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 253
    More: Asinine, welfare recipients, KFOR, welfare  
•       •       •

17712 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:29 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-07 02:37:38 PM
11 votes:

Virtuoso80: Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.


The problem with that is that, once you open the door to discrimination in public accomodations, there is a risk of whole areas being off-limits to whatever class is being discriminated against.  The  Civil Rights Act didn't happen in a vacuum.
2014-02-07 01:50:58 PM
11 votes:
he doesn't like "f*ggots, n*ggers, cripples and democrats." i'm guessing his CPAC invitation is on its way.

what a vile, subhuman piece of shiat. i really hope he dies a slow death from ass cancer.
2014-02-07 02:36:03 PM
9 votes:
A thousand ADA lawyers just licked their chops.
2014-02-07 02:35:53 PM
9 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.


The Civil Rights Act and ADA disagree.
2014-02-07 01:56:31 PM
9 votes:

Magorn: Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt"  "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "


 I almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea


There's a few photos around 1:50 in the video.

A sit-in by a bunch of wounded and disabled veterans from Fort Sill should be good for some lulz.
2014-02-07 02:41:08 PM
8 votes:
I also like how the dude in the wheelchair was fine with the guy's views until he got discriminated against.
2014-02-07 01:42:19 PM
7 votes:
Well, that's his business model, and he's stayed in business for 44 years so... Oklahoma?
2014-02-07 02:29:58 PM
6 votes:
Gosh, Oklahoma must be a nice place to never visit ever.
2014-02-07 02:47:21 PM
5 votes:
but i thought we didn't need any kind of regulations or civil rights laws because the free market would have driven people like this out of business
2014-02-07 02:42:17 PM
5 votes:

Virtuoso80: Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.


You're OK with it. The law, on the other hand, isn't.
2014-02-07 02:38:30 PM
5 votes:
Knew this was a typical republican christian before even clicking. Useless piece of shiat.
2014-02-07 02:35:19 PM
5 votes:
And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.
2014-02-07 01:54:29 PM
5 votes:
ten bucks says this guy jerks himself to sleep every night thinking of terry crews in a thong.
2014-02-07 04:49:38 PM
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.


Your presence here proves otherwise.
2014-02-07 03:41:18 PM
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:05:47 PM
4 votes:

Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.



You're the one who is missing the point, sir. Many people have made sacrifices so that all people, no matter their race, would be treated equitably in establishments that serve the public. Its not that we all want to eat at this shiathole. The problem comes when Red Lobster or Ruth Chris decides that they should also be able to refuse service to people based on race or sexual orientation or when a private bus company decides that the seats in the front are now for whites only, again. The deal is, you get to use our public roads, fire department, and infrastructure so shut up about who you don't want to serve.

img.fark.net
2014-02-07 02:47:15 PM
4 votes:
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.
2014-02-07 02:32:24 PM
4 votes:

thismomentinblackhistory: Also, with those kind of rules, how the hell do you find restaurant workers?


Attend a local KKK rally?
2014-02-07 02:31:12 PM
4 votes:
Also, with those kind of rules, how the hell do you find restaurant workers?
2014-02-07 02:18:39 PM
4 votes:
I'll bet money he's hoping for somebody to set fire to the place so he can retire on the sweet, sweet insurance payout.
2014-02-07 02:13:46 PM
4 votes:
I don't make a habit of wishing for a person to soon suffer an agonizing, painful death, but I'm willing to make an exception for this asshole.
2014-02-07 02:08:44 PM
4 votes:
So he doesn't like the guy in the wheelchair cause he's on disability?

that is pretty farked up.
2014-02-07 01:48:50 PM
4 votes:
Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt"  "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "


 I
 almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea
2014-02-07 01:44:15 PM
4 votes:

Calmamity: Well, that's his business model, and he's stayed in business for 44 years so... Oklahoma?


only two things come from oklahoma. and i don't see horns on him.
2014-02-08 03:42:28 PM
3 votes:
InterruptingQuirk:
Here ya go:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 555x352]


living.jdewperry.com

this one's probably a little more telling.
2014-02-07 04:50:42 PM
3 votes:

QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.


gifrific.com
2014-02-07 04:00:34 PM
3 votes:

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 03:50:06 PM
3 votes:

Cat Food Sandwiches: So, your hate for him is somehow more acceptable than his hate for others?


i hate him for the content of his character, not for the color of his skin.

so in a word, "yes."
2014-02-07 03:34:35 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.


I have yet to see you post anything worth reading. Please shut up.

Also, for the sake of the gene pool, please stop reproducing. Two is more than enough of your contamination.
2014-02-07 03:11:06 PM
3 votes:

Swanji: LarryDan43: Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.

Why would you want to drink at the whites only fountain? Its the same water supply!

This is a far, far cry from segregated water fountains, but go ahead and hyperbole it up there, tiger.


Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. "Who cares (because we're not actually in that area)" and "There are bigger fish to fry" is turning a blind eye to that injustice, letting it continue wherever it is.
2014-02-07 02:57:30 PM
3 votes:

Virtuoso80: Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.


Absolutely - some people just need to learn their place, amiright?
www.spokesmanreview.com

www.popularresistance.org
2014-02-07 02:52:18 PM
3 votes:
Look at all this uproar...

Guys... he's cashing in on the Chic-fil-a/Duck Dynasty marketing scheme. Make a public spectacle spouting some insanely bigoted crap, cry "Freedom! (of speech)" and watch millions upon millions flock to your business "to show their support of Freedom(TM)".
2014-02-07 02:52:12 PM
3 votes:

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!
2014-02-07 02:44:06 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.


Ahh yes, the good ole "You're not perfect, so stop trying to fix everyone else!" defense.

You do realize if everyone thought that way, NOTHING would ever change?
2014-02-07 02:43:30 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.

El_Perro: The Civil Rights Act and ADA disagree.

I suppose so. Good to see that we are about to spend a bunch of money trying to change an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today.


Me too. Iove it when society makes examples of people who don't belong in human society. It's the same thing as the way you feel when a homeowner shoots a 13 year old black kid in the back for stealing a hubcap.
2014-02-07 02:42:33 PM
3 votes:

html_007: As much as I disagree with this man's business practices...  I guess it's his choice to be a farking idiot.


Oh, he can be an idiot all he wants. He just can't run a business that's open to the public that way.
2014-02-07 02:39:03 PM
3 votes:
Found location for next Oklahoma FARK party.
2014-02-07 02:37:10 PM
3 votes:

Sgt Otter: A sit-in by a bunch of wounded and disabled veterans from Fort Sill should be good for some lulz.


Better yet, some black Muslim gay wounded vets.
2014-02-07 02:24:28 PM
3 votes:

brap: That's a shame, your prices seem reasonable and I was really craving some fresh f*ggot with a side of country fried freak.


The f*gcargot is simply sublime.

/This guy needs to DIAF
2014-02-07 05:02:47 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: QU!RK1019: An answer? To "Who wrote the social contract?" You might as well have asked "Who wrote the book of love?"

So it's more of an arbitrary set of rules conceived on feelings and enforced by law.


I've heard grade schoolers demonstrate a more profound understanding of the theory of the social contract than that.
Ant
2014-02-07 04:53:17 PM
2 votes:

ssbob: I think it is funny how all the self-proclaimed tolerant folks here are so intolerant of someone who they disagree with.


Swanji: You're not upset about discrimination based on race or gender, as long as the right people (in your opinion) are discriminated against.


I will quote someone from upthread who said it very well:

jso2897: There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.
2014-02-07 04:50:13 PM
2 votes:
imageshack.com
Nope, not racist at all.
2014-02-07 04:43:41 PM
2 votes:

soupafi: James10952001: soupafi: James10952001: Well it's their right to refuse service to anyone they choose, an my right to not go there despite not falling into any of the forbidden categories.

I bet they've served a lot more gays and freaks than they realize though.

But you can't openly say " no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots"

Why can't you? Is that not covered by the 1st amendment? That's not to say the community shouldn't call him out on it, but it shouldn't be against the law.

The civil rights act of 1964 says you can't.


