IHOP Kicks Lesbian Couple Out For Friendly Kiss

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/ihop-kicks-out-lesbian-couple-for.html

IHOP kicks out lesbian couple for friendly kiss
by John Aravosis (DC) · 3/19/2007 01:03:00 PM ET

As the article notes, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations, employment, or anything else. Discrimination against gay Americans is 100% legal under federal law, and in most states. It's a fact. More from the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16913352.htm

COMMENTARY
Lesbian kiss falls flatter than a pancake
By MIKE HENDRICKS
Columnist

- snip -

“It was a kiss I would share with my uncle,” Blair Funk told me. Except it wasn’t her uncle she kissed. It was her honey, Eva Sandoval.

Two young women sharing a kiss didn’t seem inappropriate to the other couple in the restaurant booth that night, Jackie Smith and the woman with whom she shares her life, Toni Smith. But someone watching the scene was offended.

So later, the manager confronted them in the lobby and told them to get out. The way Blair tells it, “He said, ‘I have to tell you, we’ve had some complaints about public displays of affection, and we’re a family restaurant. We can’t accept it, and we won’t accept it.’

- snip -

“Many people are shocked to hear that people can be fired from their jobs for being gay or being perceived to be gay,” says Julie Brueggemann, executive director of the Missouri gay rights group Promo.

MORE AT LINK

A family restaurant which opposes displays of affection??

and I ate at this IHOP many times.

It's a very redneck, truck driving, blue collar area. And VERY conservative. WAY too many churches. Our neighbors were continually bugging us about coming to church with them.

This incident didn't surprise me at all, Hissy. I did post it in the MO forum and no one commented. That surprised me.

:spray:

Let us pray, amen.

loved that one...

God bless!

again.

My SO and I are a bit apart in age, and we get endless crap from tiny minded fucks like this all the time. It seems to have gotten worse since I have had to walk with a cane.

She has watched my body make a sincere effort at dying twice in our ten years, and has been there for me through it all. For more than five of those years I have been disabled.

Love takes its own shape and makes its own rules.
It may seem unlikely or ungainly, but all love is equally sacred.

I say, ridicule it on peril of your soul.

:sarcasm:

...with all its artificial favorings and colorings.

To hell with IHOP and all the other "family-oriented" restaurants that serve up this crap.

...that is a pretty good description of the customers.

IMO, totally out of line what IHOP did. Bunch of up-tight azzholes. I am female and straight and when I have met my friends in a restaurant for a meal, often we hug/kiss hello and good-bye. What's next? Me and my little old senior friends are going to be asked to leave because of a public display of attention? Bullshit on that, IMO. Geeeez, is someone gonna label us as gay and therefore "unacceptable?" This discrimination against gay people is really, really totally out of line. No question about it.

This really angers me ~~ and I can tell ya, IHOP is OFF my list and they are getting an email from me as to why. If friends cannot exchange a friendly hug or kiss in a restaurant, then that is somewhere I do NOT wish to go and spend my money. They can take their pancakes and shove them!

JMHO

Just like any business can refuse service for those who have no shirts or shoes, they can refuse service and ask to leave the premises anyone for any reason.

. . . about them to anyone I want. Which I would think would not be good for business.

they would be well within their rights?

I think it depends if they said they were telling them to leave because they were black, then that might be against the law. But if they told them they had to leave for some other reason, maybe they were being too loud or something, then that would be OK.

leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone.

Would that be discrimination?

I'm not a lawyer but I guess it might be, they have to kick them both out if they are both being loud and obnoxious.

Although legally entitled to kick gay couples out, it is nothing more than discrimination based on their being gay rather than their display of affection. Otherwise they'd kick the heteros out for the same behavior.

The manager is plainly a homophobe, and acted entirely based on his prejudice rather than on policy... even though he used 'policy' as his excuse.

It's just as much bullshit as if he had kicked a black couple out for having noisy kids while ignoring the white folks who let their little shits run rampant.

nt

But it's ok to throw them out because they're gay?

Gay people are not a protected class of persons such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin as written into state and federal law.

In a rational implication, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as with discrimination on the basis of any other gender role, is discrimination on the basis of sex.

just the same as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is protected, then I'd love to read it.

That merely means that judges have, so far, been cowardly in their application of the law, and allowing political concerns to get in the way of their reason.

too. So that discrimination in housing, employment, lodgings, restaurants, etc. is illegal. Sadly right now it's not in most all states, and certainly federally.

I'm saying that it is illegal under the text of the law, and the law is being underenforced out of judicial cowardice (can't be a "judicial activist" by actually doing your job).

