Your Average Witty Fark User: AbbeySomeone: Demetrius: Douchebag narrowminded homophobic asshole caretaker deserves his own special place in hell where he can rot for eternity.

Why is he at fault? It's private property and they knew it when they pulled this media stunt. How would you feel if people came into your yard with intent to AW themselves, brought a photographer, picked your flowers and behaved in a way that they knew would offend you?
You racist sexist homophobic_____(insert persecuted group) pig! You're voicing your beliefs, and setting boundaries for your own goddamn property.

RTFA and comprehend it.

0/10, go be a twatwaffle somewhere else.


At least it's not a vaccination thread.

Your Average Witty Fark User: AbbeySomeone: Demetrius: Douchebag narrowminded homophobic asshole caretaker deserves his own special place in hell where he can rot for eternity.

Why is he at fault? It's private property and they knew it when they pulled this media stunt. How would you feel if people came into your yard with intent to AW themselves, brought a photographer, picked your flowers and behaved in a way that they knew would offend you?
You racist sexist homophobic_____(insert persecuted group) pig! You're voicing your beliefs, and setting boundaries for your own goddamn property.

RTFA and comprehend it.

0/10, go be a twatwaffle somewhere else.

uatuba: If that photo was taken at a private establishment, it should be entirely up to the owner to continue the policy or do away with it. It's the owner's right to be an idiot. It's also my right to not patronize the business. I wouldn't patronize a business that segregated groups of people based on any class ("protected" or not). But if the owner wants to do it, it's his right.



Hate to tell you this, but the Supreme Court decided you were wrong about 48 years ago.

Once you get outside of Louisville and Lexington, that's the Kentucky that everyone makes fun of. Louisville's fairly progressive. Just this morning, my mom saw a bumper sticker there that said "Hope the fetus you save is gay"... It may not sound progressive, but, you know, baby steps people...

shower_in_my_socks: On the flip side, why in the fark would you want to be two lesbians raising a kid in Kentucky? This is the state that people use to make fun of other redneck places where they live. Like, here in SoCal, "Fontana" is referred to as "Fontucky." The name of the state is used as a derogatory reference to being a backwoods hickville. GTFO of Kentucky and go some place where you can live a better life.

Unrealted to thread. I always hated racing in Fontucky. The course is brutally dangerous, and for all the suffering you did every other sunday, there was nothing good to go eat after the race, before the medal/trophy awarding. Fontucky Sucks, and it smelsl like shiat because of friggin Norco,.
It is all bad.

\and it's freaky to see shot out cars and bomb shelters on the edges of the course.

Man, there are so many people that seem to think this is a single owner with a private business.

This is a private area of a public park run on an endowment. This is no different than someone banning a lesbian couple from a privately endowed library, university, museum, theater, etc.

This is the type of private institution that exists, ostensibly, to serve the public good. It's not some rich dude's private yard.

OtherLittleGuy: cman: If there is one thing that I really hate about the gay rights movement its that they are a bunch of pussies. In the 1960s, black Americans were all up in arms fighting for their rights. They showed the US how to wage a civil rights war and win.

The gay rights movement won't go past "diplomacy", using the court system and lobbying. You gotta farking fight for your rights.

ACT-UP wants you to get off their fabulous lawn.

Motherfarkin' this. Some folks really don't know their gay activism history.

BronyMedic: Uchiha_Cycliste: At least it's not a vaccination thread.

True. It's not often I find myself in a wierd, Parallel universe where I'm actually pointing out AbbySomeone, a Farker who I have highlighted as "Batshiat Insane", is correct about something.

ewww, my condolances

BronyMedic: Actually, no, it didn't. Title II of the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not apply to private clubs, or organizations not engaged in interstate commerce.

This isn't a private club or organization. It's open to the public.

KidneyStone: OK, I'm stirring the pot a little but sometimes the pot needs to be stirred. Double standards piss me off.

Congrats, this is officially the stupidest comment I have seen today.