I'm really amazed at how many people must live sheltered, privileged lives. How do people not know this?
2014-02-07 04:26:55 PM
2 votes:

James10952001: Why can't you? Is that not covered by the 1st amendment? That's not to say the community shouldn't call him out on it, but it shouldn't be against the law.


Since it's how a business owner runs a public accommodation, no, it is not covered by the 1st amendments.

soupafi misspoke. You can openly say "no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots," but you can't say "no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots will be served in this publicly open dining establishment or other place of business."
2014-02-07 04:05:47 PM
2 votes:

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 03:50:08 PM
2 votes:

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.


Nobody is trying to change a racist or stop him/her from having racist feelings. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. The owner can be as racist as a watermelon in a noose and still provide equally adequate customer service to a black person. You know, I knid of LIKE going out to eat without checking the farking Yelp page to see if the resturant I'm headed to acceots Negros. I know you just can't grasp why that might be a good thing to me, but it is.
2014-02-07 03:49:20 PM
2 votes:
cps-static.rovicorp.com

Would be disappointed he couldn't this fine establishment.
2014-02-07 03:44:44 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Look at it like this. If this man is forced to serve anyone and everyone who comes in his place and he does so, will you patronize the establishment?


Aggressive, ignorant, bigoted discrimination is socially destructive and hurts both the community and humanity in general. It's a terrible, disgusting thing and any intelligent, ethical person is going to speak out against it, in any instance. This can and should electing to refuse considering patronizing his business.

Were he to end this horrible behavior, he would reset to the normal condition, which is if presented with an opportunity to eat at his establishment, I'd consider it just like any other institution and accept or reject it based on the normal criteria I apply.

Or, to make it easier for you to comprehend, although I shouldn't have to because this is really easy stuff to understand, my criteria for patronizing businesses includes, but is not limited to, not patronizing establishments that engage in horrible, bigoted behavior, because it's irrational, unethical and socially destructive. Now, why is that hard for you to comprehend?
2014-02-07 03:37:49 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:36:11 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Felgraf: So I take it you agree with Paul that the Civil Right's act is unfair and tyranny, and that discrimination based on race or gender should be allowed by businesses, yes?

"unfair" Meh. Life's unfair. "tyranny" no. Discrimination based on race or gender by private individuals? Sure. It happens all the time and is not exclusive to white males.. You  think that because someone MUST do business with you that he or she doesn't think in a particular fashion. If someone doesn't want my business or the business of those that I associate with, I'd prefer to know it upfront so that I don't unwittingly patronize their business.

Look at it like this. If this man is forced to serve anyone and everyone who comes in his place and he does so, will you patronize the establishment?


He will not be forced to do that. He will only be forced to serve those he has no reasonable, lawful cause to refuse.
Drunks, deadbeats, undesirables? he will never have to serve them. Let's not lie .
2014-02-07 03:36:03 PM
2 votes:

Mattyb710: What I don't agree with is having a law that forces someone to do something with their privately owned business that they don't want to.


Civil Rights Act of 1964. This isn't a new law. This isn't a new concept. This isn't being butthurt about someone's wacky opinion. This is preventing the systematic discrimination of people based on matters beyond their control become the norm again.
2014-02-07 03:34:03 PM
2 votes:

Magnanimous_J: jso2897: Magnanimous_J: The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.

The "right people" being pretty much limited to people who are evil, and do evil things.
There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.

Don't get me wrong, I think this guys is a capital asshole. But don't fool yourself into thinking that "evil" is anything more than a relative cultural construct. Civilizations have had some common ideas of what makes evil, but that doesn't make it universal, or based in anything other than everyone's mutual agreement.

50 years ago (and some places today, apparently) being gay or a socialist was seen as deliberately undermining society. It was legitimately "evil" to people then, so by your definition, it would be justified to actively hate them.

A couple thousand years ago, if you were in an army and conquered a town, you helping yourself to a couple women there would be seen as no more evil than taking a jolly rancher out of the big candy bowl at the doctor's office. Today, it's a heinous war crime.

My point being, think the way you think and do what you think is right, but it's all a matter of point of view. You probably don't think abortion is murder (and neither do I), but the red-faced people shrieking their lungs out at girls going into the clinic are just as justified in their hate as you are, by your own definition.


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.
2014-02-07 03:33:59 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Zeppelininthesky: Why even have the law in the first place?

Good question.


The laws are in place for a reason. Idiots like this are the very reason the laws were made. I hope this guy gets sued until his business goes away. Maybe the national attention will start the ball rolling.
2014-02-07 03:33:50 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm defending his right to be an asshole. 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." ?


It's right up there with "Look, this is a free country and it's totally fine if you talk about how much you hate black people, but if you run a business you need to serve them just like you'd serve anyone else. If you want to make money here by offering a public accommodation, it better actually be public so your shiatty ideas, while protected, won't come back as the disgusting systematic discrimination of people based solely on the color of their skin that we saw half a century ago."
2014-02-07 03:32:28 PM
2 votes:

Mattyb710: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.

Ummm, his restaurant IS a public place.

He could probably fix it if he turned it into a private club, but right now it's open to the public, it's a public place. You can't say "Open to the white public with jobs". It's either public or private.

Unless his business is receiving money from the government or is partly owned by the county or something it is a privately owned place. I feel if something is privately owned then the owner should be able to decide how to run it.

Bane of Broone: No.

And how are you going to stop them? Make it against the law to not love everyone the same? Put them in prison or camps?


The law disagrees with you.
2014-02-07 03:26:36 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And now no one anywhere excludes anyone from their establishment any more....except this guy in Enid Oklahoma. He's the last one and he needs to be made an example of right?

What you people fail to grasp is that I don't advocate his beliefs but I do advocate his freedom to have them. He's not worth my time, effort or money. Or yours but you're more than willing to spend all 3 on him.


The last one? No. But among the last, and we can no longer turn a blind eye to bigotry in Oklahoma in 2014 than we did in North Carolina in 1960 and across the country in 1964.

What you fail to grasp is that "his freedom to have those beliefs" is a great ideal as an isolated concept, but centuries of bigotry and discrimination have shown that when having those beliefs means you express them when dealing with other people the result is a detriment to society and humanity, and inevitably a stain on our conscience that I am sickened to see is so easily faded and forgotten.

Speech is protected. Beliefs are protected. Be as much of a bigot as you want in your words and thoughts. But when that moves from speech to engaging in commerce with other Americans, there need to be some guidelines. The history of this country is proof of that.
2014-02-07 03:15:30 PM
2 votes:
Sales at the boycotted stores dropped by a third, leading the stores' owners to abandon their segregation policies. Black employees of Greensboro's Woolworth store were the first to be served at the store's lunch counter. This event occurred on Monday, July 25, 1960. The entire Woolworth was desegregated, serving blacks and whites alike, although Woolworth lunch counters in other Tennessee cities, such as Jackson, continued to be segregated until around 1965, despite many protests.

It took legislation to finally end segregation. There's a reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and it shows a startling ignorance of American history to think that discrimination in businesses will correct itself.
2014-02-07 03:11:56 PM
2 votes:

Swanji: LarryDan43: Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.

Why would you want to drink at the whites only fountain? Its the same water supply!

This is a far, far cry from segregated water fountains, but go ahead and hyperbole it up there, tiger.


It's exactly like segregated water fountains, bathrooms, pools and restaurants from the pre-civil rights south.  How is it not?
2014-02-07 03:03:44 PM
2 votes:

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: Zeppelininthesky: Why even have the law in the first place?

Good question.

[img.fark.net image 400x332]

That. That is why. And where was that? In the small fish city of Greensboro, North Carolina.


Yeah, turns out that libertarians are farking stupid.
2014-02-07 03:01:58 PM
2 votes:

bigpeeler: More power to him. If you don't like it, don't go there. Apply the same logic that people use when others complain about movies and TV shows. Don't like it? Don't watch it. Bunch of over-sensitive pussies.


And apply that same logic to other business owners who have been wanting to deny entry to people of different race, creed, nationality, age, etc. in a public place.

You do realize this can snowball very quickly. If they don't quash it now, it will set a precedent that it's okay to discriminate.