I'm pretty sure that our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for ALL U.S. citizens.

Additionally, most forms of discrimination need only meet a rational basis standard of review. For instance, a State discriminating against opticians by providing that they make make lenses only if there is a prescription from an optometrist or ophthalmologist would be in the clear, as far as the Equal Protection Clause is concerned.

This then is also unconstitutional.

It's statutory law, not constitutional law.

The state is giving protection to one group of people and denying it to another. Because it isn't equal protection under the law, the state must either stop enforing title VII type anti-discrimination laws aimed at the private sector or it must guarantee the same rights to homosexuals. It seems pretty clear and obvious to me; although, I must confess, I am not a lwayer. You can not afford legalislative protections to one class of citizens and deny those same protections to another class of citizens. It is forbidden by the sumpreme legislative document of our land, the document that is the very foundation of our country, the document that is supposed to define who and what we are as a nation and a people, and the document that millions and millions of Americans have sworn an oath to uphold and defend even to the death if need be.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While I'm not a lawyer yet, I will be in a little over two years. Interestingly, I'm dealing with the Equal Protection Clause right now in Constitutional Law, as well as Title VII in Employment Discrimination, so two out of my four classes are relevant to this discussion. :D

While I can understand why you would think the Equal Protection Clause means that, it really doesn't. All citizens are protected against discrimination on the basis of race and sex (laws subject to strict and intermediate scrutiny, respectively), but the Equal Protection Clause does not demand that all classes of citizens be treated equally. The archetypal example of this is Williamson v. Lee Optical; Oklahoma had a law preventing opticians from making lenses without a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The Court held that this law, despite discriminating against opticians, did not violate the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Aside from race and sex, all other classifications are subject only to rational basis review - it should be noted that it's nigh impossible for a law to fail to meet the burden that rational basis examination imposes.

Now, you may be wondering why I denounced the current interpretation of Title VII as judicial cowardice, and don't do the same here. There are two reasons for this. First, the understanding of the Equal Protection Clause you propose is really impossible; the government must classify people based on relevant differences and discriminate on the basis of those differences. For instances, the government must have the ability to discriminate on the basis of possession of a medical degree in order to license doctors. Second, unlike the current understanding of Title VII, this understanding of the Equal Protection Clause is consistent with the Court's prior precedent. On the other hand, if one takes existing precedent as given, applying Title VII to discrimination on the basis of gender roles (including sexual orientation) is logically necessary.

Challenging a law under rational basis scrutiny is pretty much impossible... I'm trying to think of a law that's ever been struck down under that standard of review, and coming up empty.

And, also in some municipalities.

Otherwise, the few states and municipalities are nice, but not nearly enough.

I'm agreeing with YOU.

Even if it's legal, shame on them for doing it.

The IHOP manager probably was being ethical within the ethics of his Klan. Ethics is not as absolute as law. It's always relative to the "customes" of a group.

the manager of the IHOP should have understood the "ethics of his Klan" what ever that is, are out of date and that all discrimination is wrong.

Thank you. :-)

in accomodations open to the public. Even if it's private property open to the public.

to kick out a gay couple for the same kiss a hetero couple might share.

Perhaps they will kick the black couple out for having noisy kids while leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone.

Would that be discrimination?

The point is that the discrimination in either case is based on prejudice and not policy.

If they tossed everyone out for a simple kiss, then I would say that it was not discriminatory. But this absolutely was.

Prejudice based on race is clear (it is written into the 14th Amendment), but areas like gay marriage etc. are not. In situations where rights are unenumerated, the court has to decipher whether they exist (e.g. freedom to raise children, to use contraception). Would THIS current Supreme Court find the freedom to engage in homosexual necking in public a right so fundamental that it should be afforded protection? I doubt it. But does this preclude the individual states (or Congress) from passing anti-discriminatory legislation, protecting such individuals? No, the states are free to protect their citizens beyond what the Federal Constitution requires.

We meet at a restaurant, presumably an establishment comparable to IHOP. He embraces me warmly, we greet each-other with a kiss. It is cultural greeting.

We are subsequently kicked out for being two men who kissed.

Sexual orientation is not at issue, but is presumed by the homophobic (and culturally ignorant) manager to be the case.

The issue becomes 'public displays of affection', not sexual orientation.

Does anyone have a 'fundamental right' to engage in moderate displays of affection, and who determines what is 'moderate'?

Now the same display is immoderate when the subjects are the same sex, but moderate when different?

That is the issue the court would have to address, not whether there is a 'fundamental right' to act gay in public.