The reason you don't have to announce you're straight is because it's assumed. You're the default. You're part of the majority, and you don't have to fight for any rights related to your sexuality, nor do you need to fight to have people accept your identity as a straight man.

onestr8: I don't agree with their position but its called property rights. They can ask anyone to leave they want. So i can go to any random space owned by someone else and do what ever i want? Awesome! Its open to the public at the owners descression.

Sorry but don't u think people have a right to their beliefs and how they choose to live.? Strange.

Personally i don't agree with thoughts but it is their right.

We're for individual rights right?

No. It's not their right. They chose to open their "private" property to the public. When you do this, you have to provide equal access to everybody. You can't open up a store and only sell to white people anymore. If you allow the general public inside, you can't discriminate. You also have to allow blacks and Mexicans and Chinamen and even Jews.

Same principle here. This wasn't someone's private residence, this was a park established and funded by a trust to provide a space open to the public that could be enjoyed by all. Unfortunately, homosexuals are not protected from discrimination the way races, sexes, national origin, and disabilities are.

In other words, the law says they can still discriminate against gays, but they aren't allowed to discriminate against the Jews. Should we move back to allowing them to discriminate against the Jews? Or are you in favor of not allowing them to discriminate against either the Jews or the homosexuals? Or are you in favor of keeping it like it is, where they can discriminate against the homosexuals but not the Jews? Or should we switch, so they can discriminate against Jews, but not homosexuals?

Here's a good example that I know of from my very own experience about how "privately owned" property open to the public doesn't mean you can discriminate:

Disneyland, the park itself, is still privately owned, or at least it was until Lillian Disney died a few years back. It is--or was--the private property of Roy Disney and Diane Disney Miller, although the theme park leased the property. Ergo, under the theories being mooted here, they had every right to discriminate about who could enter the property, and up through the 1980's, they did just that: Anyone who looked like a hippie or a punk rocker or a gangster could be denied entry because this is private property, right?

Wrong. After a lot of bad publicity about discrimination and several unpublicized lawsuits in the 80's (I had a friend who was involved in one of them), Disney quietly rescinded their policy and had to allow everyone in regardless of what they looked like or dressed or acted like. I know this because I was part of the security department, and we were told in no uncertain terms that NOBODY could be denied entry or asked to leave because of their activities or gender preference or appearance. And yes, the "private property" theory was kicked around and ran into the Civil Rights Act for the same reason that privately-owned lunch counters and theaters couldn't use it in the 1960's--because if you hold your property open to the public, that means ALL the public.

So nice try, Mr. Groundskeeper. You should have told them that photography wasn't permitted, instead of saying 'those people" weren't allowed.

BronyMedic: ox45tallboy: uatuba: If that photo was taken at a private establishment, it should be entirely up to the owner to continue the policy or do away with it. It's the owner's right to be an idiot. It's also my right to not patronize the business. I wouldn't patronize a business that segregated groups of people based on any class ("protected" or not). But if the owner wants to do it, it's his right.

[3dblogger.typepad.com image 500x340]

Hate to tell you this, but the Supreme Court decided you were wrong about 48 years ago.

Actually, no, it didn't. Title II of the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not apply to private clubs, or organizations not engaged in interstate commerce.

The question was about a private park that is open to the public, same as if it were a lunch counter in Greensboro. So yes, the Civil Rights Act and accompanying court decisions are applicable here. This was not a "private club" that decided the lesbians couldn't become members.

Furthermore, the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966 prohibited discrimination in accommodation in facilities open to the public.

KidneyStone: I gotta ask the gays out there - what's the deal with the rainbow flag stickers and/or tags on your cars?

If I, a straight guy, put a tag on my car saying STRAIGHT someone would get all pissy about it and give me shiat about not being sensitive to diversity. But if I'm gay it's 100% Kool Mo Dee fine to have a rainbow flag, essentially announcing that I'm gay.

Why is there that double standard?

I'm not trolling. Mostly.

OK, I'm stirring the pot a little but sometimes the pot needs to be stirred. Double standards piss me off.

I caught flack from a few people over a sign I put in my car for a few days that said, "Stop black on white crime." It was interesting watching people explain why exactly they felt it was offensive.

BronyMedic: (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

Don't you think a public garden could fall under that last bit?