager(s) and the local customer base. It is possible that they have some kind of corporate policy against PDA, but the enforcement is almost always local, and wouldn't even be an issue in, say, Miami Beach.

[Neecy]

163. KC is blue...

And Kansas City has anti-discrimination laws in place that would have made this illegal had it actually *happened* in Kansas City. This incident was in a suburb of the city.

Don't forget to thank us for electing Clair McCaskill to the Senate - it was that evil ol' KC that put her over the top and helped give Democrats control of the Senate.

[porphyrian]

173. OK. So? - n/t

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quinnox]

112. what was your post about>?

I didn't see it.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cboy4]

114. Oh, that's going to go over well.

:rofl:

[BoneDaddy]

117. Hehe, It wasn't intended

to be liked.

[sniffa]

121. IBTDP

[donco6]

128. Can't imagine . . . n/t

[Jamastiene]

131. IBTTS. n/t

[sniffa]

161. ..

not yet though. :rofl: :rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

138. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

:rofl:

[rosesaylavee]

111. Call them and tell them if you will eat there again.

818-240-6055

I just told them I won't eat there again until there is a public apology to the couple in Grandview, MO. I told them I was hetero that my family has eaten at the local IHOP often... but won't anymore because of the rude treatment this couple received.

The poor young thing that answered the phone stated that according to the manager of that IHOP, this couple had engaged in 'open mouth kissing' and 'caressing' which would not be acceptable from a hetero couple.

Told her that the couple stated they kissed each other as they would an uncle and that that didn't sound like 'open-mouth' kissing at all. Then I thought, so who the hell cares what kind of kissing it was - this discrimination is just wrong. Told her until there is a public apology, IHOP will be added to my list of no-go restaurants right up there with Cracker Barrel - restaurants my family won't frequent on Sundays after church and/or ball games.

She tried again with the IHOP statement and I told her I just didn't believe that - and of course they were going to put out that kind of story. I said, take a close look at that statement - that is not a very good cover story. I don't know any long term couple that would go to a IHOP to neck - hetero, lesbian or gay. Come on. Who would believe that.

[yardwork]

165. Good point! Who in the world is going to go neck in an IHOP??

[Strathos]

115. When are we going to get mad enough to keep this from happening>

I guess it's going to take homosexuals being shoved into giant ovens and cooked at 1000 degrees for 8 hours to wake people up and force them to look at how we're treated and how it's okay for everyone, including the Shrub, to discriminate against us and treat us as if we don't matter at all.

[grace0418]

116. I think we should all go to IHOP and stage a same-sex "kiss-off"

Regardless of our sexual orientation, everyone should bring a willing friend of the same sex and start kissing at IHOP. Let them try to kick all of us out. I would, of course, have to eat a snack before going because I think their food is atrocious. But I'd order something small for show.

[Toucano]

216. I love this idea! Call it "Kiss-Off IHOP 2007".

Everyone should arrive at 9:45 AM on Sunday morning. Order a coffee or tea, and start the kiss-off at 10:00 AM.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

167. And that has what to do with the issue?

:shrug:

[Left Hook]

180. Typical male facination.

Nothing wrong with asking if the 2 chicks that kissed and got kicked out if their hot.

[Bluebear]

222. "If their hot", eh?

[Left Hook]

323. Whats wrong with it?

nt

[MilesColtrane]

119. I'm no fan of PDA, but nobody should be ejected from a restaurant for it.

I'd boycott IHOP, but I'll never eat there anyway. Shitty food, shitty people.

[Ilsa]

120. Bad business decision. My husband would eat there more often if

lesbians were invited to dine and provide public displays of affection there. He's not much for PDA's, but he makes exceptions for certain situations.

[ends_dont_justify]

142. Plenty of people discussing race: but....consider this fact

Scientists have discovered a way to 'remove' homosexuality genes from rams. They believe there are genes which induce homosexuality. Isn't RACE dictated by GENES? Skin color isn't something that magically happens because you're of a certain country -- it's something that happens because of GENES. If homosexuals are going to be categorized for their GENES they should be classified as a race, and given protection rights races are given.

They're pandering the issue by claiming genes cause it (trying to 'remove' gay genes) and then claiming that homosexual individuals come from 'all races'. Plenty of people have mixed race in them, just because there was never a homosexual sovereign nation doesn't mean there should be no protection. And if you look at history, homosexuality was not just widely accepted in some places but also practiced by kings. If that doesn't shriek that some nations may have housed large amounts of homosexual individuals, making it possible there were individuals who were able to pass on their genes FROM that nation, I don't know what does.

While the nation part is, to your average person above average IQ, unnecessary, it does destroy blockades of race issue people would put up. Many people are bisexual, and have equal affections to either gender, which would allow a 'gene' to be passed on.

Being many believe it is genetic and not 'a choice', I believe this would be an acceptably sound theory. This would put the 'homosexuals aren't as important as *ethnic community*' debates out the window and would be a good debate for senators, as well, on the rights of homosexuals.

