If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Oklahoma restaurant won't serve 'freaks,' 'f*ggots,' the disabled and welfare recipients. . . For the last 44 years   (rawstory.com) divider line 725
    More: Asinine, welfare recipients, KFOR, welfare  
•       •       •

17718 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:29 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



725 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 03:58:03 PM  
Eh, cripples are a hassle with all the ramps and cripply paraphernalia. The deaf are assholes though. F*ck the deaf.
 
2014-02-07 03:58:18 PM  

Mattyb710: Thank you for pasting something everyone in this thread already knows. Let me spell it out a little more, since you don't seem to get what I'm saying. I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.


We do understand that you think that. What you don't understand is that you cannot live by that any more in this society, any more than you could keep slaves or forbid your sister to vote. You may THINK that you ought to be able to do those things still - but you can't.  It's not an opinion to be seriously entertained - no matter how plausible it seems to you.
far smarter men than you have argued what you are arguing, all the way to the highest courts in the land. Smarter men argued against them, proved them wrong, and they lost. It is morally, ethically, philosophically and legally OVER.
 
2014-02-07 03:59:08 PM  
As an Oklahoman I say, "fark that guy"

Also: Enid is nowhere near Oklahoma City.
 
2014-02-07 03:59:09 PM  
media2.s-nbcnews.com
 
2014-02-07 03:59:37 PM  

give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.


img.fark.net

No, it's not.
 
2014-02-07 03:59:41 PM  

Shryke: QU!RK1019: KidneyStone: Don't like him?  Don't go to his restaurant.  Simple.  Done.

Or blow outrage all over web forums because that's actually doing something about this.  May as well pray.

Speaking out against injustice is no small act.

On Fark? Haha.

Even if it is to those who feel the same way, it reinforces the sense of equality.

Funny, I'd call that an "echo chamber".

 For those who may be on the fence, reading the comments of those who don't abide by evil helps to show them the light.

Let's get something straight: this man might have repugnant views, but in no way does that render him "evil". Your label is immoral and un-American.

I won't tacitly condone intolerance.

Here, put this big red S on for me, so we can all identify you properly as you leap over buildings in a single bound.


Belittle me all you want, it won't change my mind that it's the right thing to do.
 
2014-02-07 04:00:06 PM  

Mattyb710: Thank you for pasting something everyone in this thread already knows. Let me spell it out a little more, since you don't seem to get what I'm saying. I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.


I get exactly what you're saying.

Thankfully your opinion, and the law, disagree entirely.

If you want to open a business, you will be subject to anti-discrimination laws.

In your mind, it's just one guy. But it was NOT like that 5 decades ago. That's why these laws were created. By letting him get away with it, you set a precedent that it's okay to do so.

So what happens when all the gas stations decide they don't want to give gas to black people? What happens when all the grocery stores decide they don't want Mexicans shopping there?

When is it okay for one business to discriminate, but not another?
 
2014-02-07 04:00:07 PM  
White waitress: "Hey... we don't serve n*ggers here!"
Black diner: "Well that's fine 'cause I don't eat those motherf*ckers!"
/too dry and stringy
//gimme a plump juicy w*tb*ck instead
///hope he dies of bunghole cancer
 
2014-02-07 04:00:28 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Dancin_In_Anson: DROxINxTHExWIND: The owner can be as racist as a watermelon in a noose and still provide equally adequate customer service to a black person.

My offer above applies to you as well.


You mean the goalposts that you moved from, "he shouldn't have to serve you" to "why would you want him to serve you if he hates you"?


The point is nobody is forcing you to hire John Wayne Gacy to make balloon animals at your kids birthday party.

I don't believe that just because someone breaks the law that they should be punished by the law.  Is that so hard to understand?
 
2014-02-07 04:00:34 PM  

Mattyb710: Strawman much? I'm not supporting his right to promote racism (and he's a prejudiced bigot, if we want to be accurate.) The people who continue to eat there are promoting his farked up views. I wouldn't piss on this guy if he was on fire. I think the guy is an ignorant farktard. I'm supporting his right to do as he pleases with private property. Obviously the law disagrees. I don't agree with that law. Maybe you should petition to have a bill signed into law that makes it illegal to disagree with any laws.


Publicly accessible businesses aren't the same as "private property" nor should it be. Nor should businesses be able to discriminate in this manner. Here is why, and again, it's really irritating that people can't figure this out on their own because it's really simple and obvious.