And yes, I'd be happy to litigate this one.

which would be easier than arguing a 'right to show affection.' Most states have laws in place that protect against religious discrimination. Of course, the manager will argue that he merely kicked you out because he doesn't like anyone kissing, but the discovery and trial process would uncover whether his motives were truly insidious. I think in some muslim cultures it may be part of the religious culture to do such things.

otherwise the religious argument would only apply to those that can show their religion respects or requires such things.

I can see the ultimate solution now;

A new religion, based perhaps on some form of Christianity, that respects and requires homosexual marriage and all implicit 'practices'. LMAO! That would be brilliant!

unless the state has a statute in place that protects against gay discrimination.

America is an isolated exception. No religious angle.

Even counting the IHOP manager's beliefs about what is
moral in the bedroom I fail to see how religion encourages
him to kick people out of his establishment because they
look or act funny. Does he do that to homeless people?
If so, he's actually violating the tenets of his religion.

race is not explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Only equal protection, which is meant (and has been interpreted) to prohibit laws that discriminate based upon race unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

That doesn't apply to discriminatory business practices, housing, or employment (even with regard to race), which are covered by statutory measures like the Civil Rights Act.

So for the type of discrimination we're talking about here, in states where sexual orientation is recognized as a protected category (and it is an inherent trait, btw, not a set of behaviors as you seem to assume), race and sexual orientation are treated by the same area of law.

"No, the states are free to protect their citizens beyond what the Federal Constitution requires."

And that's exactly what has been done with race, gender, and increasingly, sexual orientation.

If those private business actors are deemed "arms of the state," the 14th Amendment WILL apply. Secondly, the 14th Amendment via incorporation of the 13th clearly established race as a protected class. The exact language escaped me. Other than picking on a semantic point, none of what you said rebuts the accurate positions I've portrayed.

Again, race is not specified in the Constitution as a "protected class." It is treated as a protected class under strict scrutiny. In other words, there is room within the constitution to expand equal protection to other categories.

I didn't pick on a semantic point, btw--I pointed out a major misunderstanding in how different types of discrimination are handled under the law. Please reread.

but you're clearly wrong about race. Had the IHOP patron been thrown out because of his race, he doesn't have to appeal to a statute to protect him--he is protected by the Federal Consitution (via the 14th Amendment).

He is protected by statute.

Equal protection does not bind private entities unless they operate under some government authority. You misunderstand the scope of the amendment.

Except he think it sometimes is - as in Loving v Virginia. But not other times - like when referring to same sex couples.

It's nothing new.

The right to marry IS a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court. They haven't, however, held that gay marriage is a fundmental right. In my opinion they will not do so (it is a conservative court). I personally think gay marriage is a fundamental right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The fact that I didn't use the word "civil" is immaterial.

Thank you.

Thank you.

yep.

"they will kick the black couple out for having noisy kids while leaving the white folks and their obnoxious brats alone" then it's racial prejudice, and once again that is against the law.

Thanks.

see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer co., it's the case that generally states the 13th Amendment (Section 2) allows Congress to regulate private behavior. Congress may rationally determine the "badges and incidents of slavery" and the authority to translate that authority into effective legislation. In the example of a restaraunt, discrimination based on race is rationally related to the badges and incidents of slavery, generally speaking.

And it wasn't directly interpreting the 13th Amendment. I dunno where you're getting that from. It was interpreting 42 U.S.C. 1982 (a federal statute relating to property rights).

It has nothing to do with restaurants or behavior in private establishments generally.

to prohibit private racial discrimination.

Of course it was a 1983 action, as are many claims of constitutional infringement. The court held, which you clearly seemed to miss, that a 1983 action applies to prohibit private discrimination and that Congress has the authority under the 13th Amendment to adopt the law. As the decision clearly notes, "Congress has the power under the 13th Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation."

Cases such as Runyon, Patterson and Griffin piggy-bakced Mayer and further elaborated Congress' power under the 13th Amendment. You can read them if you'd like.

Congress had the authority to pass 1982 based on section 2 of the 13th Amendment. 1982. Just to get your terms straight, a 1982 claim is not a claim of "constitutional infringement" (btw, you infringe a right, not a constitution). The Court did not determine that Congress had a broad right to regulate private racial discrimination, only that that particular statute was constitutionally authorized.

Runyon is based on section 1981. Again, statutory. Patterson had to do with the appropriation of funds by a public school board for the purpose of furthering racial discrimination. Irrelevant to this issue.

I don't know how to be any more clear: THE 13TH AMENDMENT GIVES CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PRIVATE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION--AS EVIDENCED BY VOLUMINOUS FEDERAL LAWS (1982 etc.)--CONGRESS GAINS ITS AUTHORITY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--IN THIS CASE THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

But they are statutes that Congress has passed. Just like the many other statutes that Congress passes either based on its enumerated powers or based on similar authorizing provisions of other constitutional amendments.

