That Time Yelpers Took Revenge On A Bigot Restaurant Owner
from the have-a-gay-old-time dept
We've seen several examples of how Yelp and online reviews can impact a company's behavior. Sometimes that impact takes the form of the company in question going nuclear on the reviewers and subsequently crying "hack." Other times companies attempt to get reviewers into hot water through criminal charges. Or a company can just attempt to charge negative reviewers a couple thousand bucks, because that makes business sense. Mind you, none of this has slowed down the practice of the internet punishing poor behavior through negative reviews, including times when those reviews take on a farcical and/or creative tone.
Such is the case with with the owner of the Chicaro Club, a restaurant and bar in Oklahoma. See, Gary isn't what you'd call the most progressive business owner on the planet.
Last week, when a KFOR-TV reporter asked the owner of an Enid, OK, restaurant/bar about allegations that he wasn't exactly the most open-minded businessman in town, he admitted, "I've been in business 44 years, I think I can spot a freak or a faggot... I really don't want gays around. If I reached over there and slapped the sh** out of you, you should be offended," he explained. "But to call someone a 'chink' or someone call me a bigot, that doesn't bother me."Ha! Racism and bigotry! Good one, Gary! Now, while Gary's speech and behavior are wholly reprehensible, that whole freedom of speech thing protects such asshattery. But it's a good thing it also protects the creative reviewers of Gary's establishment over at Yelp, too, because they're going to town on him as a matter of protest. Some highlights for you:
The mandatory "pants check" at the entrance was a little off-putting at first, but I totally understood once I got to the men's room. Definitely the hottest underwear party I've ever been to, and Gary takes the cake (and the FROSTING) as the best pivot man in the history of circle jerks! - Bruce M.Yes, the reviews are sophomoric, delightfully so. And, yes, this is just trolling to piss off Gary. But this is the internet people. Protest via trolling with a little public shaming dashed in is what the internet is for. Fortunately, there are enough serious reviews mixed in with the jokes such that I wouldn't expect any unsuspecting homosexuals to accidentally go to the Chicaro Club to hit on Gary.
As a polysexual demiromantic Peruvian atheist that physically identifies as handicapped and ethnically identifies as a Cambodian transgendered sea turtle, it's understandably hard for me to find a place to fit in. This place was my safe zone. I'll never forget my first time. As a young newly open entity (I don't believe in labeling myself), I was looking for a place to feel free. The chick-fil-a had recently been shut down by the board of health and I was heartbroken. I found this place by coincidence. I had met this wonderful man on grindr, and mid-coitus, he stopped and asked me if I had ever been to Chicaros club. I told him I hadn't, and off we went. - Alex R.
Awesome place. My girlfriend and I stopped in and at first we were a little worried that all of the gay guys there might not be down with a couple of lesbians hanging out. My fears were quickly dashed! Not only was everyone super nice, the owner joined us all in a rousing rendition of "We Are Family"! The best part is that, after he found out that I was on welfare, the owner comped my entire meal and gave us a complimentary steak! What a guy! - Allison B.
All that's left is to see how Gary chooses to react to his new-found fame and glory. If he's a man of his word, he won't care one bit. If my faith in humanity is justified, hopefully he'll keep on not caring as he goes out of business due to a chronic lack of customers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: review
Companies: chicaro club, yelp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I find it amazing that the battle cry is always it is unfair they called me things after I called them things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cringe every time someone uses the word "bigot"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody's saying otherwise. However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech. If that means others exercising their freedom to tell other what the owner of this business thinks, that's also their right.
"I cringe every time someone uses the word "bigot""
Why do you cringe when a word's accurately applied? Amusingly, you're actually more offended than the subject of the article:
"someone call me a bigot, that doesn't bother me"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[T]hat whole freedom of speech thing protects such asshattery. But it's a good thing it also protects the creative reviewers of Gary's establishment.
He's saying there is no problem here, except the restaurant owner is an asshole, he delights at the creative responses some people have made to the restaurant owner's assholery, and he disapproves of the restaurant owner, which is also protected speech.
What have you got against the word "bigot"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup - and there is no problem when people use a sarcastic tone in response to that which they find offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe you should be checked for Logophobia since you also cannot read properly either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many wonderful gems lost...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But lose business because of his club's 'exclusivity'? I wonder if people might even rally around him, like that bearded reality show guy who expressed a Biblical view of Sodomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Beau--ootiful Soo-oop!