Say you're a black family in a small town. Discrimination against blacks is institutionalized. The local grocer won't serve you. Nor will any diners. The dentist won't service you. The schools won't take your children. You can't just set up competing businesses. You lack the capital and how can your small, underfunded business compete, only managing to serve the poor, underprivileged minority community that can't get served at the superior alternatives. You can't just move; just hiking your family around randomly is expensive and detrimental and the other communities may be as bad or worse in their discrimination. A significant segment of your society is now severely disenfranchised, such that it threatens their health, destroys their livelihood and even threatens their future, as opportunities for education are threatened. This is horrific for any society, but most significantly for those discriminated against. No sane society should want this, and no sane society would allow it. Laws against this are every bit as important as laws against just randomly murdering strangers. 

What you support is wrong. It would be terrible for society and there is absolutely no good reason to want it. It's time for you and a lot of people to get it through your heads that, "I should be able to do whatever I want no matter how stupid and nobody should be able to tell me not to," is a stupid philosophy that should guide neither the law nor your own life. It's just childish stubbornness.
 
2014-02-07 04:00:37 PM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: So great. Now blacks can eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. Why in Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan's name would they even want to at that point? Why would YOU? You have changed nothing about the people involved, you have not changed any minds or hearts. But now everyone can give Woolworth their money and Woolworth will begrudgingly take it. I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.

Because they live there. Because there will always be small fish towns where there are only a handful of minorities. Because there will always be places where people are looked down upon but live there anyway because that's where they live, that's where they come from, and they couldn't move if they wanted to. Because a black man should be able to eat at a lunch counter in North Carolina with as much certainty and safety as a deli in New York. Because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

If we cannot change minds or hearts, we can at least change actions so those minds and hearts don't hurt people who, unlike those minds and hearts, can't change who or what they are.


I'll never be treated equally in China, no matter how long I live there.

That's a lotta racism and injustice!

Much more efficient to give farks about that, instead of one hick in nowheresville, no?

Unless "anywhere" just means " within the us?"

Heck, this hick is probably even less racist than your average racist Asian. And there are billions of racist Asians.

"Haha but that has no bearing!"

Ok. So...Cultural relativism. Is it a thing? If so, nowheresville hick shouldn't have to change. Racism is part of his culture.

If not, billions of people around the world need to "catch up" to coastal liberal sensibilities.
 
2014-02-07 04:01:13 PM  
Somebody is going to get sued
 
2014-02-07 04:01:43 PM  

thehobbes: Take 35 through Wichita, always seems faster.


It's not.  I've done it both ways.  It takes about the same amount of time both directions, but taking 412 into Boise City and then OK 3 west (actually north) into Colorado is a farkton less boring.
 
2014-02-07 04:01:49 PM  

suburbanguy: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.


Damn, those pesky facts always get in the way.
 
2014-02-07 04:02:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I  tell you what. Let's make this guy serve whoever walks in the door. You and I can go and you wear a shirt that says something like "I Love (whatever this guy hates)". Then you order a burger from him and eat the whole thing. I'll have a beer instead. You in?


And I'll repeat myself again.

Bloody William: A problem with someone as an individual for their opinions or behavior is different than a problem with someone as an assumed characteristic of their identity. If someone has a problem with me being the sum of my actions and statements, that's a personal matter. If someone has a problem with me because of the color of my skin, the ethnicity of my parents, or the usability of my legs, that's a bigger problem. Specifically, it's a bigger problem that, if you'd acknowledge the Woolworth's counter photos in this thread, was only solved when legislation was passed to protect those designated "someones."


So no. I won't make this guy serve whoever walks in. I will, however, make him serve whoever walks in who does not disrupt the establishment and is able to pay for his services. As a business owner, he has the right to refuse serving people. He doesn't have the right to refuse serving "types" of people.

Here's a link on the legal options he has in refusing service.

What I'm trying to say is stop making this into a situation of extremes where he's absolutely forced to serve anyone who walks through his door. That isn't the case, and you either know that's the case or you are willfully ignorant of the current state of the law.

Translation: The terms you give are wrong, and I won't play your game because they are wrong.
 
Ant
2014-02-07 04:02:24 PM  

James!: Gosh, Oklahoma must be a nice place to never visit ever.


It's not all like that. I mean, one of the most hippy-ish bands in the world is from there, The Flaming Lips, so it can't be all bad. You're having a bout of confirmation bias here.
 
