typicallyspanish.com

Remember the Glaswegian firemen. Whatever happened to freedom of choice in this politically correct world?

It should be up to the restaurant proprietors who they serve and don't in their establishment NOT the Politically Correct Zealots at the Town Hall. Millions lost their lives in countless wars defending the right of free speech and action and now this pair having stirred up a hornets nest don't want it to reach the courts.The easiest answer was simply to book the reception elsewhere but then they neither get the story or attention they so badly get off on!

Yes Patrick very reasonable thinking...

So according to your logic Free Speech = The right not to serve Black people in your restaurant? According to you that's what my grandfather died for fighting in world war II? Nice.

Patrick is quite right. However, North,you are polarizing the argument. It is wrong to object to black per se, I grant you, but a bunch of crackhead Rastas from Brixton armed with Uzis are not everyone's ideal wedding guests and neither are white ASBOS from New Addington (see today's Daily Mail).
As the UK pub landlord said years ago on slinging gipsies out of a meeting in a room rented at his pub:'' Nobody told me it was gipsies, they said it was to do with human rights''.

As far as I'm concerned when you open a restaurant you open it to the public, which includes all types of people. As long as your patrons behave accordingly, don't interfere with other patrons and pay their bill why would you deny them entrance to your restaurant?

As far as I'm concerned it's just wrong to tell someone "you can't come in and eat here " based on their sexual preference, race, gender, ethnic origin, hairstyle or whatever. If that makes me a "politically correct zealot" for thinking that way then so be it.

Yep, we here in the US know all about "rights" for who can get served in restaurants. It's absolutely wrong to give in to bigotry and discrimination against that gay wedding party and the restaurant owners should be fined.

So, if I want to graze goats in someones restaurant, the owner better let me do it or Ill sue. Wicked!

Gwilym, since when are the guests of a wedding party comparable to "a bunch of crackhead Rastas from Brixton armed with Uzis?" You are demonstrating the essence of bigotry in its purest form. There is no mention or discussion of anything other than the wedding party is same sex--no discussion of individual character at all, and yet you are willing to defend denial of equal service. Says a lot about you.

Good, I'm glad they were fined. It's pure 100% discrimination and bigotry. There should be nothing to disagree here with. Discrimination is wrong and it won't be tolerated.

If it is ok to refuse service to gaymen, then it is ok to refuse service to muslims, women, black people, disabled people..

There really isnt an issue, as a publican can refuse service WITHOUT a reason.. and thats ok.

But once you do it because of a single reason it becomes discriminatory.
this is where anti-discrimination laws wil strugle , but its somethign that must be ironed out.

Bob, get real. You make yourself out to be an idiot. . .either that or a bigot who disagrees with discrimination laws and the protection they give to people who might otherwise be victims of bigotry.

Why would you want to feed your goat in a restaurant anyway or are you trying to say that gays should be treated the same as goats?

It's a good thing restaurants don't discriminate against idiots or most of you wouldn't be eating out much.

Freedom of choice??? You're going to let restaurant owners chose who they hate, who they dislike, who's lifestyles they don't agree with? Be careful of letting people wrap their freedom of speech around bigotry. The next person they refuse service to might be...you.

You're using a faulty premise, Bob. Grazing goats has nothing to do with the rights of all human beings.

This restaurant is held to human rights laws and standards of practice and is required to serve those who can pay and who provide this business with their custom. Since EU laws forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, this business violated human rights laws. Attempts at distracting readers from understanding that this is an illegal act reek of religious ideology with its roots in the Dark Ages.

I find it a bit alarming that terms like "Politically Correct Zealots", comparisons to goats or gun wielding gangs to a couple who is keeping the issue in perspective -- i.e. they are hesitant to have the courts involved because of their concern for restaurant's employees.

Public accomodation laws protect everyone. Could you imagine the howls of protest if the restaurant asked a group of Christians to leave after they started praying before the start of their meal?

