You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_12790543

EL PASO -- Two gay men kissed at a Chico's Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

That same year, the El Paso City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.

Hmmm..

I wouldn't want to be those guys.







Or the cops, either.

Stunning. What century is it?

Cadet57 wrote:Stunning. What century is it?

Doesn't matter what century it is, time has no effect on people not acting within socially accepted norms and/or the laws of the moment.

What do you think public sentiment would be on this story down there, Queso? I have this vision of a bunch of people going, HEEEL YEAH!, but that is nothing but a preconceived notion. Whats the truth?

jpetekUA777 wrote:What do you think public sentiment would be on this story down there, Queso? I have this vision of a bunch of people going, HEEEL YEAH!, but that is nothing but a preconceived notion. Whats the truth?

I'm almost 300 miles from El Paso so I'm not sure exactly how it's going there, but I can tell you the same type of thing has happened here and got a mention on the local TV news, it got bit bigger story in the local newspaper with a lot of the vocal "underworld" people commenting about it on the newspaper's website, but overall stories such as this one tend to just fade away quickly without much public attention. Other than those who are friends of the close-knit circle gays have here, issues involving them really don't get much discussion between people. I know that's unfortunate, but that's just how it is. There is no public uproar when things go wrong such as happened in this story.

As far as "bunch of people going, HEEEL YEAH!" publicly.... well, we're not quite as heartless as some might think here. While there won't be a public uproar about it, there also wouldn't be any public support of it either.

Privately, it's a different manner. You're "vision" is not only close to the truth, it's probably a bit more innocuous than most people's thoughts and private discussions between themselves. For instance, you might overhear a couple of people talking to each other in a post office about it, and most of what you would hear would be "shocking" for people in, say, San Francisco.

I hope that answers your question.

A whole lot of story for not a whole lot of event.

As much as it sucks for some people, a private business can kick you out for just about anything. Yeah, the security guards are dicks and they'll probably end up spending a rediculous amount in legal fees (and get fired by their company)... and the cop clearly needs better training to know that homosexual conduct isn't illegal in Texas anymore, and didn't cover kissing when it was...

Vote with your wallet.

Thanks for the insight, Queso.

Looks like redneck is more offensive to people than this!

That's because people here could careless about something that's 800 miles away from them.
It takes a day to drive to El Paso.

jpetekUA777 wrote:Looks like redneck is more offensive to people than this!

Oddly, the lack of discussion here might be because no one is defending this as being acceptable...

Does Chico's mainly have fish tacos? I know for a fact that gay me do not like fish tacos so i call BS.

Its a private business. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, or race. They are allowed to kick anyone they want out for their actions though. Would they go to a Mormon bookstore, kiss, and scream bloody murder when they get kicked out?


They should call for a ban with the local L&G community. They have a right to that.

The restaurant has a right to kick them out for kissing.

Its pretty common for groups to mistakenly assume that they are the only ones being discriminated against as well.

Remember the lass who was thrown off SW Airlines for what she was wearing? Guess what, that's within their rights.

There have been plenty of straight couples kicked out of private establishments for making out as well. Some business owners do not like it in their place at all.

For that matter, were they slipping each other the tongue graphically? Disneyland kicks straight couples out for that and is very accomodating to gays.

If in fact the security officers were acting within the power of owner, then the police officer was enforcing the law. If they were asked to leave a private business, they legally have to leave.

What are people complaining about here?

Fumanchewd wrote:Its a private business. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, or race. They are allowed to kick anyone they want out for their actions though. Would they go to a Mormon bookstore, kiss, and scream bloody murder when they get kicked out?

I think you mean to say allowed. But none the less, there is a city ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Do you think they'd kick out a straight couple for a kiss?

Aside from the ordinance, and any legal matters, that is just absolutely shameful, that kind of blatant discrimination. What, they have a policy of no homo-PDA allowed, give me a break. If that kind of thing doesn't trouble you, I don't know what to say. Land of the bigots, home of the discrimination, i guess. No legal argument there, just a personal opinion and a very moral and just one, I think.