That said, I never cared for IHOP and now they won't get a red cent from me. Segregation of ANYONE, opens the door for control over minorities of every kind. It should be equally condemned and not trampled by people believing their genes are more important in the line of defense, though I make no accusations to any group in that statement. I believe in equality...EVERY group who says homosexuality is less important is implied :)

[NMMNG]

166. Indeed

And now a faction of the Baptists is calling for homosexuality to be eliminated from fetuses in utero. Can you imagine where this "science" could go from there in the hands of other bigots? Other "undesirables" could be next to be eradicated from the human population with a simple little procedure.

[knitter4democracy]

143. That's terrible!! PDA means something completely different.

People need to grow up. My hubby and I kiss in public--in front of our young children, no less. We've never been kicked out, and we wouldn't be. When are people going to realize that these women are our sisters and that we should treat them the way we expect to be treated?

Btw, I love the idea of a smooch-in. :)

[NDP]

168. Understandable. They kicked out "controversy." "Mommy, why are those two women kissing". This is

IHOP. They should have saved it for when they got to "their own private bedrooms." And yes, I don't want to see anyone kissing in IHOP, hetero or homo.

[HRC_in_08]

170. Good luck with that stance. eom.

[Bluebear]

171. "It was a kiss I would share with my uncle” she said. Nothing for "her own private bedroom"

but your concern is noted.

[NDP]

174. It was added for effect. Don't claim the "in their own private bedroom" position, and then be in

the face of people, which only serves to instigate the very behavior that you will then turn around and criticize when they lash out against you.

If you know that people don't "agree with your lifestyle," then don't flaunt it in their faces. That's like a black man kissing a white woman in the middle of a 1960s restaurant in Alabama. You know you are going to cause trouble when you do it. Some people who don't have any problem with lesbianism still don't want to have to explain it to their children right now. Do you want to lose their support as well?

It's IHop. Did they "have to" kiss there? If they wouldn't have kissed, would they have "died"? It was not something that they had to do or should have done. And I repeat, I can't stand seeing anyone kissing in public places. No one needs to see you "kissing," but some people feel the need to try and "prove something" to other people.

[Bluebear]

176. I was going to use quotation marks, but you used up the whole quota for the thread.

As to "flaunting it in their faces" and losing support of people like you, I repeat they said it was a kiss like you would give an uncle, hardly one that would prompt you having to explain lesbianism to your children.

[Neecy]

177. Gee....

I guess I'd better "go back into the closet" posthaste! I don't want to offend "straight people" like "you". Funny how I see "straight people" in diners and hoary little chain joints "mashing" all the time while I'm trying to "enjoy my meal" and I never bitch about "them".

hey, quotation marks are "fun"!

[Bluebear]

183. They "add" just the right "touch"

Don't "they"?

[Neecy]

184. "thanks"!

[NMMNG]

190. That's different, don't you know

They aren't into LESBIANISM. :wow:

[LostinVA]

207. Ick -- lesbianism

WTF???

[NMMNG]

231. Yeah. They do that sh*t just to provoke a reaction

x(

[swimboy]

259. Um, I speak lesbianese.

Well, a little.

[LostinVA]

298. OOOOOOO -- like what?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

178. Oh please. I can't believe I'm reading this post on DU.

A simple peck on the cheek is not flaunting. I've given that to my SO in public. It's not like they were making out. It was a simple little kiss. I hold hands with my SO in public, too. I guess we deserve whatever happens to us, because we're flaunting it. And yes, there are many places where we won't hold hands because of SAFETY concerns. I suppose you would be someone who just looks down on us with disdain, though.

[cboy4]

181. OMG, did you actually use the word "lesbianism?"

What is "lesbianism," besides a word shock jock Howard Stern uses?

But I noticed you avoided calling the "blacks" "Negroes," so that's good. :thumbsup:

[HRC_in_08]

188. Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lesbianism

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

189. Why am I not surprised you showed up here?

[Bluebear]

191. Aren't you just the most helpful new member?

It's wonderful, really.

[HRC_in_08]

195. I just hate to see Howard Stern get credit for something he didn't do.

I'm an O&A fan.

[Jamastiene]

196. Yes, including a dictionary definition for anyone

who doesn't know what lesbianism is. It's an invaluable educational offering. Why, I had NO CLUE whatsoever WHAT LESBIANISM WAS until I saw that enlightening little addition.

[LostinVA]

301. Oh yes, very, very helpful

I look forward to seeing how they help me in future GLBT threads.

Dare I say their help is unreal?

[Jamastiene]

193. I don't think anyone need a dictionary definition right now, but

thanks anyhow. Really...

[cboy4]

194. Hillary must be so proud she has your support.

:sarcasm:

[HRC_in_08]

197. As proud as your english teacher I guess.

:sarcasm:

[cboy4]

204. That was a good one! What are you, 12 years old?

You seriously need to work on your perception skills.

