No Tips After Dinner For Gays!

The money trail is there. I am not guessing on that.

Yeah they canned/made her quit. She slandered one of their customers. She is a liability.

Yeah they both could be lying, that couple could have been the biggest group of *** on the planet and called her a homo pink taco eattin' ***........ At the end of the day all we do know is that from the date and time stamp on both receipts (which matched)and from the CC statement which was supplied, that she lied about not receiving a tip and tried to say this couple was homophobic by not tipping and writing something on the ticket and used the gay community to support her. Granted she may not have though this was going to go this far.

Do me a favor, please show me where I refereed to their handwritten portion of the receipt? I distinctly remember saying the date and time stamps which matched.

You are quoting a news source that is around 2 weeks old. This new story is the day after she was fired. They are not going to admit to receiving the money unless pressed. They are also not going to say we let her go because she slandered one of our customers.

There's nothing really "wrong" with that, but there's nothing really wrong with the opposing viewpoint as well. However it's disingenuous to compare ones refusal to consider a man and a man, "husband and wife", to denying women the right to vote, or legislating that colored people drink from their own fountain. Marriage has never really discriminated against gays, they could always get married, they just needed to marry a member of the opposite sex (just like the rest of us).

All I can is wow.......

How is that different?

To use your example: "colored people could always drink water, they just had to dink it at their own water fountain (just like the rest of us)"

There is something wrong with that... You're denying someone something basic that wouldn't hurt anyone if it is allowed to go through... not only that but they are denied rights that owuld be provided to them if they were to be married...

churches wouldn't be forced to provide gay marriages as it would only be through the states... It doesn't trample over anyone elses right so why deny someone? The idea that it doesn't descriminate is kind of a joke lol... oh you can get married sure but just go marry some random that you don't really care about! I'm sure the religious types would love to push that because when you get married in the church it is til death do you part... they will not marry you again unless your spouse has died or you somehow got the marriage annulled (at least in catholicism) Hypocritical at best...

Personaly I don't really mind one way or the other if people oppose it in their own thoughts... That's their own personal opinion... I don't know why anyone cares but yeah...

Also, I don't mean to compare either... I meant to show that at one point in our country's history we felt and acted certain ways that changed over time... This too will change and in time it will be legal... Some would just like to flail and scream as much as they can to delay the inevitable for whatever reason...

The money trail is there? hmmm?

I don't think you know what slander means or what you would need to prove that... They (restaurant) did do a complete 180 on their stance with her once that other info came out though...

You don't know that... and you couldn't prove that... again... it was only reported that they showed them something that they were told was a copy of a visa bill that appeared to show the amount with tip included... you still have the restaurant, even after having dismissed the waitress, maintaining their stance that the original receipt had not tip and they don't know how it could have been charged to them as such.

That's my bad on that one... I inferred incorrectly...

So you'll believe people accused of something without question as they have no motive to lie but the waitress and the restaurant have every reason to lie and should not be believed?

From your own news source watch the video 1:25-1:35 where she says they even provided the CC statement. Then the news source showed both receipts side by side in comparison which matched date and time stamps.....Yes the money trail is there.

Yes we do know that with %99.9 certainty.

No I am not believing them in entirety. Again, they could have said some mean spirited ***to this woman that caused her to do this to them, what I am saying is the CC statement is more convincing to me the word of mouth.

Actually, there is something wrong with the opposing viewpoint: it's founded on bad data. "Traditional" marriage is, at most, about 200 years old, though more commonly it is a 20th century invention (so are most of the trappings we consider "traditional" to marriages: up 'til the 1900s, women wore a blue dress when getting married, this whole "virgin white" thing is marketing from a women's magazine).

Actually traditional marriage is an arranged marriage since it is a legal and economic contract to bind two families by selling a daughter. In that light, the many, many privileges and perks granted to married couples make sense: they're in an economic contract (essentially a corporation), so they get economic incentives.

What we have today, though, is matrimony, to borrow the term from the Catholic Church. Marriage-for-love is something that should be completely divorced from legal proceedings of any kind. The 50% divorce rate is evidence of why this should be true, too.