Soo--oop of the e--e--evening,
Beautiful, beauti--FUL SOUP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get over yourself....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
That's when a 6-year old boy makes the mistake of walking into a city park bathroom and gets "greeted" by an aroused adult male exposing himself. (I was in the 6th grade when that sort of thing first happened to me, and I was tall for my age, so I guess it was not technically an "in your face" moment for me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
flasher =/= gay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
That's "lately"? So you're what, seven now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
It's not rocket science, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry you had to go thru that, AjStechd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe that's when they get a court order demanding that a particular person attend and photograph their wedding? Or try to use the power of the government to deny permits to a business because they don't like the views of the owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Get your facts right, yo. You're clearly referring to this case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/photos-as-messages-a-new-constitutional-case/
In that case, a photographer refused to due the same work she's paid to do for straight couples due to the couple in question being homosexual. She refused on religious grounds, even though the refusal violates the states non-descrimination in business laws. That isn't an in-your-face homosexual, it's an in-your-face religious zealot breaking the law. Nice try, but you've got shit backwards.
"Or try to use the power of the government to deny permits to a business because they don't like the views of the owner?"
Link to an example please. Not sure if you're referring to Chik-Fil-A or Arizona. Either way, I can happily tear both examples apart at the seams....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-discrimination laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
You do realize these exact same arguments were made in favor of businesses descriminating based on race, right? You do realize that the warrant for slavery and bigotry is religious, yes? You do realize that a secular government can legislate against a religious compulsion, RIGHT!?!?!?
"That might make some sense if she ran an establishment open to the public for people to wander in, then made a point of throwing out some particular class of people."
Business is business. Her door is open to the public to contract with her, except if it's for a homosexual union of love. She's a charmer, that one....
"If she does everything on a per-customer contract basis, the ability to refuse a contract on any or no grounds seems more rational to me."
Fine, so she should be allowed to refuse business to dirty niggers because she says she don't like them dirty niggers? How about the perfidious Jews? Lord knows plenty of people don't like them. Or how about a business saying they won't serve the warlike Christians, the terrorist Muslims, or the polytheistic Hindus?
We legislate against that kind of bigotry because we're a secular, inclusive nation. People are allowed their religious views, but they don't get to apply them to government regulated commerce. That's how this whole secular democracy thing works. Either get on board or get the hell out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
Slavery involves infringing on the rights of the slave. What human right is infringed here by refusing service? Are there no other photographers around who could possibly do this job?
You misunderstood me here, probably on purpose because you hate my line of reasoning. An establishment open to the public is one where people expect to wander in, engage in transactions for posted, usually non-negotiable, prices, and leave - sometimes even anonymously, if they pay cash. Think restaurants, shopping malls, movie theatres, etc.
Now you get it. I think such businesses ought to post such preferences so that all customers can decide whether they really want to interact with such a business, but yes, she should be allowed that too. Look at it from the other side. Suppose we demand that she absolutely must serve anyone who can afford her price, no matter how much she hates the customer or their lifestyle. This includes serving people with a history of violent criminal assault against people like her, because criminals are people too. Will she keep doing the work? Will she do as good a job on a gay wedding as she would do for a normal one? Do we establish an extra complaint procedure so that they can whine to the state if the quality of her work was not what they wanted, because she obviously screwed it up out of spite? What if she really did do a good job out of professional pride, but they still think it was not good enough? What if she decides to try to gouge customers she does not like, rather than just refusing to offer them a contract at all? We already see this with landlords who would gladly post a "No blacks" sign if they could do so legally. Do we then require that she can only charge an approved price? How much can the approved price vary based on the complexity of the work? Snapping a couple of pictures of the happy couple is simpler and much cheaper than creating a full video of the whole event. Videographing the event in turn has varying complexity based on how many guests attend. All these things can be worked out in the contract language, unless we stipulate that her contracts are strictly regulated. If we do not strictly regulate the contract, how do we prevent subtle discrimination based on price gouging? You cannot dip a toe into this. Either let her be free to choose her clients or regulate it down to the last detail, because otherwise the subtle bigots will find a way to screw the customers they never wanted to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
Which is exactly what the photographer is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See how a minor change in language makes your position far worse than you might think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's really amazing how all the old racist arguments have been trotted out again and applied to gays. Look at the arguments against gay marriage: literally every single one of them was used by people arguing that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see logic is not your forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah the good old red herring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah the good old red herring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah the good old red herring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely, because there is a clear and obvious reason for it. Further, size and weight discrimination are cool when talking about who gets to ride on amusement park rides and when you have to use a car seat.