It's as though you have no clue that everyone is laughing at you and mocking you in this thread.

Just so you know, it's happening.

Well done.

[HRC_in_08]

208. Its weird huh?

Almost like the person that started this subthread owning this argument, so he/she is exposed to personal attacks? Funny.

[Bluebear]

218. "OWNING this argument"...stop, you're killing us. nt

[HRC_in_08]

225. When personal attacks and ridicule enter the argument...

in a pile on style attack, you have lost. Its like the boxer that smiles and nods his head when he gets tagged. Everyone knows he got hurt. The poster has been accused of using shock jock language and being a racist. Like I said. Numbers and smears don't make you a winner.

[Bluebear]

230. ...

:boring:

[cboy4]

246. That was a touching concession speech.

:cry:

[Bluebear]

247. I don't dare say anything else.

You know, I might be attacking and ridiculing people.

[LostinVA]

303. giggle

[swimboy]

260. No laws were broken.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

302. Wow. Unreal.

[mondo joe]

212. Pretty funny since you dismissed the definition of Civil Rights elsewhere on DU.

Main Entry: civil rights
Function: noun plural
: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress


civil right (right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality)

[HRC_in_08]

213. you misrepresent, but thats ok...

I stated that marriage was not a civil right. For straights or gays. Have a nice day.

[mondo joe]

219. False. Here's what you ACTUALLY stated:

post 78: "rights that all humans share that are not given to us by the government...and cannot be taken by the same."

Direct contradiction of definition of civil rights.

post 123: "interracial marriage prohibition was a violation under equal protection."

And yet here you say marriage is not a civil right for straights OR gays -- but somehow it was a civil rights violation under equal protection for interracial straight couples.

Good thing what you stated is recorded, since you can't seem to remember.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=421211

[HRC_in_08]

223. If what I said was false....

there would be gay marriage. I know it hurts you that marriage is an institution that is limited by government. You can say whatever you want. The reality is different.

And you can post the other responses in the thread to my opinion regarding gay marriage, but you won't, cause then you and your buds can't have a good time attacking people. :headbang:

[mondo joe]

226. Again false, and easily proven to be false:

Marriage is covered by equal protection - the SCOTUS has established that, so you're wrong.

Interracial marriage was illegal BEFORE the SCOTUS addressed it. By your rationale, if interracial marriage were not a violation of equal protection, it would never have been illegal. But it was.

So make up your mind, please.

You ignore the definition of civil rights (but then invoke definitions against others), and you pretend that legal status doesn't change with time (which is irrelevant to whether marriage is a civil right or not), and you say marriage is not a civil right but you also say it is.

I think you're just trying to taint Hillary with your goofy lies.

[HRC_in_08]

233. I think it is your wish for it to be so...

and continuing to say it makes you feel better. Reality does bite.

[mondo joe]

237. And you again fail to address your own contradictions and falsehoods.

Tch tch.

[HRC_in_08]

238. The problem you have is people disagreeing with you...

as evidenced by the guy you brow beat upthread that refused to continue with you. I will do the same. Good day.

[mondo joe]

241. Nah, I don't mind disagreement. I only mind lies and inaccuracies.

:-)

[HRC_in_08]

244. Then, may what you think to be reality now, some day be reality, bro.

Peace.

[Jamastiene]

182. In other words, GLBT people can do no right whatsoever.

"It was added for effect. Don't claim the "in their own private bedroom" position, and then be in the face of people, which only serves to instigate the very behavior that you will then turn around and criticize when they lash out against you."

That quote could cut you both ways. It sure seems to be prophetic for you here.

[NMMNG]

186. Who says it was for added effect?

And what's this "in their private bedroom position"? Is that anything like the missionary position?

It's IHop. Did they "have to" kiss there? No, they didn't. But neither do the countless heterosexual couples who do.

If they wouldn't have kissed, would they have "died"? No. Ditto for the countless heterosexual couples who kiss in public places.

No one needs to see you "kissing," but some people feel the need to try and "prove something" to other people. Like the countless heterosexual couples who kiss (and much more) in public places?


Sorry if we don't stay in the closet so bigots won't act like the officious little a$$holes they are. But if everybody bigots hated stayed behind closed doors to keep bigots satisfied there would be nobody in public.

[JetCityLiberal]

192. Ugh...just ugh

what a pathetic post.

[mondo joe]

198. Are you saying mixed race couples should have hidden away rather than face

down bigots?

[Bluebear]

202. Sounds pretty clear that is exactly what they mean.

How very progressive.

[mondo joe]

205. I'm just checking. You hardly ever find an anti-integration post these days, even

on far less progressive web sites.

[Duncan Grant]

201. If people are so uptight about a kiss then they aren't my supporters in the first place.

The truth is this isn't about a kiss at all now is it? It's about people knowing their place. Your little inter-racial vignette makes that clear enough.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=446310&mesg_id=446310

[HRC_in_08]

214. Maybe more people will pile on...

since you owned the first attacker.