Fumanchewd wrote:Remember the lass who was thrown off SW Airlines for what she was wearing? Guess what, that's within their rights.

Policy on inappropriate attire. I would like to hear the restaurants justification for this on the basis of policy. Something perhaps more substantive than the previous explanation of not wanting "that faggot stuff" in his restaurant.

Fumanchewd wrote:There have been plenty of straight couples kicked out of private establishments for making out as well. Some business owners do not like it in their place at all.

For that matter, were they slipping each other the tongue graphically? Disneyland kicks straight couples out for that and is very accomodating to gays.

That is true. The story says "a simple kiss" but we can't really be sure. But if they have a policy or problem with kissing or PDA in their restaurant, maybe thats a better answer than: we don't want "that faggot stuff", eh?

Fumanchewd wrote:If in fact the security officers were acting within the power of owner, then the police officer was enforcing the law. If they were asked to leave a private business, they legally have to leave.

The police officers were completely ignorant of the law.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public.

Fumanchewd wrote:What are people complaining about here?

Oh... nothing, you know, just the usual

-Cops having no clue about the law and telling gays it was illegal for them to kiss in public. That wasn't true there becore Lawrence v. Texas, and it sure as hell ain't true now.
-Security guards calling them faggots during the event and reportedly "As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them".

But other than the disgusting discriminatory policy, violation of city ordinance, complete police incompetence on lawful matters, and downright asshole behavior by restaurant employees, nothing really.. please, you're really asking the question what people are complaining about?

Regardless of whether the police office knew the law or not, he was still following the law by having them leave.

Fumanchewd wrote:Its a private business. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, or race. They are allowed to kick anyone they want out for their actions though. Would they go to a Mormon bookstore, kiss, and scream bloody murder when they get kicked out?

Do you think they'd kick out a straight couple for a kiss? Quite possibly. I've seen straights being told that their PDAs are not allowed in private establishments. You could google this and see plenty of hetero examples. Whether its not allowed in this restaurant, I am not sure. What I am sure of is that it wouldn't be in the news and people wouldn't be upset if its happened 100 times in this restaurant. It would seem to me that there is a good chance that this couple decided they were going to be provocative in this establishment. It wouldn't surprise me if they got the homophobic vibe and kissed. It is their right. It is also the right of the owner and his representatives to kick them out.

jpetekUA777 wrote:Aside from the ordinance, and any legal matters, that is just absolutely shameful, that kind of blatant discrimination. What, they have a policy of no homo-PDA allowed, give me a break. If that kind of thing doesn't trouble you, I don't know what to say. Land of the bigots, home of the discrimination, i guess. No legal argument there, just a personal opinion and a very moral and just one, I think.

You don't know that it is selectively for homos only. Its definitely a possibility but it is still in his legal right to kick them out based on their actions, not who they are. But of course you have morality and justice on your side.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:Remember the lass who was thrown off SW Airlines for what she was wearing? Guess what, that's within their rights.

Policy on inappropriate attire. I would like to hear the restaurants justification for this on the basis of policy. Something perhaps more substantive than the previous explanation of not wanting "that faggot stuff" in his restaurant.

From what I remember, the lady did not break any specific rules, just ambiguous rules. It seems similar situations to me. Its the moral perspective of a private business. In that case it was against a heterosexual women for her dress. They kicked her off for her dress. In this case it is for a gay couple kissing. Legally, they can kick them out for kissing.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:There have been plenty of straight couples kicked out of private establishments for making out as well. Some business owners do not like it in their place at all.

For that matter, were they slipping each other the tongue graphically? Disneyland kicks straight couples out for that and is very accomodating to gays.

That is true. The story says "a simple kiss" but we can't really be sure. But if they have a policy or problem with kissing or PDA in their restaurant, maybe thats a better answer than: we don't want "that faggot stuff", eh?