The similarities between this and biatching about a movie/TV show are pretty much nil.
2014-02-07 03:00:33 PM
2 votes:
Time for a sit in

3dblogger.typepad.com
2014-02-07 02:58:23 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: There are bigger fish to fry that some asshole in Enid, Oklahoma.


There will ALWAYS be bigger fish to fry. But not focusing on the small fish from time to time will cause them to grow into big fish that do become a major problem. Why not stop it right now?
2014-02-07 02:57:59 PM
2 votes:

Virtuoso80: Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.


Of course, it's guys like him who gripe the most about the imaginary discrimination i.e. The war on Christians/Christmas/Rednecks etc. SOS, it's the entire essence of the far right: a free pass to act any way they choose,  while crying lil' biatches if someone sings a song all un-'murican.  Someone needs to give this guy a Cleveland Steamer, post haste.
2014-02-07 02:55:44 PM
2 votes:
I'm surprised the reporter got such clear quotes from him. The kkk hood usually muffles their words.

/and their wits.
2014-02-07 02:51:44 PM
2 votes:
What an insufferable d*ckbag. I don't wish bad things on anyone, but maybe he will lose the ability to walk and have to collect disability.

The horror!!

Not all Okies are arseholes, I swear. Sadly, there are people here who will applaud him and he may very well see an increase in business. Fark, if she could get away with it, the Governor might show up.

/haz a sad
//this guy is a doo-doo head
2014-02-07 02:49:37 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.


Because there can be no middle ground. It's all or nothing, right? No problem should ever be fixed, because someone else already has a problem.

Jesus, you are a waste of skin.
2014-02-07 02:46:59 PM
2 votes:
Dancin_In_Anson:

I suppose so. Good to see that we are about to spend a bunch of money trying to change an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today.


So when you discover one roach in your home you just let it be, until such a time as there are many roaches?  I like your lackadaisical approach to problem solving.
2014-02-07 02:45:59 PM
2 votes:
I hope a gay, Democrat, Muslim, in a wheelchair shows up to eat there. Like the Voltron of hated minorities....
2014-02-07 02:45:31 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.

El_Perro: The Civil Rights Act and ADA disagree.

I suppose so. Good to see that we are about to spend a bunch of money trying to change an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today.



So we shouldn't enforce laws when they're broken by "an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today."?  Got it.
2014-02-07 02:45:29 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.



So, in your eyes, one has to be absolutely perfect before helping to solve the problems of others?  Nothing can be worked on concurrently?
2014-02-07 02:42:52 PM
2 votes:

WTFDYW: While this guy is a USDA Grade 'AA' asshole, he is the sole proprietor of the joint and has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

images.sodahead.com

2014-02-07 02:40:41 PM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.


So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.

El_Perro: The Civil Rights Act and ADA disagree.


I suppose so. Good to see that we are about to spend a bunch of money trying to change an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today.
2014-02-07 02:40:07 PM
2 votes:

dwrash: One could only hope that his business would eventually dry up... but unfortunately he is in Oklahoma, so I can see him in business for the rest of his life.


I have the feeling this guy has just been flying under the radar. I have seen this story all over the media the last couple of days, and it's even on broadcast TV. We'll see how easy his life is in the spotlight.
2014-02-07 02:37:27 PM
2 votes:
1) Wait until the dinner crowd is all there.
2) Chain the doors from the outside.
3) Apply gasoline and road flares.
4) Profit!
2014-02-07 02:35:59 PM
2 votes:

thismomentinblackhistory: Also, with those kind of rules, how the hell do you find restaurant workers?


Hang out at the prison exit?
2014-02-07 02:34:11 PM
2 votes:
Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.
2014-02-07 02:31:08 PM
2 votes:
And those long-haired freaky people need not apply!
2014-02-07 02:23:07 PM
2 votes:
That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.
2014-02-07 01:46:08 PM
2 votes:
Oklahoman does the Oklahomiest thing possible, film at eleven.
2014-02-08 12:34:48 AM
1 votes:

Huggermugger: Most of the people who were living there in the early- to-mid 20th century were either born in Southern states, or their parents were. Mostly Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas. All Confederate states. Okies overwhelmingly had a Southern heritage.


On my mother's side, her parents were from TN and KY, though I think they missed the land runs.  On my dad's side, pure Welsh immigrants who first settled in Riley county, KS and then homesteaded in OK in the last land run.

Now... my own family bears a recognisably Welsh family name, but includes a Chinese wife and two very bright kids who catch no flack at school for their mixed race heritage.

Oh, My, God.  What is Oklahoma coming to?!
2014-02-07 11:16:51 PM
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.

See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?

Well said it's disgusting how many people what to to a blind eye to bigotry of any form.

Sure it's been said but those business owners need a license, and are able to operate safely because they have access to road, police, fie, and other EMS. Also there bigot asses are talking away from customers that will obey the law and operate in the system. So ya close them down sue them sic the AG on them whatever.


They pay taxes too.  You benefit from his taxes, at least federal, as much as he benefits from yours.  They're free to be assholes and so are you.

From where I sit, your intolerance of him and ready willingness to use the government to push your own views makes you not only an asshole but a much bigger asshole than this guy.
2014-02-07 10:20:45 PM
1 votes:

Nabb1: You don't actually have to do anything of course.


To be fair, what can one do short of raging about it on the internet? The internet raging is pretty good for catharsis and relatively harmless, so I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

/Seriously, though, what do you expect us to do? Go to Enid, Oklahoma and beat this guy up or something?
2014-02-07 08:46:04 PM
1 votes:

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.

See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?


Well said it's disgusting how many people what to to a blind eye to bigotry of any form.

Sure it's been said but those business owners need a license, and are able to operate safely because they have access to road, police, fie, and other EMS. Also there bigot asses are talking away from customers that will obey the law and operate in the system. So ya close them down sue them sic the AG on them whatever.
2014-02-07 07:43:15 PM
1 votes:
I always thought that one of the best things about Americans "Freedom of Speech" is that it makes it that much easier to avoid the idiots and just go on having a nice day.
2014-02-07 07:03:13 PM
1 votes:

Baloo Uriza: sovietski: Not all Okies are arseholes, I swear. Sadly, there are people here who will applaud him and he may very well see an increase in business. Fark, if she could get away with it, the Governor might show up.

Well, after the last couple years, she's on borrowed time politically from both sides anyway.


Yeah, she's gone full derp.
2014-02-07 06:37:51 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: udhq: Bit'O'Gristle: As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?

I don't know where this idea ever came from, but no, you do not have a "right to refuse service to anyone".  If that were true, no restaurants would voluntarily undergo the effort and expense of installing wheelchair ramps.

I see signs in a lot of restaurants stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, and this is in a very liberal suburb of Seattle, so that's likely where any confusion comes from. They don't specify any specific classes of people. I always figured it was so if someone is a dick they can be asked to leave.


Yeah, that's like those "not responsible for theft" signs in parking garages or the EULA clauses that state you waive your right to sue; they're of ZERO legal merit, and they're only there to make you think you have no recourse.

If you could just post a sign to exempt yourself from any law you wanted to, why wouldn't everyone be doing that?
2014-02-07 05:53:50 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: I'm still curious how many of the people flipping out over this would be happy to serve the racist asshole if he walked into their business.


If he walked in, I wouldn't refuse him service based on his skin color, sexual orientation, employment status, or any other thing I think I could tell "just by looking at him."

Now, if he started causing trouble, I would exercise my right to refuse him service.

Does that clear it up for you?
2014-02-07 05:52:46 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: It's something that has nothing to do with me and doesn't affect me. Nobody will change that guy's mind, any more than someone will turn you into a racist right winger. He's old, he'll die and be replace by younger folks who will likely have different views.


I'm pretty sure that's what they said in the 1870s.  And, for a long enough stretch of history, it's probably true.  But, a century after emancipation, we were still lynching blacks, and there are tens of thousands of students going to school  *TODAY*, as in right now in the year 2014, in de-facto white-only segregation academies in the south.

Without LBJ and the Civil Rights Act, Jim Crow would still be standing in many places.  The Rand Paul theory that this crap would have died on its own (for free-market and march-of-progress reasons) fails to account for the fact that it  did happen, and lasted for a century+.
2014-02-07 05:50:34 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: No.

