That Time Yelpers Took Revenge On A Bigot Restaurant Owner

from the have-a-gay-old-time dept

Fri, Feb 28th 2014 12:14am — Timothy Geigner

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.

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.

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.

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

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:31am

I was more entertained by the people trying to pretend that it was wrong that people were offended by his behavior.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:21am

So where is the problem here? He should have the right to say whatever he wants, and to make his business look bad for some people.
I cringe every time someone uses the word "bigot"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:29am

Re:
"He should have the right to say whatever he wants, and to make his business look bad for some people"

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 thread ]
Aaron (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:29am

Re:
You're bad at reading.

[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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:35am

Re:
I have no problem with his bigoted comments, but they are the dictionary definition of bigotry, so I can't see why that would make you cringe. It only bothers me when people use words incorrectly. If he hadn't said bigoted things, then I would have a problem with labelling him a bigot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:42am

"601 Reviews Removed for Violating our Content Guidelines or Terms of Service"

So many wonderful gems lost...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zip, 28 Feb 2014 @ 3:01am

Those comments were unnecessary and unhelpful. He could have just kept the men's room locked - an age-old way of discouraging homosexual activity and driving them elsewhere.

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 thread ]
AjStechd (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 4:05am

A little discretion and respect from both sides would eliminate much of this. I understand gays feel empowered lately, but that "in you face" attitude along with current political encouragement is only hurting their cause as a lot of people that were once supportive, have now changed their minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 4:22am

Re:
You're a crazy person. Gay rights has never had more support than it does right now, and that's a good thing. And I'll be damned if I'll ever understand what an "in your face" gay attitude is. I've yet to have a tastefully dressed, chiseled man with a delightful coif stand in my way and scream at me about how great being a homosexual is.

Get over yourself....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 4:51am

Is this owner the type of guy likely to be injured by sarcastic Yelp reviews? Does he even know what Yelp is? Of course, if someone were to decorate the front door of the restaurant late one night... twinkly Christmas lights, feather boas and some glitter...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:08am

"the reviews are sophomoric ..... just trolling .."

I think the word sarcasm would better describe their nature, very good sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:11am

Re:
"So where is the problem here?"

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 thread ]
zip, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude

"And I'll be damned if I'll ever understand what an "in your face" gay attitude is"

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 thread ]
ethorad (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:46am

Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
while the guy may have been gay,

flasher =/= gay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:56am

Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
And you think that's what all homosexuals do with their time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blue Sweater (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:12am

Re:
I dunno about the comments being unhelpful, I'm a Cambodean transgendered sea turtle and now know where I'm going for supper tonight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:35am

"Protest via trolling with a little public shaming dashed in is what the internet is for."

Is the best line of the day. perfectly spot on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:36am

Re: Re:
He's probably talking about teabagging.

Sorry you had to go thru that, AjStechd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:21am

In the part of the world this club/restaurant is in this form and the pro gay movement have just provided a few hundred million dollars of free advertisement FOR the establishment.

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 thread ]
Jack, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:24am

Re:
Apparently you haven't read Ken White's post about the Kaley decision yet: [Grand Juries are] "not a polite fiction. A polite fiction would have some grounding in reality. It's an offensive fiction, an impudent fiction, a fiction that slaps you across the face and calls your mother a dirty bitch."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:41am

Re: Re:
Beau--ootiful Soo-oop!
Beau--ootiful Soo-oop!
Soo--oop of the e--e--evening,
Beautiful, beauti--FUL SOUP!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
So when this happened to you in sixth grade, were you the aroused adult male or the 6-year old? Either would suggest a rather unusual school career.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:55am

Re:
A little discretion and respect from both sides would eliminate much of this. I understand black people feel empowered lately, but that "in you face" attitude along with current political encouragement is only hurting their cause as a lot of people that were once supportive, have now changed their minds.

See how a minor change in language makes your position far worse than you might think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
Aside from the entirely accurate comments that your encounter isn't something that is common homosexual practice (indeed, its' no more common among gays than straights), you say that you "in your face" moment happened when you were 6.

That's "lately"? So you're what, seven now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:28am

Re: Re:
And I'll be damned if I'll ever understand what an "in your face" gay attitude is.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:29am

Re: Re:
Not only that, but that precise sentiment was frequently heard during the civil rights battles.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:09am

Re: Re: Re:
"Maybe that's when they get a court order demanding that a particular person attend and photograph their wedding?"

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:33am

I can respect someone that goes on TV and admits with confidence that they're a bigot, even while I completely disrespect them. It's much better than all the closet bigots trying to come up with lame excuses for their bigotry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:42am

Re:
This.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:18am

Re: Non-discrimination laws
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.
So because the gay rights movement got themselves added to a non-discrimination law, that law should trump the religious freedom of the photographer to decline their business? 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. 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:21am

Re:
Or even go old school with a classy neon sign...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJMerul33E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
"So because the gay rights movement got themselves added to a non-discrimination law, that law should trump the religious freedom of the photographer to decline their business?"

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 11:33am

Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
"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."

Which is exactly what the photographer is doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 28 Feb 2014 @ 11:49am

The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
A restaurant is something like the ultimate repeat customer business. A restaurant will typically make most of its money from people who come in every week, or every day. The important question for a restaurant is therefore whether or not customers come back, and the customer's own experience takes precedence over a Yelp review. Most people are not enough of "foodies" to go miles out of their way to try a new restaurant on a regular basis. They typically have a limited number of restaurants they can get to during their lunch hours, and are in a position to sort them out by experience. There are exceptions, of course, but in general, a Yelp review cannot help a restaurant very much or harm it very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:23pm

Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
Repeat business though requires they eat at the restaurant that first time though, and if someone unfamiliar with the area is looking for a place to eat, and one restaurant has good reviews, while the other has a bunch of bad ones, take a guess which they're more likely to go to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
You do realize these exact same arguments were made in favor of businesses descriminating based on race, right?
I think you meant that businesses were discriminating on race, but even so, so what? If a business wants to harm its own bottom line, let it. Someone more open minded will show up to profit off those customers. By all means ban government agencies from engaging in any form of discrimination, because you can't compete with the government. But let people make whatever foolish decisions they want, as long as those decisions do not harm others.
You do realize that the warrant for slavery and bigotry is religious, yes?
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?
Her door is open to the public to contract with her
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.
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?
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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
You're right, I did misunderstand you completely, so my apologies for that. I mistook you for someone advocating the providence of discriminating against gays. Instead, it appears to me that you're a kind of free market libertarian when it comes to this kind of thing, wanting everyone's bigotry worn on their shirt sleeves. I can respect that line of thought, even though I vehemently disagree with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:50pm

Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
" There are exceptions, of course, but in general, a Yelp review cannot help a restaurant very much or harm it very much."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
He didn't say it happened when he was 6. He gave you an example (6-year-old boy) and told you when that kind of stuff first happend to him (6th grade).

It's not rocket science, really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
There are those who believe that people who are below a certain age shouldn't be allowed to marry. In fact, states have laws establishing a minimum age for marriage. Age discrimination is still cool, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:13pm

Re:
Anyone who disagrees with the viewpoints of Timmy The Editorializer must be a bigot in some way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
Or help take down the system, which is what really needs to be done. B.A.M.N.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:24pm

Timmy, you are obviously bigoted against "bigots". So before you go condemning others for their "bigotry", you should get your own house in order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:28pm

Re: Re:
How's that - exactly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, not the same thing.
I see logic is not your forte.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:40pm

Re:
Obviously - you are bigoted against those who are bigoted against bigots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re:
Thank you for your reply, Timmy. Nice to hear from you, Timmy, but why are you going by Anonymous Coward, Timmy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, it sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re: Re:
Uh, yeah, not me big boy....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: The Meaninglessness of Yelp.
Of course, there are common-sense rules. You ask a neighbor, who really does live next door. You ask a co-worker. Even if you ask the desk clerk of your hotel, the restaurants could have bought him, but doing so would be much more expensive than manipulating phony identities on Yelp. Find out where locals of modest means eat. If you are near a university, follow the graduate students. A restaurateur could not get away with serving them overpriced glop for any length of time.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 5:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
That line of thinking does make some sense, until you remember that such small minded bigots tend to run in packs and entire towns, counties or even states could become unliveable for people considered "undesirable". It's another example of how, while some libertarian ideas are good, they really don't work when applied to reality. Those who think otherwise tend to be those who have enjoyed the luxury of belonging to a majority throughout their lives and so stand to benefit from the imbalance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Mar 2014 @ 7:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was my point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Mar 2014 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re: Non-discrimination laws
What does "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 3:53pm

Re:
Let's clear this little problem of 'terminology' up shall we?

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 4:00pm

Ah the good old red herring...
Nice try, but how about addressing the point brought up, that the arguments against homosexual marriage are almost word-for-word identical to the ones that were used against interracial marriage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 6:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "in your face" gay attitude
You missed the joke. He was talking about how gays act "lately" and gave an example of something when he was six. If that's lately, then he must be seven or eight. It's not rocket science, really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 6:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Age discrimination is still cool, I guess."

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 thread ]
AjStechd (profile), 2 Mar 2014 @ 8:51am

Since race is being used in comparison I thought I'd add a different perspective for the MSNBC crowd. I'm "white" and grew up in the projects in Annapolis, MD during the 70s. We were one of only three non-black families. My experience with blacks were that most of them were the most hateful, violent, racist people on the planet. For many years, on an almost daily basis, Gang beatings were a fact of life for me. I can still hear the chorus of "White MF" through the bell ringing after being kicked in the head over and over. I remember the apartments we lived in surrounded a glass ridden playground that shimmered like the ocean in the sunlight. Whenever fights broke out, the parents would all come out to their balconies, like a roman arena, and cheer it on. Of course ten blacks kicking the hell out of one white kid was a particular favorite. That level of hatred isn't easily forgotten. I think I have more of right to be racist than most blacks but I try not to lower myself to that level, it's not always easy I'll admit.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 2 Mar 2014 @ 9:46am

Re: Ah the good old red herring...
First off, I don't know that they are. Secondly, not everybody here is an old-timer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 2 Mar 2014 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: Ah the good old red herring...
'It's wrong', 'It's unnatural', 'It'll destroy traditional marriage'... the terms used may be slightly different, but strip away those superficial differences, and the core arguments presented are pretty much identical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2014 @ 3:57am

Re:
I agree AjStechd. A little discretion and respect from both sides would do well. Sad that the scales always have to be tipped, never equal. This is not a phenomenon limited to a single issue, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2014 @ 4:37am

Re: Re:
"He who stands for nothing will fall for anything."
- 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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Mar 2014 @ 4:50am

Re: Re: Re:
"trying so hard to deny people's rights"

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 3 Mar 2014 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on, PaulT, stop being such a politically-correct tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 3 Mar 2014 @ 8:03am

Be careful what you wish for.
Maybe you'd like to live under a government like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2081_(film)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 3 Mar 2014 @ 8:05am

Re: Be careful what you wish for.
That link is supposed to go to the Wikipedia article about the movie "2081". I guess it didn't post correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Mar 2014 @ 8:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The typical constructive, adult response we've sadly come to expect. Is it that hard to present a real argument rather than childish namecalling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 3 Mar 2014 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's what you expected, be satisfied with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 8 Mar 2014 @ 8:58pm

Re:
So you're bigoted about the word bigot then?

Maybe you should be checked for Logophobia since you also cannot read properly either
[ link to this | view in thread ]