[Bluebear]

215. "Owned the first 'attacker' "

:rofl:

[HRC_in_08]

217. enough people came to his rescue.

:spray:

[Bluebear]

221. This isn't about rescue, it's about rights and respect.

Dictionary.com THOSE words.

[HRC_in_08]

224. The personal attacks made are about rights and respect?

I do not see where the original person attacked you personally or misrepresented your views. He/she has been called a racist now. What is next?

And because he/she objects to public displays of affection, from gays and straights. Job well done for the gang.

[Bluebear]

228. You concerns and troubles are noted.

I did not call this poster a racist, so go fishing elsewhere.

I also have heard this "flaunting" bullshit for more decades than I care to remember, and I know what the code words mean. Adieu.

[HRC_in_08]

234. I did not say you specifically...

it is a gang mentality.

I did not use the word flaunting either, so I don't know what this codeword is. Not everyone is out to get other people. Later.

[Neecy]

232. not quite...

He threw out that old 'flaunting' chestnut which is the common rightwing code for telling us to go back to the closet.

Straight people kiss; we 'flaunt'. Sorry, but it was highly offensive.

[HRC_in_08]

235. Well, I did not use this word, and if it is an offensive term...

I will make sure not to use it in the future.

[Bluebear]

326. Another one bites the dust

[LostinVA]

304. Exactly

[donco6]

229. What a dick.

And you know, that's all there is to say to this dumbass post.

[HRC_in_08]

240. And the personal attacks continue. eom.

[donco6]

253. If they're appropos, ja. What can I say? eom

[HRC_in_08]

276. More power to you bro. It seems to be working. eom

[donco6]

306. No tears shed here, bro. eom

[donco6]

255. I notice not a single response from the OP on this one.

Whatsamatta? Lesbian got your tongue?

[Hissyspit]

334. NO, I WENT TO FRIKKIN' BED.

I HAVE THE FLU.

[Hissyspit]

336. Oops. Communication Problem. Apologies to donco6.

Post wasn't about me.

[swimboy]

258. Wow. Unreal.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

274. It's just a joke that we should all get over.

Jeebus. Why are we so defensive?

We should just stop ganging up on posters. Don't want them to feel left out.

[Bluebear]

280. Stop with your "personal pet issues"!

You're making us "look bad!"

[JackBeck]

283. Identity politics are so offensive.

I should just lay off shoving my sexuality down peoples' throats.

Gotta remember: just keep it in the bedroom. Don't show any public affection.

Respectively noted.

[Kerrytravelers]

279. Explain lesbianism?

Huh?

So, when I have my five year old godson with me, and I see a hetero couple kiss, should I explain heterosexuality to him? How much detail should I go into? Can I just say that two people love one another, or should I go into the finer points of intercourses? I really need to know since apparently I'm suppose to be explaining everything to a child.

Actually, I don't need to know. My godson knows that people who love each other kiss. My heterosexual husband and I kiss and we give our godson kisses. He has made the obvious connection. Perhaps Mr. kt and I have been too much "in his face" with our heterosexuality.

:eyes:

[Kerrytravelers]

284. A fitting end...

[Bluebear]

286. Thank you Moderators

Good riddance.

[gollygee]

309. Finally

This isn't the first thread I saw that person in that made me raise an eyebrow.

[Kerrytravelers]

312. A quick search on the name showed some very telling posts.

[Jamastiene]

179. What a lovely post.

The kiss wasn't a making out kind of kiss, but a friendly peck. Children should NEVER see that. It's way too controversial. Riggghhht...

Wouldn't want the next generation to grow up to be any more tolerant than this one has been, now, would we? :eyes:

[Bluebear]

185. But, but, what about the CHILDREN?

The poster may have to explain "lesbianism", complete with poses and techniques, no doubt, because a little peck was observed!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

187. I disagree

It's been proven time and again that children who're raised in environments where they witness frequent open displays of affection are more stable and have better relationships later in life. knowing this information we should all be holding hands, caressing and kissing in public more often for the sake of the children. Who knows what kind of bigoted, small minded, repressed families they may have to endure at home?

[NMMNG]

236. You have issues

Maybe you shouldn't go out in public.

[gollygee]

239. What do you think is going to happen if a kid sees two women kissing?

do you think the kid might "catch the gay"?

My daughter has seen a family member and her partner kiss - nothing dramatic, it sounds very much like whatever kiss was had at IHOP. She didn't bat an eyelash. And she still likes Barbies. I'll update DU if she gets interested in Birkenstocks or something.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

245. Be careful.

I played with Barbies and I still turned out a lesbian.

:rofl:

[gollygee]

251. LOL

well she's only 4 so who the hell knows. If she ends up being a lesbian, I'm quite sure it won't have anything to do with seeing anyone kiss.