Matrimony should be an individual ceremony that may or may not involve a religion. At most, it should convey certain next-of-kin rights onto one's spouse. Marriage, on the other hand, is and always has been an economic arrangement designed to produce children, so it should be a suite of legal privileges one applies for upon becoming a parent.

Getting the government involved in love is about as sensible as hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to work in a school cafeteria.

I believe the church's stance on gay marriages is that is diminishes the term "marriage."

Because for centuries the term "marriage" was defined to be something that enables generational passing of beliefs (religious, economical, social, etc.) because it glorifies the church's blessing to have children (aka it was a sin to have children outside of wedlock, mainly because the church did not approve the couple having children). To me, that just shows that the church was imposing it's will to control people's lives. They do that a lot.

But that is my 2 cents.

Because the argument of "I want to marry someone of the same sex" isn't the same as "I want to drink out of the same fountain as you." Marriage (throughout US history anyways) has always consisted of a X, a husband and a wife. It's nature is of gender. Drinking fountains as objects are not racial by nature.

Dogs are dogs, because they are dogs, they are not cats. The gay marriage argument is as simple as asking someone to call what is a dog, a cat.

Well, not if the argument is about marriage period.

Gay marriage vs drinking water from fountain is what you said.

Gay marriage vs traditional marriage isn't.

Marriage is creating a family unit from 2 consenting adults. At least, that is how the government puts it. They also went further in the definition to include intent and economic definitions, but I won't bore anyone with that bit. That is the premise of the gay vs straight marriage argument.

Thing is, according to the federal government, the adults have to be different sexes still.

I said I was "bigoted" against stupid. This is what I meant.

I assure you, you are quite "stupider" on this side of the table my friend.

What the..?

Using bold does not make an argument valid.

You're illustrating the difference between the two sides perfectly. You want to exclude based on an innate characteristic and I'd like it if people would leave consenting adults alone to do their legal business. Guess which viewpoint will be on the wrong side of history (again).

ftfy

Bolding was my way of responding to a certain statement within a post while still leaving it in context. Thanks, Formatting Police.

highlight only!

But that's your thing D:

Bingo. Gays aren't a federally protected glass like race or sex. Sure Justice Sotomayor hinted they should be a protected class during Prop21/DOMA proceeds but "should" =/= "they are."

Just like Scalia pointed out, gays are simply making other arrangements they can still get married.

Marriage means what it means, if it doesn't then neither does "dog" or "cat". Some people accept that it means husband and wife and others don't, but throughout the history of the US it has mean that. I advocate live and let live as you claim to, but part of live and let live is tolerating the other people who choose to live their lives recognizing that husband and wife doesn't mean husband and husband.

...and c'mon. You don't actually want to leave consenting adults alone to do their legal business, you want them to conform to your ideals and your lifestyle by recognizing gay marriage, if they don't you want them punished by law.

What I want is gay people to tell me how to live my life.

Guess if you can't make everyone happy, make everyone miserable. NO MORE MARRIAGES FOR ANYONE! /clears dust off hands

I've long thought that the government has no business recognizing marriages in the first place!

They should leave it to the states. I don't think federal intervention is appropriate with regards to marriage.

Side note: ever since same-sex marriage stayed up again here in CA I've seen so many LOLz marriages.

I'm like ugh you're getting married after 3 after 3 months and your bf is still on Grindr...

EDIT: many edits

They can only be punished by law if they're are first breaking the law... soo... yeah...

Again Nausi... not everything is constant... there are things called progress and change... as I illustrated earlier there were many things in the history of the United States that were once one way and now another... When we realize that there is inequality we try to work to change that... I don't understand why marriage is any different... It's not like people will be forced to perform marriages if they don't want to... this is just a legal thing between the feds, state and people getting married...

I think most could live with that. Can we keep dependent exemptions though?

Then what have you to worry about? Gay marriage will not be a part of the church...

Prolly...still trying to think of holding family plan health care hostage to bring the hold outs that want to deny marriage rights to same sex couples, back to table to get this ***over with. Also to change the speed limit to me being right and the officer wrong.