2014-02-07 04:02:25 PM  

Shryke: HotWingConspiracy: He's free to believe that, he's not free to run his business in that way.

I am wondering if his business is grandfathered in from the laws you cited earlier.


The Civil Rights Act doesn't work that way.
 
2014-02-07 04:02:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: In fact, I'm repeating what I said... to you, that you ignored and continue to ignore for the sake of your bullshiat argument that preventing discrimination based on certain groups is the same as preventing any discretion on accepting customers on the part of a business.

So great. Now blacks can eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. Why in Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan's name would they even want to at that point? Why would YOU? You have changed nothing about the people involved, you have not changed any minds or hearts. But now everyone can give Woolworth their money and Woolworth will begrudgingly take it. I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.


Your right, you do have a different view and the same goals.

Here's the difference between the two:  you argue it shouldn't be necessary from ideals, and he demonstrates it is factually necessary from history.  Why should anyone trust your idealism over empirical fact?
 
2014-02-07 04:02:40 PM  

Magnanimous_J: jso2897: You are quite right, in the abstract - but we don't live in the panorama of history - we live now, and we do what most men do - attempt to move society forward incrementally. A hundred and fifty years ago, we had to fight a war to establish that men are not property.
70 years ago, people marched and demonstrated and were arrested and beaten and firehosed and bit by police dogs and murdered on dark country roads to establish, among other things, that people can't do what he is doing.
A hundred years from now, we will be struggling to advance mankind beyond some other stupidity.
There IS a right side and a wrong one - a good one and a bad one.
I, by the way, feel no hate for anyone - I have not been victimized, and have had an easy, pleasant, spoiled, white boy's life. I've got no business hating anybody. But I do know an asshole when I see one, and I would prefer, all things considered, to see assholes lose every fight they get in.


See, you're doing it again. You are imposing absolutes on relative things. The real difference between the right side and the wrong side is who wins and who loses. You see the progress of social values and you see it as good, because the winners of these social struggles say it is good. Not only are you being myopic, you are being incredibly Eurocentric. The progression of social values that you see is really only what happened to Western Civ over the last couple thousand years. Not only are you discounting the cultural progression of other societies, but you are also discounting the 100,000 some odd years of human history that's been lost to us.

By the way, this is all purely academic. While I believe that all morality is completely relative in a philosophical sense, only a total sociopath lives that way. I think that's an important distinction.


I don't mean this as snark - I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, or how it would relate to anything I think about anything. Sorry. Maybe it has to do withthe fact that the "purely academic" has never held much interest for me - i'm a pragmatist, not an abstract thinker. And in my view, that which causes harm to innocent people is objectively wrong - as a practical matter.
 
2014-02-07 04:03:00 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: You're putting up time and effort defending-but-no-I'm-totally-not-defending him.

I'm defending his right to be an asshole.


Yes, but this requires you to support his discrimination. He can't run his business like that, and you have a problem with it.

Whatever happened to "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ?

He's obviously doing more than talking.
 
2014-02-07 04:03:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Thank you for pasting something everyone in this thread already knows. Let me spell it out a little more, since you don't seem to get what I'm saying. I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.


I get exactly what you're saying.

Thankfully your opinion, and the law, disagree entirely.


...

"I don't believe that there should be discrimination laws."
"Well, the law disagrees with you!"

wat
 
2014-02-07 04:04:00 PM  
Magnanimous_J:  While I believe that all morality is completely relative in a philosophical sense, only a total sociopath lives that way. I think that's an important distinction.

As is the subtler distinction between the total sociopath, on the one hand, and the many good and noble folks with mild to severe sociopathic tendencies, a/k/a the inhabitants of Fark.
 
2014-02-07 04:04:02 PM  

sovietski: I am also ok with this location being the site of the Oklahoma FARK party. I can bring my friend, who's gay, and his brother, who walks with cane (car accident) and has long hair!!

I could dress like a "freak" and wear my cubicle mate's College Democrats button on my shirt.


I'll bring my fursuit and I wouldn't mind if someone put a bear pride shirt on it.
 
2014-02-07 04:04:07 PM  

meathome: James!: Gosh, Oklahoma must be a nice place to never visit ever.

my BIL is from Oklahoma.

/It explains a lot about him.


I'm from Oklahoma. It's a good place to be from.
 
2014-02-07 04:04:34 PM  
I live in Tulsa but I have to be in Enid next week for work.  Hmm......

/Probably get thrown out for wearing a suit.
 