A sister-in-law said to me once, "If I had a child who was gay, I'd consider myself a failure as a parent." I said, "I'd consider myself a failure as a parent if I had a child who was gay and felt they had to keep it a secret from me." Luckily this particular sister-in-law is now an ex-sister-in-law. However she is still the mother of a couple of nieces and a nephew. *sigh*

[donco6]

254. I played with Barbies and I didn't turn out lesbian!

Oh, well . . .

[NMMNG]

257. I played with Barbies, had an Easy Bake Oven,

had a plethora of dolls and I still turned out to be a lesbian. All of that garbage of giving kids "gender appropriate" toys to make them turn out straight is just that--garbage.

[donco6]

261. I would have killed for an Easy Bake oven.

Alas. It was not to be. All my dreams of being a world-class chef dashed - DASHED I tell you!

[Bluebear]

262. In harvest gold, yet.

[donco6]

264. Just look at it . . . gay boy Nirvana.

Sigh.

[NMMNG]

263. LOL

I hear now they don't use a light bulb (though I can't imagine what they use for a heat source).

[donco6]

265. Yeah, I heard that too.

Plutonium? :)

[ConsAreLiars]

289. You poor sicko.

No kissing allowed in your world. What a pathetic life you must endure, where the only affection allowed is in private in or some closet or bedroom. So sad.

[MadHound]

296. No, they kicked out a loving couple who were being discreetly affectionate with each other

If this had been a hetro couple who would have been sharing such a kiss, there would have been no problem, and IHOP wouldn't have kicked them out. But simply due to the fact that this was a same sex couple, they got the boot. Sorry friend, but that is wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. This isn't controversy, these are people, get the difference?

As far as children asking questions, well, gee, what a better time to explain to your children about same sex couples? Oh, that's right, somehow same sex couples are shameful and we should protect the children from them:eyes: Look, children are a hell of a lot more accepting of same sex couples that many, many adults. Perhaps if we started explaining to our children about homosexuality now, by the time this generation grows up, we'll have a much more tolerant society:shrug: Remember, it is adults who are being shocked and passing moral judgement, not the kids, they're just curious, like all kids are about all sorts of things.

As far as keeping it in the bedroom, puhleeze. I've seen straight couples doing much worse than this, on a regular basis, in all sorts of "family restraunts" It wasn't about the affection being shown, it was simply the fact that the manager, and probably some customers, were bigoted homophobic assholes. I know this type well, I live in this state. Hell, I had a guy threaten to beat my ass in the parking lot one night, simply for being in a party that included a cross dresser. This sort of assholish mentality is common throughout much of the state, and it is high time these people get over it.

[0rganism]

199. IHOP is setting itself up for a smooch-in

The managers at these franchise places might want to think carefully about whether they really want their workplace to become the site of the next major civil disobedience campaign.

"No thanks, we won't be having any pancakes. We're just here to drink coffee and suck face."

[cboy4]

206. "No thanks, we won't be having any pancakes."

:spray:

[Madspirit]

211. "We're just here to drink coffee and suck face."

:rofl:

[0rganism]

220. Rosa Parks never had it so good

nothing gets press quite like the suggestion of forbidden sex. this could be HUGh!1!!!1!

if there was ever a situation that screamed for direct action...

[Divine Discontent]

273. that's funny! nt

[Catfight]

203. Well, no more IHOP for me, and I liked that place. nt

[ikojo]

242. VERY proud to live in one of the cities in MO

has an ordinance protecting GLBT folks!

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16913352.htm


snip

Kansas City does have an ordinance protecting gays, as do St. Louis, Columbia and University City. But if you’re anywhere else in Missouri and you’re gay, you can legally be denied service in restaurant. Landlords can refuse to rent you a place to live.

[cboy4]

249. I also notice after reading the article that IHOP apparently

refused to return repeated phone calls from a reporter in Kansas City.

That is inexcusable.

I'm embarrassed the company is headquartered in my state, and I am currently formulating my letter of outrage.

Thanks for posting that column.

[ScreamingMeemie]

294. I knew there was a reason I hated that restaurant as a child...

It was so bad, my grandfather used to tease me about it. I can't stand them and never have been able to.

[MazeRat7]

256. Their loss I guess, I don't eat there but someday might.... -nt

[frogcycle]

266. well, in their defense, they don't discriminate against the handicapped

isn't that where all the one-legged waitresses work?

[Oldtimeralso]

277. After they pay their phone bill...

at T co bell

[NuttyFluffers]

267. it's times like these i'm sad Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass...

but at least fragile conservative belles still have their access to chivalry, right? :sarcasm:

[tomreedtoon]

270. Good, ban them. IHOP is a crappy place anyway.

The last time I went to one of these places - it was an IHOP right outside Walt Disney World - I waited a SOLID TWENTY MINUTES to get a waitress to speak to me. It was late at night, true, but I was one of only three diners in the restaurant. I stuck it out to see how bad the experience could get, and it was FORTY-FIVE MINUTES before I finally got my food.