Allow me to advance the radical notion that it isn't automatically wrong to discriminate. There IS such a thing as freedom of association. And while I may think it offensive or illogical to refuse paying customers based on such irrelevant criteria as sexual preference, the rights of the gay couple in question do NOT supercede the rights of the restaurant owners to choose with whom they do business. The owners' refusal does not deny the couple's rights to seek another venue.

Nick, while I fully appreciate your moral opprobrium of bigotry one wonders if you would apply your denunciation of discrimination across the board. Would you support a robe-wearing Ku Klux Klansman's right to attend synagogue? Or maybe an unveiled Christian woman's right to wear a cross in a mosque? Or a boy to join the Girl Scouts? Private institutions MUST retain the right to set the rules of admission, whether those institutions are places of worship, youth groups or restaurants. To deny that right is to make private institutions public, placing them at the whim of politics and politicians.

Whither freedom?

Shlomo

Shlomo, the examples you provide are not covered by the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public accomodations include restrooms, hotels, restaurants, etc.

Many of US laws currently support such freedom of associations and protect private groups. For example, the US Supreme Court already ruled that Boy Scouts could bar gays from joining, hence the freedom of association you discuss is upheld. Accordingly, the Girl Scouts may ban boys. A Klansman may try to enter a synagogue but if his intention is to disrupt, he may be asked to leave. Frankly, I don't know of any Klansman who would do that by himself since the very nature of the hood is cowardice. Anyway, I agree with you that some private institutions require protection, however, I do not believe a restaurant falls into that category. Thank you for listening.

Barring someone from your home and barring someone from your restaurant are two very different things. If you own a restaurant then I would think you're out to make a buck; a living and cash is GREEN! It's not gay, black, disabled, fat or otherwise.

If you're out to make a political statement or through your actions express your prejudices, biases, or whatever they may be then maybe dealing with the public isn't the best thing for you.

Thing is this...! Being human and considering human nature; we all pre-judge other people and have biases! I interact with the public on a daily basis thru work and there's certain people, types, I would prefer not interact with: based on level of education, way of speaking, type of work/job the person performs, income, attitude, politics, religious beliefs; to name just a couple.

These things are important to me since I am an atheist, Hispanic, gay male. I assume that there are people that may not want to have anything to do with me for the same reasons and I'm OK with that but you have to respect people.

There are ways to not have to interact with people with whom you want nothing to do with and if you're forced into that position then you get through it and be done with it.

You can bar an overweight person from your buffet restaurant, or try and charge double. You can refuse service to blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. You can deny to offer accommodations to disabled persons. You can put a sign on the front of your restaurant that says "STRAIGHTS ONLY"!

Essentially, are you in business to make a living?! What do those things say about YOU? What do they say about US as a society if we were to allow these things to happen?!

I can only try and be 'respectful'; not PC. Those are very different things as well. But just because I may not invite a certain type of person into my home doesn't mean I'd try and bar them from my place of business.

The things we do to each other.!

Dionicio, The idiot is you. Your so concerned with being on the politically correct side of life that you forego any fairness in this matter. Firstly, you appear to represent the rights of the victim here but ignore the pub owner. If the owner does not agree with the people that are in his establishment, does he not have a right to voice his disagreement at the peril of losing business. In your socialist, nazi viewpoint, the pub owner must bow to his/her political pressure or express his/her obviously deep seated feelings. I personally dont have a problem with any person let alone make an issue about sexual preference, but I also dont blatantly disrespect those that do.

Lucy,
I happen to think that my premise is accurate. Obviously gays and goats have nothing in common and the fact that I have to explain that indicates both your and Dioncio's inablity to analyze this fairly. The pub owners right to self expression to both of you is irrelivant. I think thats sad. You are the guardians of the PC world. Someday you will understand the principles which you clearly think your an expert but sadly your both just bigots of a different kind.