They are not constitutional provisions, and they don't have any "greater" power by virtue of their legal basis.

In this case, the 13th Amendment awards them the power to pass legislation prohibiting private racial discrimination. There is nothing 'unenumerated' about it.

The 13th Amendment gives Congress the power to effectuate...wait for it...the 13th Amendment, proscribing slavery and its incidents. That is all. It does not give Congress a blank check to regulate all behavior by private individuals deemed racially discriminatory whether in purpose or effect.

Congress's "enumerated powers" are those listed in Article II. You're getting mixed up.

I'm not mixed up at all. The right to free speech, religion, bear arms, be free from slavery and its incidents (13th amendment) are all enumerated rights protected by the Constitution. UNENUMERATED rights are those the court deems "fundamental," i.e. privacy, marriage etc.

Now you're mixing up rights with powers.

Ayayay.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And get back to me.

I think you'd do well there, but you need a little more background. Also, don't overlook "semantics" as you call them. It's a professional hazard. ;)

Enumerated and unenumerated rights are central to a proper analysis of the EPC and DPC.

Well then, as a 2L you should have mastered the difference between rights and powers.

And you should have some grasp of the scope of a particular holding.

You'll get better with practice. ;)

The civil rights laws would make IHOP liable if it were based on race. If has an effect on interstate commerce, so the federal government can regulate this sort of thing by making laws against discrimination, even for private entities.

like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Gay people can also be denied housing and fired. Are you okay with that, too?

there's more important things than your pet issue.

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

...pushing our agenda on people. :rofl:
Lee

a rah-rah siss-boom-bah cheer for it.

Are you referring to other threads? Because I don't see one here.

I'm just being fair. Sometimes, if people just "explain" simple facts on this forum, I've noticed that there are "assumptions" about how people feel with regard to an issue. And sometimes, those assumptions are in error.

I don't know that to be the case in your interactions with the individual in question, but it isn't evident to me from the exchange I am seeing on this thread.

those people get when they get slow service.

Any reason, right?

:eyes:

You can't refuse service to anyone. You can't refuse to serve blacks, etc. And, depending on the state and/or municipality, not gay people, either.

necking in the booths?

The only thing these clowns are objecting to is GAY folk.

And they actually have the law on their side. Sad, innit?

that's one thing.

But this smacks of discrimination.

I doubt they toss a hetero couple for the same offense.

We didn't get thrown out, nor was anything said to us. Hmmm....

On edit - won't be going back to eat there any time soon.

They don't like gay people at that restaurant...that's pretty plain.

And no doubt the national offices, and other franchises, will feel the pain for the actions of that nitwit manager.

Perhaps it will cause the national office to rewrite their restaurant rules, even if the states or feds don't get the spirit.

If they don't want our gay brothers & sisters to eat there, then I won't be eating there either. FUCK 'EM!!! :grr:

ANY kind of discrimination is WRONG. PERIOD. I will NOT patronize ANY establishment that discriminates. They don't want my gay friends there? Well, then they don't want me and my straight dollars either, IMO.

As a lesbian, I get chills every time I see these articles. This could happen to me.

It's so messed up that this shit is still happening in this day and age!

:hug:

If PDA's is OK for the straight folk and verbotten for homosexuals, then I'd call the ejection actionable.

Screw IHOP. Folks should make their own pancakes and waffles at home - its not that hard and they taste better.

at HOME!!!

Cracker Barrel.

Denny's.

IHOP...!!!

they're among my favorites!

:sarcasm:

I'll pass word onto people I know who do like them anyway. Well, who like Cracker Barrel and IHOP. I have never met anyone who actually liked Denny's.

And then serve them cold food, if at all. Or more egregious still, make them pay in advance for shit food and service.

I won't go near them, ever. They're on my permanent "shit list!"

Denny's, the history: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_n9_v26/ai_18132744


McNeal, a 38-year-old school security officer, says he was humiliated when he realized Denny's had a double standard for black and white customers. When he asked for an explanation, a waitress told him black customers had come in before him and refused to pay, so the manager was now insisting that all black patrons pay in advance. "In their eyes we were all black and that was enough," he says.

McNeal's story was echoed by thousands of black customers across the country as Denny's restaurant chain, owned by Flagstar Companies Inc., was cited for rampant incidents of racial discrimination against its black consumers. Denny's agreed to settle thousands of discrimination claims for $46 million. While the total payout seems large, most individuals will receive only a small amount because of the huge number of claims. Approximately 295,000 claimants filed suit, meaning most individuals will receive a check for only $177....