We don't know either way. Now what if a straight couple was kissing in DL, added a little tongue, and was kicked out? During one of DL's gay nights a gay couple kisses in the same manner but is not kicked out. Security guards may expect it to happen on gay night and even may be a little frightened of a backlash for kicking them out. Is this discrimination or just a good business decision by a company. I think the latter. It is their right and I would support them.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:If in fact the security officers were acting within the power of owner, then the police officer was enforcing the law. If they were asked to leave a private business, they legally have to leave.

The police officers were completely ignorant of the law.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public.

Despite the officer's ignorance of the law, he was still enforcing the law by correctly having them leave at the insistence of the business's hired security guards. Ultimately his actions were legally correct despite his idiocy and bigoted viewpoint.

jpetekUA777 wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:What are people complaining about here?

Oh... nothing, you know, just the usual

-Cops having no clue about the law and telling gays it was illegal for them to kiss in public. That wasn't true there becore Lawrence v. Texas, and it sure as hell ain't true now.
-Security guards calling them faggots during the event and reportedly "As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them".

But other than the disgusting discriminatory policy, violation of city ordinance, complete police incompetence on lawful matters, and downright asshole behavior by restaurant employees, nothing really.. please, you're really asking the question what people are complaining about?

[/quote]

umm, you completely ignored the business's rights and the fact that we don't know important details in your summary. Does the business allow straights to make out? Was the gay couple acting inappropriately and provoking the situation only to cry wolf? You do not know for a fact that the policy was discriminatory, but like the media you are on the wagon. Look up straight couples who have been kicked out of places in a judgemental fashion as well and then do us all a favor and tone it down a notch.

Didn't take long to find an apologist. I'm not surprised.

Click Click D'oh wrote:
Oddly, the lack of discussion here might be because no one is defending this as being acceptable...

Spoke too soon!

Fumanchewd wrote:You don't know that it is selectively for homos only. Its definitely a possibility but it is still in his legal right to kick them out based on their actions, not who they are.

Fumanchewd wrote:They kicked her off for her dress. In this case it is for a gay couple kissing. Legally, they can kick them out for kissing.

Fumanchewd wrote:Do you think they'd kick out a straight couple for a kiss? Quite possibly. I've seen straights being told that their PDAs are not allowed in private establishments.

Fumanchewd wrote: Is this discrimination or just a good business decision by a company. I think the latter. It is their right and I would support them.

Fumanchewd wrote:umm, you completely ignored the business's rights and the fact that we don't know important details in your summary. Does the business allow straights to make out? Was the gay couple acting inappropriately and provoking the situation only to cry wolf? You do not know for a fact that the policy was discriminatory, but like the media you are on the wagon. Look up straight couples who have been kicked out of places in a judgemental fashion as well and

I'll make this really simple.

What part of

De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that faggot stuff" in the restaurant.

don't you understand?

We don't have have to analyze the policy about kissing from the establishment, we can take it from the horses mouth. They didn't say there was no kissing, they said there was no 'faggot stuff'. Is that not against the city ordinance against discrimination based on sexual orientation since it appears that it's not about actions like kissing, its about who is doing the kissing, hence discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? And you're also going to tell me the police could comprehend this policy when they think it is illegal for homosexuals to kiss in PUBLIC?! If they think that, they sure as damn well will think it's illegal to do it in a restaurant.

And your crap about 'good business decision'... what a joke. Wrong and unlawful on many levels. Hey, maybe they can put in a colored section in the place too, go all out. And i'm not surprised to see you're the one to play apologist and try to justify this. I can't imagine what kind of situation like this it would take for you to side with homosexuals on a gay civil rights issue.

Ridiculous, but not at all surprising.

Look, there are plenty of other conservatives and other that can be objective in this thread.. perfectly able and willing to see a frivolous attempt to stir the pot, and always ready to be behind the rights of private business.