I'll even generalize: there is lots of discrimination that is totally OK. What's not OK is to discriminate against a class of people without there being a good, solid, demonstrable reason to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJMerul33E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the word sarcasm would better describe their nature, very good sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the best line of the day. perfectly spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line: The guy you are trying to trash is laughing all the way to the bank and making mega bucks off California's pro gay bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm reminded of something Malcom X said about racism in the northern states vs racism in the southern. He preferred the southern variety because southern racists don't tend to pretend that they're not racist. Northern racists hide it, and by hiding it make themselves a much larger problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- Malcolm X
I just hope you guys realize what it is that you're standing for, and passingly wonder if you really think that it's purely a coincidence that the same government that is trying so hard to deny people's rights is simultaneously pushing the homosexual agenda so hard. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Here's a hint: the homosexual agenda is a tool for them to use as a means to an end. Beyond that they don't really care one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which rights are being denied to you by allowing homosexuals to marry, or any other area where they're asking to be treated equally? Perhaps if you people can come up with a sane answer to this, your arguments might get somewhere.
"the homosexual agenda"
What do you think this "agenda" consists of, apart from equal treatment? Where are you getting your information about this from?
Come on, stop being a paranoid tool and start an actual conversation, one of you scared bigots must have something factual to based your words upon. So far, all you tend to present are rambling fantasies and "it should be illegal because it makes me feel icky when I think about it", neither of which is good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
I'd love to see the stats on this. It probably varies a lot by region.
I know that my wife & I like to try out a new restaurant once a week or so, and Yelp reviews are one of the ways we decide which ones to try (this is increasingly less true -- Yelp has been getting much less useful, and other sites more so -- but still...).
While it's true that if a place has stellar reviews but our experience sucked, we won't be back, it was the reviews that got us to try it in the first place. For the good places, the value they get from us because of a good review is incalculable -- we'll eat there many times, when we may not have ever tried it otherwise, and we'll also tell our friends about it.
That seems like it would help a place quite a lot.
However, there are oddities about this review business. For example, I'll avoid a place that has nothing but great reviews (the reviews are probably faked). I want to see at least a couple of reviews from disgruntled customers. Every business on the planet has disgruntled customers, after all. So some bad reviews actually help the businesses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
I've got a book of cartoons from the early twentieth-century German satirical magazine, Simplissimus. One of the cartoons shows a German tourist in Italy, using one hand to relieve himself in an outdoor urinal, while continuing to read a guidebook (a Baedeker) with other hand. Two Italian boys, watching, observe that "The Tedesco [foreigner] can't even do _that_ without an instruction book!" Beware the excesses of privileging your I-pad and the internet over your senses!
Yelp is apparently set up so that people can rate restaurants without ever having eaten there, or even without ever having been within a thousand miles of the place. A troll's delight, in short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Believing, and acting on the belief that a person or group of people are bad/lesser/'sinful' due to something completely harmless and beyond their control, like skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or any similar feature = bigotry, and a sign of a small mind.
Vs.
Calling out people from the first group for their harmful actions, and labeling them as exactly what they are = common sense, and a sign of basic decency and empathy.
Also, I can't help but find it funny that you're getting more worked up about the 'bigot' label than the guy in the story, he at least was honest about it, whereas you're just trying to twist it around and go on the offensive about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To this day I don't see color in a person first, but if you're rolling up on me like a hood rat with all your gangster attitude, I'm prepared and largely intolerant. Only a fool would ignore the fact that black on white crime is hugely disproportionate, the knock out game is a prime example of how the media plays down things that don't suit their agenda.
But back to the point, whether it's gays, blacks, whites etc, you're not required to like every group or person you encounter. Your personal experience is what defines your attitude on a great many things, this is not a bad thing, so don't allow yourself to be brain washed , be your own person and have a little common sense. It's not the color or sexual preference I dislike, it's the behavior that infringes on my way of life I have a problem with and I'll fight back against it tooth and nail. You have the right to be gay, hey good for you, but don't push it in my face or tell me how I "must" approve of everything you do just because you're gay. Seriously, how would I even know you're gay unless you're advertising it somehow anyway?
It may seem odd, but I have quite a few gay friends and the worst gaydar going because for most of them I never knew it or cared and little changed after I was aware of it. My black friends know what I'm about and where I'm from and show me a strange respect that's hard to explain. They know I have their back, but they also know I'll call them on their BS.
So again, a little discretion and respect from all sides would go a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2081_(film)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]