Bob,
Grow up. It has nothing to do with political correctness (an overused, shopworn term overused by underused, shopworn minds). A restaurant is a public accomodation, just like a hotel or any other number of businesses. When you choose to operate any of those businesses, you should be acquainted with the rules regarding their operation. If you don't like the rules, find another business. If the operators of this restaurant or that pub want to discriminate against customers, they are perfectly welcome to establish a private supper club or a private drinking club. Until then, they have to open their doors to whoever wishes to patronize them and can afford to. Your equation of my right to get a meal with your alleged desire to graze goats in the middle of a restaurant is typical, juvenile crap. You should come to America, there's a big future for you in the Republican Party.

malcontent,
wow. Grow up. Thats a well thought out rebuttal. If you are in America then you would be alittle more familiar with freedom of association regarding this particular issue. I guess in your socialist perspective, no restaurant is private unless you, what? post it somewhere? Close the door? Print out a disclaimer? Juvenile crap? Wow. You really told me sharp guy.

Speaking of overused, (I'm still not sure where you got shopworn, a 1890's dictionary?) if this is a discrimination issue then is the government also discriminating against the pub? Where does it stop? Is the central issue whether you value the rights of a private property owner in a public business? He may be deeply religious and feels strongly about his opinion. Doesnt a pub owner have a right to fail if he/she wants to serve people selectively? I happen to have a lot of gay friends and am sensitive to their plight but, you (malcontent) cannot help but take a PC side and appear to have no ability to see both sides with fairness.

Bob? Socialist? Oh, ouch! Next thing, you'll be calling me a Commie. The answer to your question regarding private property owners in public business is No, I don't value their private property rights over their public business requirements. They have an alternative. If they find the requirements of operating a public business too onerous, they can establish a private business with a membership they pre-screen. If you had your way, everyone would be forced to go from door to door looking for drinks and food based on who knows what criteria? Or would you prefer business operators just post signs at the entrance describing who is welcome and who is not? We had that in America and the result was that a considerable number of our minority population was left with little or no choice in where they could shop, eat, travel and live. They were essentially prisoners in their own home. Most of us decided back in the Sixties that that was a lousy idea, and a considerable number of us were injured or killed in the process of getting rid of that system.

In the U.S., where private property is one of our organizing principles, the rights of the property owner must always be weighed against the rights of his neighbors. We have zoning and environmental laws to ensure that one property owner doesn't decide he would like to open an auto repair store, a bar or a pizza place in a residential area, thereby driving the value of his neighbor's properties down and infringing on their rights to protect their investment. We have laws regarding the operation of businesses to insure that our pulblic life works as smoothly as possible. When it comes to business, the consensus is that discrimination based on one's taste in people is a hindrance to the conduct of commerce. One is, however, more than welcome to discriminate against anyone one wishes in one's social life. The restaurant/pub/whatever owner is not required to allow anyone he finds objectionable into his home and no explanation is required.

malcontent, Maybe you should read the story. Comparing patrons going door to door to find where they can eat, travel and live is not what happened here. This was a pre-planned function. Your knowledge of civil rights enforcement is lacking. Sexual preference discrimination is not protected under US law. You seen so informed but can you spell the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964????????????? You may want to Google it before you spout off about a subject that your idealism prevents you from understanding. And by the way, here you go, "Commie!" You feel better? If it quacks, it might just be a duck.

Clarification, sexual orientation is not a protected category under US law. Look it up yourself.....I can walk you through it if you run into difficulties.

Bob, thanks for the free diagnosis; my "idealism" is interfering with my ability to grasp basic legal and ethical concepts. What you call "idealism" is something I call basic common sense. But it seems to be increasingly rare.

Being a homosexual myself, I'm fairly well-acquainted with the protections I enjoy as well as the rights I'm deprived of under Federal law. I'm sure you're aware that my legal status varies from state to state and municipality to municipality, right?

Okay, so these guys wanted to throw a big ol' gay party to celebrate their Committment to Depravity. And the restaurant found that objectionable. Okay, so we say that because it's a planned event, etc. etc. the restauranteur can pass on the booking because he finds the reason for the celebration (or the people conducting the celebration) objectionable. But assuming none of the celebrants plan to rape the staff or the owner, or to finalize the ceremony with a mass orgy, what's objectionable? What's objectionable is what is in the owner's mind, and that has nothing to do with what will presumably occur in his restaurant. So, what's the owner's beef? He wants to discriminate against a group of people based on criteria which have no effect on his health or safety or the health or safety of his business. Unless of course, his core customer base is made up of similiarly small-minded individuals who would boycott his business for ethical conduct and for obeying the law.