The Cracker Barrel follies: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker-barrel_x.htm


Their stories sound like tales from the pre-civil rights era. Terri Wise, 34, of Charlotte, browsed in a local Cracker Barrel store in 2001. Wise, who is African-American, says a white saleswoman followed her.
When she picked up a doll, as shoppers do, the saleswoman took it from her and put it back on the shelf. The same thing happened with a greeting card. When Wise looked around, she noticed a white patron touching merchandise freely — without supervision.

The Rev. Henry Harris, 55, also African-American, says that at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Arkansas two years ago, he and his family watched for 35 minutes as white diners in parties of the same size who arrived after him were escorted to tables. He wound up in the smoking section "with other African-American patrons," even though he had requested non-smoking and tables were open there. When he appealed to a manager, he "politely looked at me and said if we were dissatisfied ... there was a Burger King" around the corner.
John Joseph Hargrove, 57, who is white, visited a Cracker Barrel in midafternoon in Mt. Juliet, Tenn., in 1998 with his wife and their adopted biracial son, Deon, who was 4.

Hargrove says they waited 45 minutes and were never served, even as others who arrived after them received food. "It was flagrant. ... Those people discriminated against me, my wife and my little boy," he says.

and I'd happily boycott them if I ever ate there in the first place, but I know people who eat there who I don't think would if they knew about that. So I will pass along that link. Thanks.

...(or however it's spelled) as well. Those bastards aren't exactly "tolerant," either; real nice record on firing openly queer employees.

The one near me doesn't practice any form of discrimination at all. If they did, I would be all over them like a cheap suit.

times, and they can go fuck themselves. REad these cites, and read the links, too.

The CRACKER in Cracker Barrel says something, and what it says isn't very nice.

They settled THIS one for two million:

EEOC SUES CRACKER BARREL: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., which has restaurants in 41 states, was sued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over claims that it discriminated against female and black employees at three Illinois restaurants. The suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, was based on complaints by 10 workers at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The suit claims that women were subjected to sexual assaults, and a black employee suffered disparaging remarks about his race. Cracker Barrel denies that it discriminates against its workers.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/12/Business/Business_today.shtml


Now, read this. Tell me these jerks "get it." Keep in mind the latest incident happened LAST YEAR:

In October of 2006, Rose Rock, the mother of popular comedian Chris Rock, threatened legal action after she claimed that she and her daughter were discriminated against at the company's Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, restaurant <3> due to not being served for over an hour. She said when she asked the manager about the delay, the manager did not try to find the cause of the delay, but told Rock that they could have a free meal, which she refused.<4>

In 1992, Cracker Barrel instituted a policy requiring employees to display "normal heterosexual values which have been the foundation of families in our society." The company refused to change their policy in the face of protest demonstrations by gay rights groups, but in 2002, the company's stockholders voted to rescind the practice after 10 years of efforts by the New York City Employees Retirement System, a major shareholder.

Cracker Barrel was one of eight companies indicted and accused of making alleged illegal corporate campaign contributions to the Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee (TRMPAC), started by Rep. Tom DeLay.<5><6> Less than five months later, however, all charges against Cracker Barrel were dropped. In dismissing the charges on February 2, 2005, the District Attorney acknowledged that "there was no intent on the part of (Cracker Barrel) to violate any laws," and stated that the company "has demonstrated to the District Attorney that it has a history of good citizenship and high ethical standards." For its part, Cracker Barrel admitted no wrongdoing, and agreed to make a charitable contribution of $50,000 to support a "nonpartisan, balanced and publicly informative program" at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, with the intent of reinforcing what it called its "longstanding commitment to good corporate citizenship and proper participation in the political process".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_Barrel

A gay woman in Londonderry, New Hampshire, has sued a Cracker Barrel restaurant, claiming that management did nothing after she complained of employees sexually assaulting her and making crude references to her sexuality. The woman, Bonnie Usher, joined the Cracker Barrel staff as a cook in 2000. In the complaint she filed with New Hampshire human rights commission, she says that she was denied better work shifts and promotions because she is a woman, that she was subjected to abusive language, was groped by a co-worker, and that a photo of the groping was hung on the wall of the restaurant's employee area.

Usher was fired in 2004, and she is maintaining that the company fired her because she complained about mistreatment on the job. A spokesman for Cracker Barrel says the company was not aware of Usher's complaints.