2014-02-07 04:04:50 PM  
I should have known this would be the big Friday thread.
 
2014-02-07 04:05:47 PM  

suburbanguy: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.


The important takeaway here:  nobody wants Oklahoma.
 
2014-02-07 04:06:01 PM  
sendtodave: words

I'm willing to hear your point of view, but could you phrase it in a way that doesn't sound like beat poetry as expressed through tweets? There doesn't seem to be any substance in whatever you just said. Please elaborate, using sentences combined into paragraphs to express a complex opinion.
 
2014-02-07 04:06:05 PM  

sovietski: Lolwut? How did I miss this?


They were in front of the Rib Crib across from the Electric Circus, pretty much caused RC to close for the night to avoid dealing with 'em.  Which is a bummer because RC was doing bang-up business before they showed up.
 
2014-02-07 04:06:58 PM  

Swanji: teenytinycornteeth: Swanji: teenytinycornteeth: DROxINxTHExWIND: Theaetetus: DROxINxTHExWIND: You know, I think I like this guy. At least he's not the type of pussy to make racist comments anonymously and then backtrack when he gets called on it.

As opposed to making sexist comments anonymously?

[img.fark.net image 243x207]

Yeah, there's no way that negatively referring to a human being as a piece of female anatomy, intimating that to be such a piece of anatomy is to be weak or inadequate could be considered sexist!

Oh for fark's sake.  "Pussy" in that context has nothing to do with the female anatomy.  That may be its origin, but in today's vernacular, it no longer refers to a vagina.  Stop your whining.

Listen, I don't give a rat's ass if he uses the term or not.  But the fact that he posted a picture of "I don't think that word means what you think it means" implies that there was no way that word could be construed as such.  When quite obviously it could since that's how the word began its life as an insult.

The point of the picture was that "pussy" in the context used doesn't mean that any more, and therefore there is no way it could be construed as such.  So no it can't obviously, because it doesn't.


Yeah, his complaint is totally gay. He should get the sand out of his vagina, amirite?
 
2014-02-07 04:07:15 PM  
Bloody William:

If we cannot change minds or hearts, we can at least change actions so those minds and hearts don't hurt people who, unlike those minds and hearts, can't change who or what they are.

I like the fairytale we tell ourselves about how much more enlightened we've become. If equal rights laws were to disappear, we'd be back to segregation by the end of the week. Everyone is a racist bigot to some degree and laws don't change that.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:31 PM  

haemaker: Oklahoman does the Oklahomiest thing possible, film at eleven.


I think I need to go down there, with my VA ID card and indefinite expiration military ID in hand, and see if he serves me and my two friends who happen to be a lesbian couple that are engaged. If he does, then I'll pronounce--loudly--that even though I became disabled while protecting his absolute right to be a complete supporter of Russia and its laws, I prefer to spend his tax money that I earned by bleeding in defense of his right to be an ass and in defense of gays, 'freaks', Muslims, and disabled peoples rights to be who they are somewhere that respects the everyone's Constitutional rights.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:33 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: He's been in business for 44 years, so you are probably incorrect.


I mean outside of the walls of his establishment.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:43 PM  

sendtodave: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Thank you for pasting something everyone in this thread already knows. Let me spell it out a little more, since you don't seem to get what I'm saying. I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.


I get exactly what you're saying.

Thankfully your opinion, and the law, disagree entirely.

...

"I don't believe that there should be discrimination laws."
"Well, the law disagrees with you!"

wat


Says the dumbfark who thinks China actually has something to do with this conversation.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:46 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I also like how the dude in the wheelchair was fine with the guy's views until he got discriminated against.


Yeah he said he went there for years and turned a blind eye until it happened to him...Wheelchair guy is just as bad as the owner is.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:49 PM  

Rapmaster2000: The important takeaway here:  nobody wants Oklahoma.


That's OK.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:49 PM  

give me doughnuts: When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?


I have a hard time really considering it anything else.  Culturally, it's  deep South, imho.
 
2014-02-07 04:07:58 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Magnanimous_J:  While I believe that all morality is completely relative in a philosophical sense, only a total sociopath lives that way. I think that's an important distinction.

As is the subtler distinction between the total sociopath, on the one hand, and the many good and noble folks with mild to severe sociopathic tendencies, a/k/a the inhabitants of Fark.


It's not my fault.  I'm a Randian Superhero with mild autism.
 