But let's say we grant the restauranteur the ability to prevail in this one situation because it involves a planned event. Where does the discrimination stop? Does the restaurant have the right to refuse dinner reservations from gay people as well? A dinner reservation could certainly be construed as a planned event. And then, where do we go? Gay walk-ins are allowed as long as they don't seem to nelly?

I think we're pretty much back to the door-to-door scenario here, babe. Oh, yeah, would you mind explaining what aspect of my position on this is Communistic?

I have one more question. Bob? or is it Ann, or Michelle or Jonah or Laura? Why, when I get into discussions like these online does it always feel like I'm arguing with the same person no matter where the posting is? I mean, when I look at postings closer to my side of the aisle, I can always detect stylistic, tonal, and intellectual differences, but when I look at postings from "Conservatives" it's always the same tone, the same style, the same insults and an identical thought process.

It's all so uniform. Are you sure you're all actually different people?

Good rebuttal.







Not.

Actually, let me respond even though your resorting to insults is never appealing. (Im surprised that as a gay person you wouldnt be sensitive to this.)But back to the issue. Firstly, you feel that your perspective is most important because it is yours. The fact is, as you are sensitive to the issue because you are a homosexual, that must somehow override the owners objections (Im guessing based on his religious beliefs.) Do I share he view? Of course not, but even though I am a Christian, I dont concern myself with peoples lifestyles. In addition, if I was a business owner, I wouldnt give a large rats hairy butt what kind of people were in my restraurant unless they ran out without paying. After all, he is in business to make money and if his clientele are also sensitive of this issue, he may have some other interest that we are not aware of. But, for you to disrespect his beliefs because you think that yours is a larger issue shows that you share the insensitivity that you hate about us evil "conservatives". You want everyone to be treated equally....unless...of course....they dont share your political/lifestyle/religious (or lack of) beliefs. I also find that surprising that as an intelligent person, you cant see that.
So,in your attempt to to claim the rights that you should enjoy as an American, you have forsaken the rights of another. Does he have a choice to fail or not for being a bigot? Yes. That is the beauty of America.
Have some compassion, get thicker skin, dont go back to a restaurant that you feel slighted in, tell your friends, and stop complaining.

the restarant belongs to the restaurant owner therefore he has the right to choose who goes in. people are accepting gays too much in my view they should all get lined up and shot

Bob, Why you would feel insulted eludes me, unless it's just that you don't like being compared to women.

Now as far as my "feelings" about my perspective. I don't think you really know what me "feelings" are, and in fact, I've kept my "feelings" out of this discussion. But since you're interested, I will share my "feelings" with you. My "feelings" about other people's approval are thus: If you wait for everyone's approval to start living your life, you will never have a life. I can't understand why anyone would take the time to approve or disapprove of me and my life anymore than I have anything to say about how people live theirs. The only time other people's "moral" decisions are of any interest to me is when they present me with a hindrance to the conduct of my own life or others to the conduct of theirs, or, if they contain something that may result in an enhancement of the quality of mine. Meaning that occasionally one is blessed to run across someone who has a fresh perspective to share - a perspective which may enhance one's own moral development.

As far as my "sensitivity" to what I feel is this capricious exclusion policy on your part? I'm sensitive to, Bob, not because I'm a homosexual, but because I'm a human being. In this particular instance, it was my group who was discriminated against. But it's not always the case. There is religious discrimination, ethnic discrimination, economic discriminatation, appearance discrimination. And while there are instances in which discrimination is valid, those instancs are few and far between when it comes to public accomodations in my view.

I bring a somewhat unique perspective to this because while I'm a homosexual, I'm also a white, educated male who can pass for heterosexual though I choose not to. Meaning pretty much all doors are open to me unless I let on that I'm gay.