But no one has sided with the restaurant here. They can read and interpret the law and can see by the actions of the staff this is a crystal clear example of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Take their lead, stow your prejudice, and call a spade a spade.

I guess to clarify my point I would say that the security guards and cop are obviously homophobic.

But to imply that the couple was kicked out because they were homophobic seems to be missing a logical step.

As an example, lets say that an obese couple was making out in the Taco Shop. Its the best place to make out! Now the shop has a general policy that they kick out people who make out in their shop. The guards tell them to leave and while waiting for the cops they call them derogatory names concerning their weight. The cop comes in and tells them that fat people are not allowed to kiss within 2500 feet of a school and there is one across the street so them must leave.

Despite the fact that the guards are aholes and the cop was wrong, they are still following a general policy to remove people that are making out. From this particular article it is very likely that this was discriminatory, but there is no evidence and more is needed. Then we have the media and people who emotionally react to these types of things point out, "Look, the guards and the cops are discriminatory. They are bigots!". This may be true, but it does not mean that the business didn't have the right to kick out the couple.

Capiche?

jpetekUA777 wrote:Look, there are plenty of other conservatives and other that can be objective in this thread.. perfectly able and willing to see a frivolous attempt to stir the pot, and always ready to be behind the rights of private business.

But no one has sided with the restaurant here. They can read and interpret the law and can see by the actions of the staff this is a crystal clear example of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Take their lead, stow your prejudice, and call a spade a spade.

Don't judge me. I am certainly not a conservative and I am being objective. You are emotionally jumping to conclusions and because I disagree with that, you dare call me a bigot? Thats BS and you know where you can shove your spade.

You are the one in need of objectivity as you DON'T KNOW THE FACTS YET. I don't goosestep with you so I am naturally wrong?!

If they feel that way about kissing, they really screwed the pooch in that regard by giving an explanation of "faggot stuff" and not PDA policy. Also, what restaurant would kick someone out for one kiss? If they really had a problem with that, they would ask the people to stop and give them a warning. All reports say this was a one time thing. It's not an action based decision if that is applied only to people of a certain sexual orientation, then it becomes about that and not the action.

I appreciate the clarification about the condemnation of the guard behavior, I was just really put off by your reply of "what are people complaining about here?" Even if you think everything was completely lawful and all, I still think there would be something to complain about here.

jpetekUA777 wrote: And you're also going to tell me the police could comprehend this policy when they think it is illegal for homosexuals to kiss in PUBLIC?!

Besides the fact that you have attacked me without responding to my points, you are clearly confused by these issues. It was in public but not in public property. There is a difference.

Fumanchewd wrote:
Besides the fact that you have attacked me without responding to my points, you are clearly confused by these issues. It was in public but not in public property. Their is a difference.

How am i not responding to your points? I am trying to.

I know it was a private place there is a difference. My point is, if the police think its illegal to do public, they're going to think its even more egregious to do so in a private business, particularly in this instance. If they think that, how the hell are they going to know what they're talking about when addressing the lawfulness of this and the local regulations that apply?

Honestly.. The cops played it wrong.

They would have been far better off calling it Disorderly Conduct if someone was truly offended by it. I would say two guys kissing could maybe fall under "obscene gesture"

Cut them a ticket, get the information of the reporting person.. Let the court figure it out.

Welcome to Texas.. What plays just fine in downtown Austin won't fly in the more rural parts.

captoveur wrote:Welcome to Texas.. What plays just fine in downtown Austin won't fly in the more rural parts.

True... very true.

It's a damn shame that people can't do what the hell they want to do with their own private businesses/establishments. If I own something, and I lay down a rule about it, I'm going to enforce it. If it offends some group of people, they can just choose not to patronize my business. If I want to throw you out of my business jsut because I don't like you... guess what? I pay the bills, I own (or rent) the building, I make the rules. STFU or GTFO. Some business owners would rather do without the business of some than put up with stuff they dont want to see/hear/whatever on their property.