Bonnie Usher's suit is interesting because it adds gender discrimination and sexual harrassment to a long list of employee complaints over many years. In the early 90's, a Cracker Barrel memo, written by a company executive, was leaked. The memo stated that managers should fire employees who did not "demonstrate normal heterosexual values." One lesbian employee, Cheryl Summerville, said the reason given on her separation papers was "Employee is gay." Summerville's Cracker Barrel was in Georgia, where there is no state protection for gay workers, so she was unable to take legal action against the company. There was a shareholder outcry against Cracker Barrel's policy, and a decade-long boycott of the restaurant by gays and gay rights activists, leading to the addition of a non-discrimination clause in Cracker Barrel's employee policies.........Though any chain can undergo the misfortune of having one of its franchises dishonor the company's non-discrimination policy, accusations--so far, all of them proven--against Cracker Barrel have been so numerous for so long that the addition of a new one does not speak well for the company's desire to change its ways.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/02/cracker_barrel.html

:spray:

:hi:

Have a blessed day :hug:

see, IHOP just told me & my kind that we couldn't kiss other GLBT's apparently... so I'm quite needy of hugging... lol (anything to get hugged)

Though I think the name is ironic in light of past events, no?

It just didn't give me the impression that it was a very welcoming place....g

Besides, the food their tastes like shit....warmed up, syrup-covered shit...

From the OP's post -- "As the article notes, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations, employment, or anything else. Discrimination against gay Americans is 100% legal under federal law, and in most states."

Mr. Pedantic...for as many allegedly 'frivolous' lawsuits get filed every year, there surely has to be some lawyer, SOMEWHERE that can help these two out...

Aren't there gay and lesbian groups that have brought suits before?

state, being gay is NOT a protected class. The manager CAN throw the couple out. They have no recourse, save to flip the guy off on their way out the door.

It's not right, but it's the law. Attempts to change it in that state haven't yet been successful.

That idea of doing demonstrations at the restaurant has potential though--impact that bottom line. Of course, if it's one of those "scary-conservative" areas, with lots of guns and pickups, you'd need some brave demonstrators and decent police protection to avoid what those big bellied sherriffs call "trouble."

...there is NO law that says I have to spend money at any IHOP either.

have the "right" to pass those IHOPs by.

From Buy Blue.

I know if I ever eat there my stomach doesn't quite feel right for a few hours afterwards.

Don't go there. I don't.

It's against the law where I live and it should be everywhere.

Thanks.

has the initials "Human Rights Campaign." :eyes:

HRC endorsement of HRC:

"We do so because she has been a long-time friend of the Human Rights Campaign and to all lesbian and gay Americans and this friendship is rooted in her deeply held belief in equality for all people."

Must hurt, huh?

Let me type slow so you can try again.

She was the only candidate to speak at the HRC event recently. YES I understand HRC is fond of her.

Therefore, it's ironic, that someone like you, who doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights, is supporting her.

Do you get it now? "Huh?"

... but not for too long.

Sounds like this IHOP is ripe for a gay and lesbian kiss-in! Swarm them, say, around dinner hour and make out in the booths. Bet they'd call the cops.

:thumbsup:

Just like the breast-feeding moms and their nurse-ins.

Order only coffee. Heteros who want to join the cause could pair up with a person of the same sex to hold hands, a little petting, maybe a peck or two. :evilgrin:

at the table in front of me there was a toddler sipping out of a dispenser bottle (syrup? liquid butter?) for several minutes while I was there. The mother and the staff were oblivious. Apparently that was permissable. No more IHOP for me thanks.

I saw that happen with the parmesan cheese dispenser at pizza place one. Ick. But we mentioned it to the waitress and she picked it up to clean it after they left.

I would never use some shaker or dispenser just sitting at a table. My daughter used to reach for those things too but we knew enough to say NO.

I have taken my daughter there many times. On all of the above occasions, I have hugged and kissed her. A friend (female), who I hadn't seen in a very long time, and I met for brunch at IHOP not long ago. When we saw each other, we hugged and kissed. Nobody complained, or for that matter, even looked. Maybe men don't, but women do tend to show their affection for each much more openly. I guess with this manager, I would have been banned for life.

Would a man and woman, with wedding bands on their fingers, have been thrown out also??? I seriously doubt it.

This manager just had an AGENDA.

They were a butch/femme couple, which generally drives the 'phobes crazy. For some reason, men like this manager don't mind the idea of cute little girlie lesbians kissing but masculine lesbians really set off their bells.

They seemed like nice kids, certainly not wild-eyed radicals out to convert their fellow IHOPers.

...bunch of bastards..

You know how people despise that.