2014-02-07 04:08:49 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: dletter: What I see DIA saying is that he wants to go back to a time where "public" facilities could discriminate.

Wrong.


Can you elaborate?

Are you claiming that he doesn't run a public establishment?
Are you claiming you haven't been saying he has the right to refuse service because someone is black, gay, a "moocher", or any other number of things he says he will (and has shown to) deny service for (maybe you are not saying that, but, appears that you have been, clarify if I am wrong there)?
 
2014-02-07 04:09:06 PM  

scottydoesntknow: sendtodave: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Thank you for pasting something everyone in this thread already knows. Let me spell it out a little more, since you don't seem to get what I'm saying. I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.


I get exactly what you're saying.

Thankfully your opinion, and the law, disagree entirely.

...

"I don't believe that there should be discrimination laws."
"Well, the law disagrees with you!"

wat

Says the dumbfark who thinks China actually has something to do with this conversation.


Racism is racism, right?
 
2014-02-07 04:10:26 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: many Oklahomans are probably descended from people who came from the South....


Well, yeah, where do you think the Trail of Tears  started and  went to?
 
2014-02-07 04:11:01 PM  
So, is it a dick move if I eat there and don't tip? Ooh! Or what if I don't tip, but I leave a nasty note detailing how I don't tip bigots?
 
2014-02-07 04:11:06 PM  

suburbanguy: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.



What's the criteria? Is it geography? Is it historical? What sets your dividing lines?

If you want to go with the strictly geographical, then you'll have to use the geopraphical center of the contiguous US. That puts almost all of Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California in the southern half of the country, as well as all of Arizona and New Mexico.
If you want historical (meaning the Confederacy), then your own map is incorrect as it includes Missouri and Kentucky (neither of which seceded), and does include West Virginia (which only came into being by their refusal to go along with secession).

Incidentally, the center of the contiguous states in only six minutes of latitude north of the Mason-Dixon line.
 
2014-02-07 04:12:01 PM  

Lawnchair: give me doughnuts: When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

I have a hard time really considering it anything else.  Culturally, it's  deep South, imho.


What about the disproportionately large Native American population compared to other deep South states, second only to Alaska in percentage of Native American residents?
 
Ant
2014-02-07 04:12:06 PM  

Diogenes: From the linked article:

Gard said, "He doesn't like certain people of race, color, ethnicity."

Gard was a regular at Gary's Chicaros restaurant for years.

He said he turned a blind eye to the owner's choice of customers, until recently.

Gard said, "Now, he tried to find a weak excuse not to let me in with my wheelchair or the weak excuse of having loud people with me."

So, sorry for your disability.  But you're kind of an asshole, too.


This seems to be standard operating practice for far too many people. They don't see anything wrong until it affects them personally.

/see conservative politician with gay child, etc, etc...
 
2014-02-07 04:12:23 PM  

CleanAndPure: There is a chain in Columbia, SC called Miyo's that I won't eat at after hearing numerous reports of the owner being a biatch to certain peoples.

A friend of my wife's said she was shooed out of the restaurant for asking about allergens- allegedly she was told "people with allergies should not eat out and arnt welcome at her restaurant."

Shame. They have quite nice food.

Then there is Maurice's BBQ where the owner used to distribute kkk pamphlets.


Actually he went to the Supreme Court to keep blacks out of his restaurants.

He basically used to refuse to serve anybody from out of state, and only used local companies - reason being is that if we wasn't engaged in interstate commerce, the federal government and federal civil rights laws would not apply.

Can't find the link to the case at the minute, but the court's reasoning that he was engaged in interstate commerce wasn't really all that sound. Even though the verdict achieved a good outcome (integration), I really don't care for the leaps and logic used to achieve the end goal.
 
2014-02-07 04:12:23 PM  
Basically, are civil rights laws like "don't be racist" just good sense governmental protections, or are they moral imperatives that...  sensitive people should start crusades over?
 
2014-02-07 04:12:54 PM  

Lawnchair: give me doughnuts: When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

I have a hard time really considering it anything else.  Culturally, it's  deep South, imho.


Have you even been to Oklahoma?
 
2014-02-07 04:12:57 PM  
how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?
 
2014-02-07 04:13:33 PM  

sendtodave: "I don't believe that there should be discrimination laws."
"Well, the law disagrees with you!"

wat


Funny Rand Paul ran with this as part of his platform. He does not feel businesses should be required to serve people regardless of their color, ethnicity etc...
 
Displayed 50 of 725 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report