Followed by jso2897: You are free to reject it, and abjure society's protections. aka jso2897: Yes.

As I said earlier Dancin_In_Anson: I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.

You want this man to serve anyone and everyone that wants to peaceably come in, plunk down  their money and get a burger and a beer and if he refuses, he will "abjure society's protections" as you put it or "face official sanction" as I put it.

I on the other hand would simply refuse to darken his doorstep and attempt make hay off of his narrow mind. He's turning away a lot of business and he won't be around forever. You see the pile of shiat, I see the nugget of corn.


I don't care how you feel about this, and beyond correcting the erroneous statement that this guy has a right to discriminate - which he does not, I've got no dog in the fight.
I'm not asking you to do anything about it, or even care. I don't think you're a bad person for taking that position - I just think you're wrong. I don't think the passive attitude fixes this - we tried that back in the early sixties, and it didn't work.
Just as some men will not stop raping women until you jail them, some men will not stop violating civil rights until they are made subject to civil law. That's sad, but it's reality.
Either way, though, I don't take it as a personal offense from you. There are things other farkers do, of which I may disapprove, but simply holding opinions I find disagreeable isn't among them.
2014-02-07 05:38:56 PM
1 votes:
oh wow, apparently this has been happening for a while now.   Even better?  He's a politician....

http://www.news9.com/story/9764682/enid-business-owner-catches-heat-f o r-discrimination">http://www.news9.com/story/9764682/enid-business-ow ner-catches-heat-fo r-discrimination
2014-02-07 05:35:03 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: TechnicolorYawn: Based on one comment on this thread that really offended me,
I'm going to assume everyone on here is just like that responder and exit the thread forever.

/bye

Way to stereotype!


So, you were able to figure out my sarcasm,
and you got my point, too.  nice.
2014-02-07 05:34:37 PM
1 votes:

scottydoesntknow: QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.

[gifrific.com image 152x184]


I very rarely actually laugh out loud while reading Fark but .... this is a special moment.
2014-02-07 05:32:37 PM
1 votes:

QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.


rebloggingdonk.com
2014-02-07 05:31:48 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.


See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?
2014-02-07 05:20:05 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: Scratch that other post, thanks for the answer.


Of course. I try to answer everybody (I went to lunch when you posted).

Again, he should follow our law.

Yes. Wherever you are, you follow the laws of that country. I wouldn't expect him to follow that law if he were in China, anymore than I would expect an Asian guy to follow a law in China while living here.

Going on and on about what a backwards piece of shiat he is, how he should die, blah blah, for being a racist is kinda silly.

Sure I'll agree with you on that. But it's the internet, hyperbole and exaggeration are par for the course. Granted I would not shed a single tear if this guy dropped dead of a heart-attack tomorrow. It would just be one less racist on this earth.
2014-02-07 05:19:46 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.


If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.

If the people who pay for lights on his street don't patronize his business, his business will cease to exist and the problem is solved. It's not as if it's located in the middle of San Francisco with all the customers commuting in from backward redneck places.


Look I think he sounds like a real piece if shiat too, but that's his right. It's only a problem if he starts instigating harm to others.

No it's not. Stop ignoring laws because of your personal beliefs.

I'm not ignoring laws, I just refuse to give a shiat and get bent out of shape about this guy. Go there and if he refuses to serve you illegally then you can make a stink about it but he's en ...


Something not affecting you how you determine whether to care or not. That's just sad.
2014-02-07 05:13:42 PM
1 votes:

7th Son of a 7th Son: Goddamn the butthurt is unbelievable. He's kept open a restaurant for that long, not too shabby. As a lifelong Oklahoman, I don't care if the rest of this country/world thinks we all have the same way of thinking. Most do, some don't.


I'm unclear as to what conclusion you are coming to.  Bigotry is ok if you're successful?
Ant
2014-02-07 05:12:14 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: No matter how hard you try you can not legislate the racism out of ignorant people.
Privately owned businesses should most definitely get to choose who their clientele is. If racist assholes want to be racist assholes let them. Why the fark would someone want to eat at a restaurant owned by someone that hates them and is being forced to serve them?
It's not an all or nothing deal either, like some in this thread make it out to be.
Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.
The most the law should be involved is if the place is unsafe, making people sick, or things along those lines.


So if the 4 major cell carriers suddenly decide they don't want to provide service to black people, and if enough non-black customers continue to give their business to the carriers, that would be perfectly OK?
2014-02-07 05:10:46 PM
1 votes:
Free advertising, I guess.

I'm wondering how (assuming he does actually abide by these stupid restrictions, which I doubt) he determines the employment status and sexual orientation of customers?

Survey passed out to people at the door or show of hands?

And who reads the survey results to him or counts the people holding up their hands?
2014-02-07 05:09:20 PM
1 votes:

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.


Unfortunately that is how most people work.
2014-02-07 05:07:28 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: scottydoesntknow: That has jack shiat to do with the topic at hand.

China is its own country with its own laws. And why the fark do you want to be like China?!

Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to vote, drive, or be out in public unescorted by a man. Should we be more like them?

Nigeria allows you to throw gay people in jail (and even execute) simply for the crime of being gay. Should we be more like Nigeria?

That's how stupid you sound right now.

More like "Do we expect them to be more like us?"

And, on a smaller scale, do we expect small town dimwits to be like multicultural, liberal coastal dwellers?


We would like them to be more like us, but at the end of the day, they are their own sovereign nation with their own laws.

And we expect small-town dimwits to follow federal law. It has jack-shiat to do with "multicultural, liberal coastal dwellers".
2014-02-07 05:05:30 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.


If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.

If the people who pay for lights on his street don't patronize his business, his business will cease to exist and the problem is solved. It's not as if it's located in the middle of San Francisco with all the customers commuting in from backward redneck places.


Look I think he sounds like a real piece if shiat too, but that's his right. It's only a problem if he starts instigating harm to others.

No it's not. Stop ignoring laws because of your personal beliefs.

I'm not ignoring laws, I just refuse to give a shiat and get bent out of shape about this guy. Go there and if he refuses to serve you illegally then you can make a stink about it but he's entitled to his views and making ...


It's a symptom of a larger problem and you refuse to care. Got it.
2014-02-07 05:04:38 PM
1 votes:
Goddamn the butthurt is unbelievable. He's kept open a restaurant for that long, not too shabby. As a lifelong Oklahoman, I don't care if the rest of this country/world thinks we all have the same way of thinking. Most do, some don't.
2014-02-07 05:01:04 PM
1 votes:
Guy looks just the the racist scumbag Stacy Keach plays in American History X.

imageshack.com
2014-02-07 05:00:40 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: 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?


That has jack shiat to do with the topic at hand.

China is its own country with its own laws. And why the fark do you want to be like China?!

Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to vote, drive, or be out in public unescorted by a man. Should we be more like them?

Nigeria allows you to throw gay people in jail (and even execute) simply for the crime of being gay. Should we be more like Nigeria?

That's how stupid you sound right now.
2014-02-07 05:00:37 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: He will only be forced to serve those he has no reasonable, lawful cause to refuse.

WHY THE FARK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SERVED BY THIS ASSHOLE?


Why the Fark do you keep asking this question over and over when it's already been answered?  Are you simply dishonest?  Or is your memory that bad?
2014-02-07 05:00:00 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: am I getting into an argument with someone who thinks the social contract is a literal legal document?


No, you are trying to tell me that it's just something that you should do because "society" and if you don't you're going to face official sanction.
2014-02-07 04:57:51 PM
1 votes:
fark me, am I getting into an argument with someone who thinks the social contract is a literal legal document? It's 5:00 on a Friday, I've said my peace, I have shiat to do.
2014-02-07 04:57:02 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: The social contract is by definition not a legal contract


And yet you want to bind people to it with laws.


Again, no.

There are certain aspects of the social contract that work well as the behavior of society- de facto. There are other aspects that require the interjection of law- de jure. As the Woolworth's counter sit-in and the events leading up to it and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 show, the latter is needed in regards to ensuring businesses treat people equally barring specific, legitimate reasons to refuse service.
2014-02-07 04:56:18 PM
1 votes:

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.