So is her SO. I have gone to dinners with them where they have given each other a "quick peck" on the lips. I am sure they do so when I am not around also. In the 3 years they have been seeing each other, they have never been thrown out of anywhere.

Lucky? Or perhaps it is more accepted where we live? Personally, I would rather see two people show signs of affection, whatever kind, than have screaming match in a public place.

Luck, as you say, and location.

Somebody above mentioned this particular IHOP and I'll second the description. It's in freeper central and I sadly wasn't surprised when it happened.

Kudos, by the way, for being such a supportive mom to your daughter. You sound terrific.

Denny's coffee is barely potable, and the last time I was forced to eat there with friends, I didn't receive one damn thing I actually ordered.

Cracker Barrel is the place.....well, I finally got sort of what I ordered, except I didn't want grits or sausage patties.....I did get a faith healing in the washroom. I think the heimlich would have been more useful. It made her feel better. Remind me to tell you about that sometime. Maybe.

so I'm not sure not going to IHOP for gays is a huge loss!

Anyway, I won't boycott them because I tend not to boycott stuff, but I can understand the rest of you doing that.

and they tell everybody about the reaction they had to the food.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

(See #26 above)

I'm thinking perhaps I'll have some casual pecks at the IHOP. I've never been into PDA's, but I'll make an exception.

of course, I'd kick everyone out of IHOP.

IHOP sucks.

It's given me additions for my Ignore List.

I saw a comment or two on the REALITY of the law, an explanation of what is and is not protected, but I'm not seeing any cheerleading for what those assholes did.

Wow. They need to remove "International" from their name. Maybe call it the "Stupid 'Merkin House of Pancakes, and No Gays."

:rofl:

It'd be hilarious if thousands of couples went to ihop to just make out in the lobby. It's a very peaceful form of protest.

I love Perkins and have always gotten good food and service. It's like all the IHOPs were I live are full of pissed off employees who hate their job and don't try to hid it. Plus the quality of their food is hit or miss.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not to defend IHOP for any reason other than my love of pancakes, but chances are that they would not be treated the same way in every IHOP. It depends primarily on the manager(s) and the local customer base. It is possible that they have some kind of corporate policy against PDA, but the enforcement is almost always local, and wouldn't even be an issue in, say, Miami Beach.

And Kansas City has anti-discrimination laws in place that would have made this illegal had it actually *happened* in Kansas City. This incident was in a suburb of the city.

Don't forget to thank us for electing Clair McCaskill to the Senate - it was that evil ol' KC that put her over the top and helped give Democrats control of the Senate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't see it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

to be liked.

not yet though. :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

818-240-6055

I just told them I won't eat there again until there is a public apology to the couple in Grandview, MO. I told them I was hetero that my family has eaten at the local IHOP often... but won't anymore because of the rude treatment this couple received.

The poor young thing that answered the phone stated that according to the manager of that IHOP, this couple had engaged in 'open mouth kissing' and 'caressing' which would not be acceptable from a hetero couple.

Told her that the couple stated they kissed each other as they would an uncle and that that didn't sound like 'open-mouth' kissing at all. Then I thought, so who the hell cares what kind of kissing it was - this discrimination is just wrong. Told her until there is a public apology, IHOP will be added to my list of no-go restaurants right up there with Cracker Barrel - restaurants my family won't frequent on Sundays after church and/or ball games.

She tried again with the IHOP statement and I told her I just didn't believe that - and of course they were going to put out that kind of story. I said, take a close look at that statement - that is not a very good cover story. I don't know any long term couple that would go to a IHOP to neck - hetero, lesbian or gay. Come on. Who would believe that.

I guess it's going to take homosexuals being shoved into giant ovens and cooked at 1000 degrees for 8 hours to wake people up and force them to look at how we're treated and how it's okay for everyone, including the Shrub, to discriminate against us and treat us as if we don't matter at all.

Regardless of our sexual orientation, everyone should bring a willing friend of the same sex and start kissing at IHOP. Let them try to kick all of us out. I would, of course, have to eat a snack before going because I think their food is atrocious. But I'd order something small for show.

Everyone should arrive at 9:45 AM on Sunday morning. Order a coffee or tea, and start the kiss-off at 10:00 AM.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Nothing wrong with asking if the 2 chicks that kissed and got kicked out if their hot.

nt

I'd boycott IHOP, but I'll never eat there anyway. Shitty food, shitty people.

lesbians were invited to dine and provide public displays of affection there. He's not much for PDA's, but he makes exceptions for certain situations.