Now, one thing you said here I find very curious. You say that "even though" you're a Christian, you don't concern yourself with people's lifestyles. What does being a Christian have to do with this? If you think back to your New Testament, Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality. Nothing, Bob. He has plenty to say about helping the poor (something most folks who call themselves Christians conveniently ignore) but nothing to say about homosexuality. In fact, much of Christ's message seems to be "stop worrying about your neighbor's moral health, we each have plenty to do just keeping our own front yards clean." It would seem to me that in keeping with Christ's instructions to "Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself," you wouldn't concern yourself with my "lifestyle" (actually, I prefer a "life" to a "lifestyle") BECAUSE you'rea Christian.

I actually don't hate "evil conservatives." I actually admire people who live their Faith - whatever that Faith may be. What I dislike are hypocrites. What I dislike are people who try and victimize people like me, and others, while their own personal and publicl lives are sewers of deception and hypocrisy. What I dislike are people who, rather than follow Christ as he actually was, remake him in their own image and likeness and then proclaim themselves "Christians." I dislike people who, rather than see the constantly expanding and evolving state of Human Knowlege as part of God's continuing revealing process, see it instead as a contradiction to their limited, human attempts to stuff God into some kind of can where he can be retailed and consumed like instant spaghetti. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is free to practice whatever religion they like - as long as they don't interfere with other people responsibly conducting their own lives.

Maybe it's because I had the benefit of being raised Catholic by parents who saw their main duty as one of teaching us kids that we had a responsibility as Christians to try and leave the world a better, more Just place than we found it. That if God was good to us, we had a responsibility to share what we had been given with those who had been given less, and that no human being deserved to be mistreated. All such stupid, mundane, naive stuff in today's world.

But enough about my moral and religious beliefs, I only share them because you shared the fact that you're a Christian. It's my opinion that these things don't matter in the context of this discussion, which is really about how Society can operate most efficiently and with as little rancor as possible.

I must say, though, that you really have some serious stones telling me to get a thicker skin and to have some compassion. I'd love to hear of an instance in which white Christian males have been discriminated against in any meaningful way in America or anywhere else for that matter. Insert your rant against Affirmative Action here:

Wow. Setting me up for my post. How convenient. But, although I agree with some of what you said, you stated that Homosexuality is not discussed in the Bible, but I think Sodom and Gomorea is where some Bible scholars get their ideas. I dont know. Maybe you should ask a priest. As far as white Christian males being discriminated against....well I'm sure if you were Irish at the turn of the century you would probably feel slighted. But, I think that your mention of Afirmative Action proves to me that you dont mind discrimination if it applies to a protected class that you agree with. Unfortunatly, the pub owner was probably a white male and apparently has money soooooo...he gets what he has coming to him. Imagine if he was a gay pub owner and felt that not having the fortitude to "come out" he didnt want to offend the sensibilities of the neighborhood that he does business in. I wonder if you would not only change your mind but rethink your untruthfullness of not being yourself to your friends and family. I think that you are solidifing what I think your perspective is.
I....am also a Catholic.....but dont believe most of the doctrines of the church. I believe that the church is corrupt, aspires at wealth and is hypocritical. I follow Jesus's teachings exactly how you explained them but never discuss them with others. (Except in this occasion.)
Back to the subject though, as far as doors opened to you because your gay, in this day and age, I believe that very few people care about your orientation unless they feel unconfortable with overt femaninaty (sp?). (Not my opinion, just an observation) I still believe that you have a more powerful tool to overcome problems like those that occurred at the pub. Its your business and the business of those that would have attended. And, I still believe that to punish a person, presumably because of his religious beliefs is still as wrong as it would be to punish you for your "lifestyle" (or life as you put it. As I am married, I dont have a problem calling marriage my "lifestyle" but....thats me. I have very thick skin.

People should be allowed to run their own private institutions. A restaurant is not public, like some of you claim. Laws should not restrict basic freedoms.