"First, Gary's Chicaros restaurant discriminated against the gays, and I did not speak out--because I was not gay;
Then Gary's Chicaros restaurant discriminated against the blacks, and I did not speak out--because I was not black;
Then Gary's Chicaros restaurant discriminated against the welfare recipients, and I did not speak out--because I was not a welfare recipient;


.....Then Gary's Chicaros restaurant discriminated against me for being a disabled person--and there was no one left to speak out for me."
2014-02-07 04:52:54 PM
1 votes:

QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.


www.myhealthtips.in
2014-02-07 04:52:47 PM
1 votes:

Rapmaster2000: Who got to decide that!?  I don't remember being asked what I think.


Congress in 1964 after seeing that there was a pretty huge trend of people with dark-colored skin not being served and often being met with outright violence at such accommodations.

Dancin_In_Anson: QU!RK1019: Blustery and obtuse is no way to go through life, son.

I guess it's safe to assume that you have no answer for this question. Hell even DRO answered...it was an infantile answer but at least it was an answer.


It was an infantile question. The social contract is by definition not a legal contract but the assumed balance of responsibilities and benefits any individual within a larger society accepts by remaining an actor within that society. If you have neighbors, if you use roads, if you in any way interact with the outside world and the people within it, you are part of the social contract. To not be part of it, you would have to divorce yourself from any and all use of resources shared or distributed by society in any form.
2014-02-07 04:52:04 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: QU!RK1019: Blustery and obtuse is no way to go through life, son.

I guess it's safe to assume that you have no answer for this question. Hell even DRO answered...it was an infantile answer but at least it was an answer.



I just put the same amout of effort into the answer that you put into the question.
2014-02-07 04:51:24 PM
1 votes:

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]


um, fta, specifically, the caption to the pic you posted:
Although Oklahoma was aligned with the Confederacy, it is not shaded because at the time the region was Indian Territory, not a state.


durrrr...
2014-02-07 04:51:04 PM
1 votes:

Rapmaster2000: dr_blasto: Dancin_In_Anson: dr_blasto: Society is under no obligation to allow business like this to exist


Who gets to decide this?

His community licenses his business and can revoke that license. That community is under no obligation to license discriminatory businesses and, since that community is part of a much larger national community, they may be obligated to distribute licenses based on national laws as well. The restaurant is also likely required to be ADA-accessible, so, he needs to make sure he is able to serve "cripples" or he's going to run into some other problems.

Enid isn't obligated to license an all-night open-air live rock club in the middle of some residential neighborhood either, so the imaginary all-night open-air live rock club needs to find an accommodating community or zoning. Just like nutty bigot guy, subject of TFA. He needs to find the appropriate community that allows his rules, if that's Belize and not the US, well, he's free to move there.

Who says so!?  That's not freedom to me.

/just preparing you for the rebuttal


I wonder if he'd be mad if someone started a pig farm next door to him and city hall didn't allow cranky white libertarians in.
2014-02-07 04:48:18 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: DROxINxTHExWIND: He has accepted a social contract

You got a copy of that contract? Who wrote it?


Are you going to argue that we don't? WTF do we have countries, cities or any societies for if we're not going to have some farking standards? You want to put your shingle up and hook up to the sewers on main street without having to meet some basic requirements?
2014-02-07 04:48:03 PM
1 votes:

umad: DROxINxTHExWIND: umad: teenytinycornteeth: Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.


So, in your eyes, one has to be absolutely perfect before helping to solve the problems of others?  Nothing can be worked on concurrently?

The disconnect here is the difference between "I have a problem, please help me with it" and "You have a problem, and I'm going to help you with it whether you see it as a problem or not".


Stop focusing on the business owner. Its not about him. He has accepted a social contract and part of that contract states that if you use OUR infrastructure and you operate a business that serves the public, you can't discriminate. Period. No one CARES who this shiatkicker likes or does not like. He's welcome to bring my burger out and then retreat to the back for a miniature cross-burning using a peice of pound cake and two toothpicks. No one gives a shiat about changing him. He can't use MY money getting the potholes in front of his restaurant fixed and then deny me service. Its not that difficult a concept.

I wasn't focusing on the business owner or defending him in any way. So go fark yourself.



Well, THAT escalated quickly. LOL.


/Whatever it was from a past thread...get over it.
2014-02-07 04:47:44 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.


If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.

If the people who pay for lights on his street don't patronize his business, his business will cease to exist and the problem is solved. It's not as if it's located in the middle of San Francisco with all the customers commuting in from backward redneck places.


Look I think he sounds like a real piece if shiat too, but that's his right. It's only a problem if he starts instigating harm to others.


No it's not. Stop ignoring laws because of your personal beliefs.
2014-02-07 04:47:38 PM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: Potato potahto.

No, no it isn't.

Dancin_In_Anson: He owns a private establishment.

And public accommodation. That's a type of private establishment that is open to the public for people to shop or eat. It is accessible, and in that sense is not private.

Then by that definition there is no such thing as a private business.


Um... no.

Private business: Privately  held company where ownership is kept to a few individuals or a small number of shareholders. It is not owned by the government and it is not a non-profit organization.

Public accommodation: Any privately or publicly owned facility that is open to the public. Specifically, any such facility where people go to "be" for any reason or length of time, rather than to simply perform a transaction in exchange for goods.

As defined in the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, Title II, Sec. 201:

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
2014-02-07 04:47:32 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.


If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.

If the people who pay for lights on his street don't patronize his business, his business will cease to exist and the problem is solved. It's not as if it's located in the middle of San Francisco with all the customers commuting in from backward redneck places.


Look I think he sounds like a real piece if shiat too, but that's his right. It's only a problem if he starts instigating harm to others.


I think you should go to the Supreme Court and argue this airtight case.  They'd probably agree.
2014-02-07 04:47:05 PM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: Potato potahto.

No, no it isn't.

Dancin_In_Anson: He owns a private establishment.

And public accommodation. That's a type of private establishment that is open to the public for people to shop or eat. It is accessible, and in that sense is not private.

Then by that definition there is no such thing as a private business.


Yes, exactly.

It's a privately-OWNED business. That only means he owns it, not shareholders or other people. What you're thinking of is a private membership club. They can exclude whoever they want, but that also comes with certain conditions.

This guy's business is privately-owned, not a private membership club.
2014-02-07 04:45:31 PM
1 votes:

dr_blasto: Dancin_In_Anson: dr_blasto: Society is under no obligation to allow business like this to exist


Who gets to decide this?

His community licenses his business and can revoke that license. That community is under no obligation to license discriminatory businesses and, since that community is part of a much larger national community, they may be obligated to distribute licenses based on national laws as well. The restaurant is also likely required to be ADA-accessible, so, he needs to make sure he is able to serve "cripples" or he's going to run into some other problems.

Enid isn't obligated to license an all-night open-air live rock club in the middle of some residential neighborhood either, so the imaginary all-night open-air live rock club needs to find an accommodating community or zoning. Just like nutty bigot guy, subject of TFA. He needs to find the appropriate community that allows his rules, if that's Belize and not the US, well, he's free to move there.


Who says so!?  That's not freedom to me.

/just preparing you for the rebuttal
Ant
2014-02-07 04:45:26 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.


So unless people in the majority start sticking up for you, a hated minority, by boycotting businesses on your behalf, business owners can continue to discriminate against you as long as the market will allow it. Is that what you're saying?
2014-02-07 04:44:23 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: Do these articles get greened just to make Fark coastal liberals feel smug, superior?


We really don't need Fark for that.
2014-02-07 04:44:06 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: DROxINxTHExWIND: He has accepted a social contract

You got a copy of that contract? Who wrote it?


Blustery and obtuse is no way to go through life, son.
2014-02-07 04:42:27 PM
1 votes:
F that guy in the wheelchair in the video. You were a loyal customer and had no problem with that place until you became crippled and got the same treatment. What an a-hole.
2014-02-07 04:40:38 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: soupafi: James10952001: Well it's their right to refuse service to anyone they choose, an my right to not go there despite not falling into any of the forbidden categories.

I bet they've served a lot more gays and freaks than they realize though.

But you can't openly say " no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots"

Why can't you? Is that not covered by the 1st amendment? That's not to say the community shouldn't call him out on it, but it shouldn't be against the law.


The civil rights act of 1964 says you can't.
2014-02-07 04:37:35 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: LarryDan43: Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.

Why would you want to drink at the whites only fountain? Its the same water supply!

This is a far, far cry from segregated water fountains, but go ahead and hyperbole it up there, tiger.


How so?
2014-02-07 04:37:09 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: dr_blasto: Society is under no obligation to allow business like this to exist

Who gets to decide this?


Under the Civil Rights Act? The Attorney General is authorized to file suit against the business.
2014-02-07 04:36:52 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: He will only be forced to serve those he has no reasonable, lawful cause to refuse.

WHY THE FARK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SERVED BY THIS ASSHOLE?


Because if this asshole has the right to refuse serve me based on my race, ethnicity, disability, etc., then any asshole has the right to refuse to serve me based on my race, ethnicity, disability, etc.  And if any asshole has the right to do so, then EVERY business owner in a given area has the right to do so.  That would leave members of the discriminated-against class with few/no options for food, gas, etc. (e.g., those things classified as "public accomodations") when travelling to (or through) areas where all/most business owners discriminated.  That, in turn, effectively limits the ability of the discriminated-against class to travel to or through such areas.

This is not some sort of baseless slippery slope argument - it is the history of the Civil Rights Act.  Are people this f*cking ignorant of American history?
2014-02-07 04:36:50 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.



If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.
2014-02-07 04:34:58 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Potato potahto.


No, no it isn't.

Dancin_In_Anson: He owns a private establishment.


And public accommodation. That's a type of private establishment that is open to the public for people to shop or eat. It is accessible, and in that sense is not private.
2014-02-07 04:34:45 PM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: jso2897: Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt"  "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "


 I almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea

Please explain how womans only gysm avoid the public accomidation clause of the Civil Rights act.  If a gym can restrict its patrons based on gender then a business can restrict its patrons based on anything.

You are aware that men-only gyms and bathhouses are also legal, I presume?

Yes but every time somebody tries to start a male only club it becomes a huge issue with feminists screaming discrimination across the entire internet.


You should come check out my Men's Rights subreddit.  It's about time we stood up to the rampant discrimination guys like us face every day.  I haven't had a date in five years!
2014-02-07 04:34:25 PM
1 votes:

NicktheSmoker: Funniest part was all the dumbass comments about the guy must be republican cause blah blah. Pretty much doing the same thing he is doing, but if you direct it to members of a political party its somehow not bad. God this country is full of stupid.


Criticizing someone for something they choose (e.g., political affiliation) = acceptable
Criticizing someone for something they cannot choose (e.g., skin color, etc.) = unacceptable

It's not rocket surgery.
2014-02-07 04:33:17 PM
1 votes:
I think that businesses should be able to serve whoever they want on their own private property.

Checkmate, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.  Checkmate.
2014-02-07 04:32:43 PM
1 votes:
Funniest part was all the dumbass comments about the guy must be republican cause blah blah. Pretty much doing the same thing he is doing, but if you direct it to members of a political party its somehow not bad. God this country is full of stupid.
2014-02-07 04:31:26 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: 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!

Lady parts aren't actually called pussies, ya know? It's slang that has taken on it's own context.


I've also heard that if you spell an insult "ghey" that magically makes it no longer homophobic.
2014-02-07 04:29:44 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.


The point isn't to hurt this guy so much as make an example of him so other people won't try to pull the same crap.
2014-02-07 04:29:42 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: Real people are only fun with I'm drinking.


You're saying you're making these piss-poor troll attempts when  sober? Man, I'm depressed now.
2014-02-07 04:28:52 PM
1 votes:

umad: teenytinycornteeth: Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.


So, in your eyes, one has to be absolutely perfect before helping to solve the problems of others?  Nothing can be worked on concurrently?

The disconnect here is the difference between "I have a problem, please help me with it" and "You have a problem, and I'm going to help you with it whether you see it as a problem or not".



Stop focusing on the business owner. Its not about him. He has accepted a social contract and part of that contract states that if you use OUR infrastructure and you operate a business that serves the public, you can't discriminate. Period. No one CARES who this shiatkicker likes or does not like. He's welcome to bring my burger out and then retreat to the back for a miniature cross-burning using a peice of pound cake and two toothpicks. No one gives a shiat about changing him. He can't use MY money getting the potholes in front of his restaurant fixed and then deny me service. Its not that difficult a concept.
2014-02-07 04:27:04 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
2014-02-07 04:23:28 PM
1 votes:

James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: 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.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


No, but you can legislate how businesses work and make sure they cannot deny customers for the color of their skin or country of origin. And we did that in 1964, and through various states in the last 60 years we've been doing that with sexual orientation and other characteristics.
2014-02-07 04:22:07 PM
1 votes:

teenytinycornteeth: Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.


So, in your eyes, one has to be absolutely perfect before helping to solve the problems of others?  Nothing can be worked on concurrently?


The disconnect here is the difference between "I have a problem, please help me with it" and "You have a problem, and I'm going to help you with it whether you see it as a problem or not".
2014-02-07 04:21:01 PM
1 votes:

Ant: Cat Food Sandwiches: FlashHarry: he doesn't like "f*ggots, n*ggers, cripples and democrats." i'm guessing his CPAC invitation is on its way.

what a vile, subhuman piece of shiat. i really hope he dies a slow death from ass cancer.

So, your hate for him is somehow more acceptable than his hate for others?

Yes. Intolerance of intolerance is tolerated.


He already responded to that.  Quite well, in fact:

i hate him for the content of his character, not for the color of his skin.

so in a word, "yes."
2014-02-07 04:20:42 PM
1 votes:

Kiwimann: FlashHarry: 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?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing.  I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".


I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.
2014-02-07 04:20:27 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: 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.


Objection overruled!  You opened the Wikipedia door yourself, counselor.

Bane of Boone showed you a map of what was generally considered the south.  (From Wikipedia)  You tried (unsuccessfully) to quote that same article for support of your theory.  (If you RTFCaption of the picture you posted, Oklahoma is considered southern because it was in the confederacy.  It's not shaded in that picture because it was a territory as opposed to a state.)  You argued it was a western state.  According to Wikipedia, it's not.
2014-02-07 04:16:06 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: 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.

Historically, discrimination like this limited access in the political process.

It also limited your ability to network which leads to things like employment.

There's also the argument that we shouldn't tolerate this absurdity because it's wrong.


Sometimes there's an advantage to allowing the shiatbags like this to publicly fly their hate. It emboldens others who might otherwise hide their bullshiat.

I do think, though, it's better to just deal with them when they pop up. Society is under no obligation to allow business like this to exist, let alone prosper. It reflects poorly on everyone and contributes to decay.
2014-02-07 04:15:40 PM
1 votes:
What if a veteren who lost limbs in a war came in, would he refuse to serve them then?
/ fark this guy.
2014-02-07 04:14:22 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: 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.


Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.
2014-02-07 04:13:33 PM
1 votes:

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...
2014-02-07 04:12:57 PM
1 votes:
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?
Ant
2014-02-07 04:12:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:08:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:07:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:07:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:07:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:06:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:06:01 PM
1 votes:
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 04:03:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:25 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:18 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 04:00:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:37 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:18 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:53 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.

Ummm, his restaurant IS a public place.

He could probably fix it if he turned it into a private club, but right now it's open to the public, it's a public place. You can't say "Open to the white public with jobs". It's either public or private.

Unless his business is receiving money from the government or is partly owned by the county or something it is a privately owned place. I feel if something is privately owned then the owner should be able to decide how to run it.

No, it isn't. You really need to brush up on the difference between private and public. A privately owned business that is open to the public is subject to anti-discrimination laws. Simple as that. What you think, and what the law says, are two entirely different things here.

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

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.

Bane of Broone: Bane of Broone: Bloody William: Mattyb710: What I don't agree with is having a law that forces someone to do something with their privately owned business that they don't want to.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. This isn't a new law. This isn't a new c ...