One of the positive stereotypes about gay people is that they have more taste and artistic sense than us straights. Now I know this stereotype is wrong, because if they had such taste, they wouldn't have been within a mile of an IHOP.

[liberalEd]

275. dry overcooked omelets

It's been years, but I still remember that omelet.

[Colobo]

281. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -MLK

I like IHOP, but I won't patronize them anymore.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

282. Asshole.

The federal law needs to be changed to make sure that this kind of blatant discrimination is illegal.

[jwdeviant]

287. I worked in a restaurant for many years.

It was a pizza place in a rich neighborhood with a poor neighborhood only a mile or so away. Our clientèle were rich whites, college kids of various types, and middle-class and poor blacks. Every weekend night the place would be filled with families (who all let their kids run amok) and we would get constant complaints, usually from the white families about the black families.

That left me in a difficult position.

As a sometime manager, I had to take complaints seriously, even if they were from puffed-up WASPs. They tended to call the GM or the district manager and get them to chew me out if I didn't do what they wanted. So many times I had to ask black families to quiet down or control their children. This would sometimes lead to charges of racism.

What is a manager to do? Should I tell the white family to live with it if it is ruining their dining experience? That got me in a lot of trouble. Should I do what they want? That got me called a bigot. Should I try to get everyone to quiet down? I tried that a couple of times and found that EVERYONE was hostile (brotherhood existed long enough for them to tell me to shut up).

There's no easy solution to this kind of problem (although there is QUITE a difference between a couple kissing and kids screaming, I find noise much worse), and, in the manager's position, I might have done the same thing: (presumably) choosing regulars over outsiders. Of course, I would have asked them to cool it first, but we really don't know what happened (and the manager probably didn't see anything himself either, just heard the whining from some idiot threatened by some women kissing).

And here I thought "lesbian" porn was so popular with the redneck crowd.

Feel free to call me a freeper, bigot, or whatever. I just want to add my experience to this topic, but, for the record, I do believe that sexual orientation (or whatever the current term is) needs to be grounds for protection just like ethnicity (biology) and religion (choice).

[Bluebear]

288. But it was a little peck, they weren't sucking face.

"A kiss like I would give my uncle" they said.

I appreciate your management experience, and I would tell anybody complaining that it was not sexual and to go on with their stack o' pancakes.

[jwdeviant]

290. Have you ever worked in the food-service industry?

It really doesn't matter who's right or wrong, it just matters who complains. Unfortunate but true.

We had a problem something like this back in '96 when a woman insisted she had the right to breastfeed her child in the restaurant. Now it was not yet law in California that she did have that right, so we asked her to move somewhere more discrete and/or cover herself up a bit because she was upsetting the other patrons (three complaints). She refused and we had to ask her to leave. She refused to leave and I came really close to having to call the police on a woman for doing something that's as natural as can be. Luckily she thought better of what it would mean to be arrested and she left.

I still feel bad about that, but she didn't (yet) have the law on her side so my hands were tied. However, even if the law was on her side I would have had to do the same thing. The bottom line is that she was disturbing a bunch of (oversensitive?) other people and so she had to be dealt with. Just like someone who made too much noise or someone who caused trouble.

In reference to " "A kiss like I would give my uncle" they said. ", we weren't there. I know that it's not nice to assume that other liberals or progressives might not be totally honest, but for all we know they could have been eating out of each others' mouths (or the manager could have been lied to, he might not have seen anything). We have to keep open minds here and realize that we can't take anyone's word for something just because we agree with them. It probably did happen the way they say, but we don't really know.

Telling someone "it was not sexual and to go on with their stack o' pancakes." is a great way to lose a regular customer. Again, it's not right, but the industry is competitive as hell and losing even one regular family can put a dent in your receipts.

Would you accept me saying "It wasn't discrimination, move along"? I doubt it.

Again, let me stress that they were bothering people not because of who they are, but because of their actions. From a business perspective it was probably the correct decision; from an ethical standpoint (at least, from my ethical standpoint) it was not.

[Bluebear]

291. Yes I have

Of course I would not address the customer as bluntly as I stated, it would be more like "i'm sorry you're upset, may I move you to a different table so you'll be more comfortable?"

Also. I will buy everything in your post except "they were bothering people not because of who they are, but because of their actions".

[jwdeviant]

316. Moving the complainers is a much better idea.

" Also. I will buy everything in your post except "they were bothering people not because of who they are, but because of their actions". "

Sorry, it was late when I wrote that. What I meant was, being black or male or young or poorly dressed or whatever is something that is obvious from the first moment you see a person. Someone's politics or sexual orientation or religion or hobbies (etc.) are often a lot less obvious (under most circumstances) when you meet someone. The institutional racism of Denny's (for example) was based solely on an external obvious cue of ethnicity, this is different to some extent. They were not refused service because they were lesbians, they were asked to leave because of their behavior.

This might seem like I'm splitting hairs, and I am.