Scientists have discovered a way to 'remove' homosexuality genes from rams. They believe there are genes which induce homosexuality. Isn't RACE dictated by GENES? Skin color isn't something that magically happens because you're of a certain country -- it's something that happens because of GENES. If homosexuals are going to be categorized for their GENES they should be classified as a race, and given protection rights races are given.

They're pandering the issue by claiming genes cause it (trying to 'remove' gay genes) and then claiming that homosexual individuals come from 'all races'. Plenty of people have mixed race in them, just because there was never a homosexual sovereign nation doesn't mean there should be no protection. And if you look at history, homosexuality was not just widely accepted in some places but also practiced by kings. If that doesn't shriek that some nations may have housed large amounts of homosexual individuals, making it possible there were individuals who were able to pass on their genes FROM that nation, I don't know what does.

While the nation part is, to your average person above average IQ, unnecessary, it does destroy blockades of race issue people would put up. Many people are bisexual, and have equal affections to either gender, which would allow a 'gene' to be passed on.

Being many believe it is genetic and not 'a choice', I believe this would be an acceptably sound theory. This would put the 'homosexuals aren't as important as *ethnic community*' debates out the window and would be a good debate for senators, as well, on the rights of homosexuals.

That said, I never cared for IHOP and now they won't get a red cent from me. Segregation of ANYONE, opens the door for control over minorities of every kind. It should be equally condemned and not trampled by people believing their genes are more important in the line of defense, though I make no accusations to any group in that statement. I believe in equality...EVERY group who says homosexuality is less important is implied :)

And now a faction of the Baptists is calling for homosexuality to be eliminated from fetuses in utero. Can you imagine where this "science" could go from there in the hands of other bigots? Other "undesirables" could be next to be eradicated from the human population with a simple little procedure.

People need to grow up. My hubby and I kiss in public--in front of our young children, no less. We've never been kicked out, and we wouldn't be. When are people going to realize that these women are our sisters and that we should treat them the way we expect to be treated?

Btw, I love the idea of a smooch-in. :)

IHOP. They should have saved it for when they got to "their own private bedrooms." And yes, I don't want to see anyone kissing in IHOP, hetero or homo.

but your concern is noted.

the face of people, which only serves to instigate the very behavior that you will then turn around and criticize when they lash out against you.

If you know that people don't "agree with your lifestyle," then don't flaunt it in their faces. That's like a black man kissing a white woman in the middle of a 1960s restaurant in Alabama. You know you are going to cause trouble when you do it. Some people who don't have any problem with lesbianism still don't want to have to explain it to their children right now. Do you want to lose their support as well?

It's IHop. Did they "have to" kiss there? If they wouldn't have kissed, would they have "died"? It was not something that they had to do or should have done. And I repeat, I can't stand seeing anyone kissing in public places. No one needs to see you "kissing," but some people feel the need to try and "prove something" to other people.

As to "flaunting it in their faces" and losing support of people like you, I repeat they said it was a kiss like you would give an uncle, hardly one that would prompt you having to explain lesbianism to your children.

I guess I'd better "go back into the closet" posthaste! I don't want to offend "straight people" like "you". Funny how I see "straight people" in diners and hoary little chain joints "mashing" all the time while I'm trying to "enjoy my meal" and I never bitch about "them".

hey, quotation marks are "fun"!

Don't "they"?

They aren't into LESBIANISM. :wow:

WTF???

x(

Well, a little.

A simple peck on the cheek is not flaunting. I've given that to my SO in public. It's not like they were making out. It was a simple little kiss. I hold hands with my SO in public, too. I guess we deserve whatever happens to us, because we're flaunting it. And yes, there are many places where we won't hold hands because of SAFETY concerns. I suppose you would be someone who just looks down on us with disdain, though.

What is "lesbianism," besides a word shock jock Howard Stern uses?

But I noticed you avoided calling the "blacks" "Negroes," so that's good. :thumbsup:

It's wonderful, really.

I'm an O&A fan.

who doesn't know what lesbianism is. It's an invaluable educational offering. Why, I had NO CLUE whatsoever WHAT LESBIANISM WAS until I saw that enlightening little addition.

I look forward to seeing how they help me in future GLBT threads.

Dare I say their help is unreal?

thanks anyhow. Really...

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

You seriously need to work on your perception skills.

It's as though you have no clue that everyone is laughing at you and mocking you in this thread.

Just so you know, it's happening.

Well done.

Almost like the person that started this subthread owning this argument, so he/she is exposed to personal attacks? Funny.

in a pile on style attack, you have lost. Its like the boxer that smiles and nods his head when he gets tagged. Everyone knows he got hurt. The poster has been accused of using shock jock language and being a racist. Like I said. Numbers and smears don't make you a winner.

:boring: