#3 was "What do you mean lets go smoke a fag?"
Posted on 05/30/2014 7:17:41 AM PDT by massmike
Refer to post #64.
Homosexual practices are, by their very nature, filthy and perverted. It isn't habitual among normal people to ingest feces or have anuses that are falling out.
The question is why they were served to begin with? If their actions were that obvious.
It may be unfair, but some people are still uncomfortable at the sight of two grown men playing footsie.
I don’t want to see a straight couple playing footsie in public, neither.
So long as they don’t pimp the blogs right?
Part of the plan
A lot of people have been banned from entering a business. Should they all sue? Should cheaters not be banned from a casino?
Exactly how did they know these guys were homosexuals?
There is a good reason that STD’s dominate the male homosexual community. You can’t argue with facts. These myths that straight guys do it too, just won’t talk about it, is stupid.
It is pretty good and the people are nice.
I was kicked out of a Radio Shack at age 17 for running my own program on one of their computers. Should I have sued for discrimination against people who take the initiative?
I don’t mean anything.
I was merely posting a direct quote from a gay rights attorney.
Apparently, if these two wanted to sue somebody, they shouldn’t have picked a target in rural Texas.
Sorry, the "you mean" statement was directed at the liar lawyer you quoted, not you.
#3 was "What do you mean lets go smoke a fag?"
That's a felony of the second degree in Texas. If someone gets sick from it, it becomes a felony of the first degree. The other suggestions wouldn't result in litigation, whereas this one could/would.
They didn't start with the PDA until they were seated and, presumably, having breakfast.
Then consider me mentally disturbed. They spit in my face, I spit on their arugula. Or worse ...
Actually, a LOT of people deserve to be treated "disrespectfully", regardless of whether they managed to actually pay their checks.
Someone should ask these two if they would defend a couple who had just paid their checks, and then pulled out cigarettes and started smoking in a non-smoking section.
Unfortunately, we are losing the battle over "actions" as "actions" are being equated with "being". So the argument that a person who IS black should be served has now been stolen to argue that a person who "DOES" something should be served.
All right, then. Don’t spit or hawk a lung oyster in their entree. Burn it. Oversalt it. Add some Tabasco to their ice cream. Oops! Accomplishes the same thing by “accident” and is not actionable.
Or don’t even. be that overt. Just make the food so lousy that even if they eat it, you’ll have proved your point. And if they don’t eat it, you’ve also won.
“Then consider me mentally disturbed.”
Will do.
“They spit in my face, I spit on their arugula. Or worse ...”
People spit in your face or is that a metaphor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.