While you and I might agree that there was nothing wrong with their behavior, it would be ethically difficult (for me at least) to inflict my morality on someone else, especially since I'm always bitching that the Republicans want to do the same thing. Hopefully someday soon everyone will have equal protection under the law, but until then it's all a matter of morality, and we all know how slippery conservative morality can be....

[donco6]

327. And you're wrong yet again.

You have this whole idea of discrimination turned on its head. "it would be ethically difficult (for me at least) to inflict my morality on someone else, especially since I'm always bitching that the Republicans want to do the same thing." When a Republican "inflicts his morality" on others, it results in a restriction or denial of another person's rights. If I simply assert my right to express affection to my partner in a manner that would be perfectly acceptable were I straight, and that act results in my being thrown out of an establishment, that's discrimination. Ultimately, it will be found to be so. You simply suggest that we be content with the back of the bus. Again, that's pretty fucked up logic there.

[ScreamingMeemie]

329. "to inflict my morality on someone else"

It's about equal rights, human rights. Acknowledging that we are free to love whomever we choose, as adults and be recognized by law. That's not morality. That's humanity. I will no longer ask my friends to wait. I will no longer sit by, silent, and have them be told that they are immoral or perverted for loving someone.

[jwdeviant]

331. Okay....

Please explain how this is not an issue of morality.

You say that it's a human rights issue, a system of 'natural law', but there are many conflicting systems of natural law like those espoused (at least publicly) by the right-wing. These 'moralists' can easily say that you do have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex (and they do say that as you well know) as does everyone else. The point is that it's right to let same sex couples marry, but simply because I believe that to be true does not make it some sort of basic human right.

We spend so much time talking about how stupid (etc.) the Republicans are, but we need to understand them better to fight them effectively. Not to find common ground, not to compromise, not for any other reason than to beat the bastards at their own game. Having the same blindness that they do is a sure way to get nothing accomplished.

I am not saying you should be quiet. You just have to be loud in the way that's the most effective.

[donco6]

332. And that would be . . .

"I am not saying you should be quiet. You just have to be loud in the way that's the most effective."

I'm just curious what that "way" would be?

In addition, your point about rights is preposterous, yet again. Rights are not granted; they are recognized - particularly human rights. Even the earliest documents in American history recognize the "self-evident" nature of human rights. "Natural law" is a Judeo-Christian term that doesn't apply, except in the minds of fundie right-wing whackos.

[ScreamingMeemie]

299. To me, it's a matter of who receives the complaint.

I would make a point of watching the white people and scolding them the minute, they themselves, stepped out of line. In fact, I'd make it so difficult for them they wouldn't want to return their racist butts to my restaurant.

[jwdeviant]

315. You'd go out of business quickly.

People with enough money for expensive food (our place was hideously overpriced) tend to be a pain in the ass if their complaints are not seen to immediately. We were grateful for the complainers since the people who didn't complain to us would sometimes call the boss or would simply not return. People are so wonderfully non-confrontational that way. In the real world our lofty ideals of what's fair and what's not do not work well when we have to deal with people we don't see eye-to-eye with.

An example of what you'd like to see: There was a woman who kept complaining about the loud kids in the back of the store (a sports team or birthday party or something, they were mostly Hispanic) so I went back and asked them to hold it down, and they did. She complained again, but this time I was nearby and heard that they were not making much noise. So I told her that it was a busy night and she'd have to accept some noise. Then, on my way back to drop off an extra-large pepperoni and extra cheese pizza Ms. Complaint's son jumped up and damned near knocked the pizza all over himself (I only just barely held on to it). I still have a scar on my chest from a second degree burn from a pizza that was knocked onto me by another employee, and that was through a shirt (the pizzas were 500 degrees when they came out of the oven), this kid would have gotten a face full (and probably would have gone blind, etc.). Nothing like that had ever happened before and it never happened again, so I yelled at the kid. Guess who came over to tell me I couldn't talk to her kid that way? And told me that I was a racist (they were black)?

Now what to do? If I kick them out I'm a racist, if I don't then I'm allowing them to get away with bad behavior that goes way beyond politics. I guess I was a racist that day because I kicked them out citing the liability of a mother who didn't have enough sense to teach her kids not to knock over hot, greasy pizzas on themselves. She vowed revenge and I took a lot of heat from the district manager until I explained the situation. He still gave her a $20 gift certificate though.

I guess that wasn't an example of what you'd like to see. Regardless, how am I to know the underlying reason that someone is complaining about someone else? Kicking out the racist jerkoffs would have been nice, but then I'd be down to almost no one since I'd have to kick out ALL the racists.

Ridding yourself of the customer base that you disagree with politically will hurt your business. Running a restaurant means that you have to match your politics with the local community standards to keep people happy. Happy people return.

[ScreamingMeemie]

319. Not if I'm backed up by my staff.

I've done it before in my work a day world...and I still manage to make quite a nice sum by days end. I don't match my politics with anybody. This isn't about politics. It's about being a human being.