Disagree all you want. Not only does the law not agree with you, but you don't agree with what private property really is either (as shown before). You have to create your own reality to support your beliefs. "I don't agree with this law or that definition.. It should be what I say it is!", lol. Think and believe whatever you like. Reality says otherwise. No wonder Florida has it's own tag. XD
2014-02-07 03:57:48 PM
1 votes:

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"?
2014-02-07 03:53:21 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:51:45 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: Cat Food Sandwiches: So, your hate for him is somehow more acceptable than his hate for others?

i hate him for the content of his character, not for the color of his skin.

so in a word, "yes."


Well said.
2014-02-07 03:51:03 PM
1 votes:

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.


Actually, we have.  Segregated facilities was the norm and that perpetuated racism.  Children growing up in those towns learned that segregation was the way things were, it was the social norm.  Your father and your grandfather told you that those people should be discriminated against and you saw confirmation of that everywhere.  What else would you believe??

If you asked white people in Birmingham in in 1960 if segregation was right and proper, I'm sure a large fraction would say it was.  If you go back and ask that same question in the same place today, enormously fewer people would agree and most that did would be over the age 60.

What happened?  We didn't impinge on people's right to hold those views, or even on their right to express them.  But the world changed, and it changed because we changed the environment and people can't look to the nearest "whites only" sign for confirmation of their prejudices and because they now had to interact with "those people" and learned that they really are human.
2014-02-07 03:49:30 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:46:42 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: 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.  Even if it is to those who feel the same way, it reinforces the sense of equality.  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.  I won't tacitly condone intolerance.

Speaking out against this guy is exactly the right thing to do. Protest outside his building. Publish pictures of everyone who comes out of his restaurant in the newspaper and label them as supporting a bigot.
Shame the people who eat there so much they stop eating there and he goes out of business.

What I don't agree with is having a law that forces someone to do something with their privately owned business that they don't want to.


Again, you really need to brush up on what a "privately-owned business" actually means.

If you want to discriminate against people, opening a business is the wrong way to go about it.
2014-02-07 03:45:23 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: FlashHarry: he doesn't like "f*ggots, n*ggers, cripples and democrats." i'm guessing his CPAC invitation is on its way.

what a vile, subhuman piece of shiat. i really hope he dies a slow death from ass cancer.

How progressive of you.


We already covered the "intolerant of intolerance" bit. Please try to keep up. You'll see quite a few others that are better than you at being edgy on the internet.
2014-02-07 03:45:15 PM
1 votes:

Dragonflew: Oh my god, seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-r ef use-service.html

But I am only on page 2 of 6 in the thread right now, I imagine you've been sufficiently embarrassed by now.


Oh Christ it gets worse.

Swanji: Wait, so now "injustice" is defined as any time someone is a little mean to someone else, and hurts their feelings?  This is "injustice" because black, crippled, and poor people aren't allowed to eat at a privately owned restaurant that is owned by a man who hates black, crippled, and poor people?  Good lord, how to you make it through the line at the DMV without having an oppression induced nervous breakdown?


See what I mean?
2014-02-07 03:43:20 PM
1 votes:
Fox News would of given this the "HERO" tag.
2014-02-07 03:43:05 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: Bontesla: LarryDan43: Swanji: Lamberts Ho Man: Swanji: LarryDan43: Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.

Why would you want to drink at the whites only fountain? Its the same water supply!

This is a far, far cry from segregated water fountains, but go ahead and hyperbole it up there, tiger.

It's exactly like segregated water fountains, bathrooms, pools and restaurants from the pre-civil rights south.  How is it not?

It's not, because this is one farking restaurant.  There are no segregated water fountains, bathrooms, or pools.  In fact, there aren't even any segregated restaurants, just this one guy being a piece of shiat.  So no, nowhere even close.  Put a different way, actual segregation was EVERYWHERE.  Every business and government service in every city, town, and hamlet was segregated.  Again, this is one asshole.  One restaurant, not segregation.  So, come up with a more pertinent argument.

I see, so if one business puts up a segregated water fountain its okay because its just one.

Nicely put.

And by permitting such things to happen - it will not inspire like minded bigots. It will forever be that one.

Like minded bigots don't need inspiration, and as long as they are not actually hurting anyone, they are free to do as they please.  At least in this country.  Why do you think the KKK still exists?


No.

Like minded bigots, like many other groups, will model their plans after successful examples.

By allowing this type of illegal discrimination to continue, once publicly exposed, means the public is less protected. The law is less reliable because its enforcement is lacking.

It wasn't so long ago that politicians visited segregated dinners - an action that inherently restricted access by minorities to political candidates.
2014-02-07 03:39:54 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.

Ummm, his restaurant IS a public place.

He could probably fix it if he turned it into a private club, but right now it's open to the public, it's a public place. You can't say "Open to the white public with jobs". It's either public or private.

Unless his business is receiving money from the government or is partly owned by the county or something it is a privately owned place. I feel if something is privately owned then the owner should be able to decide how to run it.

Bane of Broone: No.

And how are you going to stop them? Make it against the law to not love everyone the same? Put them in prison or camps?


Their business license is granted by the community and can be revoked by the same.
2014-02-07 03:39:30 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: He will only be forced to serve those he has no reasonable, lawful cause to refuse.


WHY THE FARK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SERVED BY THIS ASSHOLE?
2014-02-07 03:39:29 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: Mattyb710: What I don't agree with is having a law that forces someone to do something with their privately owned business that they don't want to.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. This isn't a new law. This isn't a new concept. This isn't being butthurt about someone's wacky opinion. This is preventing the systematic discrimination of people based on matters beyond their control become the norm again.


Yes, but Matty "feels" otherwise. Why can't you be a real liberal and be open-minded enough to support him in his efforts promote racism?
2014-02-07 03:37:25 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: scottydoesntknow: Mattyb710: Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.

Ummm, his restaurant IS a public place.

He could probably fix it if he turned it into a private club, but right now it's open to the public, it's a public place. You can't say "Open to the white public with jobs". It's either public or private.

Unless his business is receiving money from the government or is partly owned by the county or something it is a privately owned place. I feel if something is privately owned then the owner should be able to decide how to run it.


No, it isn't. You really need to brush up on the difference between private and public. A privately owned business that is open to the public is subject to anti-discrimination laws. Simple as that. What you think, and what the law says, are two entirely different things here.

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).
2014-02-07 03:37:09 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: Like minded bigots don't need inspiration, and as long as they are not actually hurting anyone, they are free to do as they please.  At least in this country.  Why do you think the KKK still exists?


Because speech is free and protected, but if you want to run a business as a public accommodation, you have to follow some rules.
2014-02-07 03:36:27 PM
1 votes:
Gary's Chicaros restaurant

What's up with a True Christian White American Freedom English Jesus Fetus Guns Patriot® using an Hispanic word in his diner's name?
2014-02-07 03:33:36 PM
1 votes:

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.  Even if it is to those who feel the same way, it reinforces the sense of equality.  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.  I won't tacitly condone intolerance.


Speaking out against this guy is exactly the right thing to do. Protest outside his building. Publish pictures of everyone who comes out of his restaurant in the newspaper and label them as supporting a bigot.
Shame the people who eat there so much they stop eating there and he goes out of business.

What I don't agree with is having a law that forces someone to do something with their privately owned business that they don't want to.
2014-02-07 03:33:32 PM
1 votes:
Look at the bright side:  Every business within ten miles has a really easy way to silently toss out job applicants just by asking them what they think of the place.
2014-02-07 03:32:12 PM
1 votes:

thehobbes: sovietski: It makes me wonder how well his restaurant and views would go over in Tulsa.

West of I-35 means no one cares about it. 

The only things of value west of I-35 is the natural gas rigs... and Fort Sill.

The US Army realizes the only thing good about western is you can lob artillery shells all over it and no one cares.


I lol'd.

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.

/let's make this happen
2014-02-07 03:31:49 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: FTFV in TFA:

img.fark.net


Corrupt LEOs.

