"Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. (Homosexual slur) do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours," the customer wrote. "We hope you will see the tip your (homosexual slur) choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for GOD's love, but none shall be spared for (homosexual slur). May GOD have mercy on you."
Of course, the real story is that his employer and co-workers and family rallied around him and the overwhelming majority of people (even some homophobes, I'd bet) think the couple's behavior was reprehensible and embarrassing....
For a host of really shameful reasons, this wouldn't have even been a news item 20 years ago, and that change is the real story.
Eon Blue wrote:The WBC is supposed to be protesting the World Series in St. Louis tomorrow. I wonder if this was a group of members on their way to St. Louis?
I had the exact same question in my mind. Sounds like the WBC.
Yeah, I don't know too many other people who would try to pull something like that. Even total douchebag homophobes would tip the guy, then wait until they were in their car and talk about what a huge fag the guy was or whatever.
I had a manager at Tippins tell me about at group of 6 people that came in on a Sunday after church and left without tipping, they told the waitress that they weren't going to tip her because it was a sin to work on Sunday. So many levels of stupid it's hard to unwrap.
The server has pointedly tried to stay out of the limelight, has not given his name, and apparently was not the one to leak the issue to the media. He has specifically responded to requests to reimburse him for these folks' rudeness and said it is appreciated but not necessary. His coworkers brought it to the media. If he were simply seeking attention, I doubt he would be trying so hard to downplay it all and stay anonymous. I also doubt the restaurant would issue a public statement about it without seeing evidence first.
That said - sure, let's see the receipt, if there are "truthers" out there on this issue.
harbinger911 wrote:Doesn't there have to be a reason "for" lifting a law or offering a new one before people can be against it.
I put the 2 most common reasons I've heard for gay marriage.
I am truly wondering if there are more reasons besides the two I mentioned.
(topic change)
I don't know if the tip thing was fake, but a legit media outlet should see the receipt before broadcasting it.
The fact that nobody has seen the tip makes a fake possible.
For instance, if a Christian ran into KMBC and said they were discriminated against when the employer they interviewed with wrote them a letter stating that the job-seeker would not be considered as the employer thought that "Christians were immoral, lied all the time and were bigots." You don't think KMBC would ask them to see the letter before reporting? Of course they would. But here is an ABC media/govt/Complex affiliate making a story with only hearsay and not a single shred of evidence or witness (so far). Funny huh?
In some countries, being gay is punishable by death. In Zimbabwe, the President vowed to behead homosexuals. That's more along the lines of what I would consider to be "oppression."
Not being able to marry the person you love in two-thirds of one country (yet)? That's imperfect and unfair, yes. But, I'm not sure I'd call that "oppression." However, by definition, it might be. So, maybe you could use it in this context. I just tend to think of much more serve cases when I think of "oppression."
Oppression doesn't imply severity, it refers to unjust treatment. Sure, beheading people is more serious than denying insurance benefits or allowing employment discrimination, but I don't think that in the pursuit of freedom, we should say, "Well, we don't threaten to cut homosexuals' heads off, so good enough." We are fortunate enough to live in a sufficiently civilized country that we don't threaten to cut anyone's head off, so that's hardly a good metric for determining whether someone is oppressed.
mean wrote:Sure, beheading people is more serious than denying insurance benefits or allowing employment discrimination, but I don't think that in the pursuit of freedom, we should say, "Well, we don't threaten to cut homosexuals' heads off, so good enough."
This concept doesn't solely apply to homosexuals. Any group of people could be denied insurance benefits or employment for a variety of unjust reasons.
mean wrote:Oppression doesn't imply severity, it refers to unjust treatment.
Then a whole lot of other groups are oppressed also.
Last edited by AllThingsKC on Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
harbinger911 wrote:I've only heard 2 reasons why homos (short for homosexual) should be allowed to marry.
1) It's a right.
2) They want full rights and privileges to their "partners" legal benefits.
Are there other reasons? Could a pro-homo-marriage forumer list the (other) reasons?
3) They should have the right to be unhappy as others in marriage.
To be serious, though, I can understand the stance that some have when they say that "God says a marriage is between a man and a woman." Afterall, they are religious and they are following what they believe. Now, there is the issue of are gay people born gay or is it a life choice? I believe they are born gay, much like I was born straight. They will have the same wants and desires to share a life with someone else much like I do. This may sound like something of a "right" but that puts it in a legal sense. I am looking at it more as something that is moral, something that says I am like them and they are like me.
harbinger911 wrote:I've only heard 2 reasons why homos (short for homosexual) should be allowed to marry.
1) It's a right.
2) They want full rights and privileges to their "partners" legal benefits.
Are there other reasons? Could a pro-homo-marriage forumer list the (other) reasons?
They want the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the consenting adults in the US. The court case has been mostly fought about benefits, but that seems to be a secondary benefit to the primary benefit of being able to be married because you love someone and you're both consenting adults.
Like AKP, I believe this is something a person is born with. I have yet to hear a compelling case against gay marriage, though the religious arguments don't rate much with me as I'm borderline atheist.
harbinger911 wrote:I've only heard 2 reasons why homos (short for homosexual) should be allowed to marry.
1) It's a right.
2) They want full rights and privileges to their "partners" legal benefits.
Are there other reasons? Could a pro-homo-marriage forumer list the (other) reasons?
They want the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the consenting adults in the US. The court case has been mostly fought about benefits, but that seems to be a secondary benefit to the primary benefit of being able to be married because you love someone and you're both consenting adults.
Like AKP, I believe this is something a person is born with. I have yet to hear a compelling case against gay marriage, though the religious arguments don't rate much with me as I'm borderline atheist.
And really, the "born with it" debate doesn't matter as far as marriage. We allow people of diffferent religious faiths marry, despite religion being a choice.
"Being born with it" is more in line with people of different races. Don't forget, it wasn't too long ago some states did not allow marriage between races. So it does matter for sake of comparison.
With regards to marriage and choice of religion my memory may not be accurate but I seem to remember there were some states that did have laws concerning marriage and religion, like between a Catholic and a Protestant.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:"Being born with it" is more in line with people of different races. Don't forget, it wasn't too long ago some states did not allow marriage between races. So it does matter for sake of comparison.
With regards to marriage and choice of religion my memory may not be accurate but I seem to remember there were some states that did have laws concerning marriage and religion, like between a Catholic and a Protestant.
Yes, and all those laws were repealed, and rightfully so.