[jwdeviant]

321. What?

Have you ever worked in food service?

Being backed up by your staff does nothing if you lose your customer base.

It is absolutely about politics. Especially since some freeper could have said "This isn't about politics. It's about being a human being." to explain why they're campaigning against gay marriage or library funding. That's something that's always bothered me about DU, that there are so many here who seem to think that their morality comes from some universal source, which is the problem we have with freepers et al.

We're the open-minded side, right?

[ScreamingMeemie]

330. Five years. Racism isn't tolerated in these parts. It's about being

a human being. And no, I don't hear too many freepers flaunting their humanity these days. You do? If you look above, you seem to be conflicted, messed up even. You are confusing morality (or false morality) with humanity. Big difference.

Being backed up by your staff and standing your ground brings in the kind of customers that are welcome and who feel welcome. I won't cash in on humanity (again, look it up) or the lack thereof.

[donco6]

328. What does this have to do with the case at hand?

Absolutely nothing.

[donco6]

325. Your hands weren't tied at all.

As a matter of fact, the law eventually substantiated the woman's right to do exactly what she was doing. Would your restaurant management have been happy about losing a civil lawsuit for your treatment of the woman?

And why on earth would we think anything other than what the article stated? That's all we have to go on - your assumption that they're lying is made up from whole cloth.

Your premise seems to be that supporting discrimination - whether it's a breastfeeding woman or an affectionate one - is good for business. I think that's just pretty fucked up.

[donco6]

324. This is so apples and oranges.

A group of screaming kids interferes with anyone's dinner. But how does someone kissing another person "like you would kiss your uncle" bother anyone? It's like being upset about someone wearing white after labor day.

[Sapphocrat]

292. The only thing that surprises me...

...is that anyone else is surprised by this story.

I got kicked out two different restaurants -- for holding my gf's hand -- in 1980. Big fuckin' deal. I mean, I appreciate the outrage from everybody and everything, but NOTHING HAS FUCKING CHANGED in the past 27 years of MY life. Where was the outrage then? Who stood up for ME? NO-FUCKING-BODY, that's who.

What did I learn from my experience? To sit as far away as possible from any female I happen to be dining with, even if that female is my own sister. Who the hell wants to have the manager walk up and pull you out of the booth, again, and make a big show of ordering you out of the place, loudly enough so that all conversation stops and all eyes are on you? You want humiliation? Let me tell you about humiliation.

Sorry, folks, I'm a wee bit fucking BITTER is all. It hasn't changed, and it WON'T change. This is it. THIS is how we live. THIS is what we keep talking about. Little piddly shit like getting thrown out of restaurants for not doing half the cutesy-cuddly-kissy-face crap straights get away with every freaking hour of the day, and great big shit, like being barred from housing, jobs, visiting one another in the hospital, collecting insurance...

Does everybody GET IT now? Does everybody who keeps calling us whiners, keeps telling us, "You people haven't got it so bad -- it's not like you have separate water fountains or anything" -- do you GET IT NOW?

This IS our fucking "separate water fountain," goddamnit!

[Bluebear]

295. ...

:hug:

[Midlodemocrat]

300. Not surprised, horrified.

And, I wish a big mouthed asshole like me had been there when that happened to you Sapph, because I wouldn't have let it go down without a HUGE ASSED fight.

Some of the responses here are very disheartening.


We have a long way to go, even here on DU it appears.

[rosesaylavee]

310. Sappho

I truly believe that more of us get it than not. I would not have sat there and watched - as some one said up thread, there would be a big ass fight if I was there.

Actually started a big ass fight over this kind of thing in public once upon a time. And as I look pretty sweet and unassuming, it did scare the hell of of people. I got their attention. :)

:hug:

[NMMNG]

311. A-freaking-men

This witch hunt needs to end. Only when GLBT people can live the same way as others do--without discrimination or repercussions--will things be truly equal.

[Duncan Grant]

314. If one could recommend an individual post, this would be it.

:kick: :loveya:

[Maven]

320. Sapph.

:loveya:

That is all.

[Dora]

308. Get up. Stand up. n/t

[GETPLANING]

313. International House of Prejudice

Fuck 'em

[Zhade]

322. A friendly reminder: IT IS AGAINST DU RULES TO ADVOCATE AGAINST OUR EQUAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

Per Skinner's own stance on the issue, if you do not support our right to marry, you are unwelcome here.

[noonwitch]

333. Just keep in mind that IHOP is a franchised business before boycotting

I worked at an IHOP when I was 16. All the Grand Rapids' IHOPs at the time were owned by one guy, who also owned a couple of other local restaurants. Both of those IHOPs are gone, buildings and all, and I think they've built newer ones near the freeways.

I worked at one of the old, A-frame buildings. The founder of the national company was a Navy man, so all the parts of the building had names from ships. The kitchen was the galley, the back seating area (the smoking section) was called "torp" and so on.