/So that would be between 10% and 90% of them.  I wonder how he tells them apart.
2014-02-07 03:31:34 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: What you people fail to grasp is that I don't advocate his beliefs but I do advocate his freedom to have them. He's not worth my time, effort or money. Or yours but you're more than willing to spend all 3 on him.


I personally feel it's worth lots of my time and money, and the government's money, to fight discriminatory practices based on ignorance. Seems to me working for continual improvement on all levels is an important thing for people, governments and countries alike. Social justice is just a part of that. If we ignore such fools, we're implicitly suggesting such behavior is a-ok. And it's not. Although, one could argue that a perhaps more effective solution would to be think long term and more broadly  - education and acceptance programs rather than legal actions or public shaming - but such things would come with a bevy of political baggage of their own.
2014-02-07 03:30:43 PM
1 votes:

LarryDan43: Swanji: Lamberts Ho Man: Swanji: LarryDan43: Swanji: Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.

Why would you want to drink at the whites only fountain? Its the same water supply!

This is a far, far cry from segregated water fountains, but go ahead and hyperbole it up there, tiger.

It's exactly like segregated water fountains, bathrooms, pools and restaurants from the pre-civil rights south.  How is it not?

It's not, because this is one farking restaurant.  There are no segregated water fountains, bathrooms, or pools.  In fact, there aren't even any segregated restaurants, just this one guy being a piece of shiat.  So no, nowhere even close.  Put a different way, actual segregation was EVERYWHERE.  Every business and government service in every city, town, and hamlet was segregated.  Again, this is one asshole.  One restaurant, not segregation.  So, come up with a more pertinent argument.

I see, so if one business puts up a segregated water fountain its okay because its just one.


Nicely put.

And by permitting such things to happen - it will not inspire like minded bigots. It will forever be that one.
2014-02-07 03:30:41 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Felgraf: So I take it you agree with Paul that the Civil Right's act is unfair and tyranny, and that discrimination based on race or gender should be allowed by businesses, yes?

"unfair" Meh. Life's unfair. "tyranny" no. Discrimination based on race or gender by private individuals? Sure. It happens all the time and is not exclusive to white males.. You  think that because someone MUST do business with you that he or she doesn't think in a particular fashion. If someone doesn't want my business or the business of those that I associate with, I'd prefer to know it upfront so that I don't unwittingly patronize their business.

Look at it like this. If this man is forced to serve anyone and everyone who comes in his place and he does so, will you patronize the establishment?


Once again, I must farking repeat myself.

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."


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.
2014-02-07 03:28:51 PM
1 votes:

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.  Even if it is to those who feel the same way, it reinforces the sense of equality.  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.  I won't tacitly condone intolerance.
2014-02-07 03:25:09 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.


Oh bullshiat.  When you see injustice, big or small, whether you're directly affected or not, you do something about it.
2014-02-07 03:24:33 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Is your house in order?

Nope.

HotWingConspiracy: Why do you want to mess with this person?

Where did you get that impression?


You were exploring opportunities to ruin his business. Somehow you've determined if there's a buck in it it's ok.

What you people fail to grasp is that I don't advocate his beliefs but I do advocate his freedom to have them.

He's free to believe that, he's not free to run his business in that way. The reasons why are obvious to people that don't fetishize some bizarre notion of freedom that actually works against free people. You lost that battle decades ago.

 He's not worth my time, effort or money. Or yours but you're more than willing to spend all 3 on him.

You're putting up time and effort defending-but-no-I'm-totally-not-defending him.
2014-02-07 03:22:22 PM
1 votes:

Mattyb710: Public places, and transportation and other places like that should serve anyone and everyone, including 100% handicap access.


Ummm, his restaurant IS a public place.

He could probably fix it if he turned it into a private club, but right now it's open to the public, it's a public place. You can't say "Open to the white public with jobs". It's either public or private.
2014-02-07 03:21:31 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: Magnanimous_J: The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.

The "right people" being pretty much limited to people who are evil, and do evil things.
There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.


Don't get me wrong, I think this guys is a capital asshole. But don't fool yourself into thinking that "evil" is anything more than a relative cultural construct. Civilizations have had some common ideas of what makes evil, but that doesn't make it universal, or based in anything other than everyone's mutual agreement.

50 years ago (and some places today, apparently) being gay or a socialist was seen as deliberately undermining society. It was legitimately "evil" to people then, so by your definition, it would be justified to actively hate them.

A couple thousand years ago, if you were in an army and conquered a town, you helping yourself to a couple women there would be seen as no more evil than taking a jolly rancher out of the big candy bowl at the doctor's office. Today, it's a heinous war crime.

My point being, think the way you think and do what you think is right, but it's all a matter of point of view. You probably don't think abortion is murder (and neither do I), but the red-faced people shrieking their lungs out at girls going into the clinic are just as justified in their hate as you are, by your own definition.
2014-02-07 03:20:04 PM
1 votes:
The problem with Oklahoma is that it's full of Oklahomans.

Fortunately, Oklahoma has a built in natural solution:

tamutimes.tamu.edu
2014-02-07 03:19:36 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: I am thinking the whole state needs to be bombed.  72 hours notice, you have to score a triple digit IQ to leave the state and be spared.


Oh, thanks.  Just what we want.  First y'all show up from Europe and can't be bothered to pick up the language and culture, then you uproot us from our homes in the Appalachians and the south and hand that over to a bunch of hillbillies and hicks, then you move us to Indian Territory and promise us it's ours forever, then you decide you're only kidding about that and open it to European settlement anyway without asking again, and now you want to bomb us.  Thanks for thinking this one through, brainiac.
2014-02-07 03:19:03 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: sendtodave: jso2897: Magnanimous_J: The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.

The "right people" being pretty much limited to people who are evil, and do evil things.
There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.

"Evil..?"

Seriously?

Well, I guess if you are gonna be moralistic, you shouldn't half ass it.  I'm just not sure you are qualified to judge "good" or "evil" any more than that racist is.

Unless you think you are more advanced than he is.

That good ole American liberal hubris.  The rest of the world just needs to catch up to your way of thinking.

What are you even talking about? Nobody is discriminating against this guy, and nobody is going to. Somebody may sue him, or boycott him, or publicly humiliate him - but that's not discrimination. I know you are trying to make some sort of stretched argumant from equivalence - but it just isn't there. And name-calling and blathering about "liberals" just makes you look stupid. If you can't really argue an issue, you won't fool anyone by pretending to.


There are many people who honestly believe that not tolerating their discrimination means they're being discriminated against

Example: Every single religious person who tries to stop gay marriage. By telling them to shut up and stop discriminating, they believe they're being discriminated against.
2014-02-07 03:18:51 PM
1 votes:

El_Perro: Virtuoso80: Meh, if a restaurant want's to deliberately limit it's customer base, I say let them. Maybe we need laws for special circumstances (Ex. You have to let someone use your phone in case of an emergency), but otherwise I'm OK with racist business owners running racist businesses, just don't expect me to use their services.

The problem with that is that, once you open the door to discrimination in public accomodations, there is a risk of whole areas being off-limits to whatever class is being discriminated against.  The  Civil Rights Act didn't happen in a vacuum.


But I've been reassured for quite a while by FARK Libertarians that if a place was run in a racist manner, that the invisible hand would shut it down 'cause of reasons.
So we don't need accommodation and anti-discrimination laws.
2014-02-07 03:17:41 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: he doesn't like "f*ggots, n*ggers, cripples and democrats." i'm guessing his CPAC invitation is on its way.

what a vile, subhuman piece of shiat. i really hope he dies a slow death from ass cancer.


Dick cancer.
2014-02-07 03:16:04 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: jso2897: Magnanimous_J: The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.

The "right people" being pretty much limited to people who are evil, and do evil things.
There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.

"Evil..?"

Seriously?

Well, I guess if you are gonna be moralistic, you shouldn't half ass it.  I'm just not sure you are qualified to judge "good" or "evil" any more than that racist is.

Unless you think you are more advanced than he is.

That good ole American liberal hubris.  The rest of the world just needs to catch up to your way of thinking.


What are you even talking about? Nobody is discriminating against this guy, and nobody is going to. Somebody may sue him, or boycott him, or publicly humiliate him - but that's not discrimination. I know you are trying to make some sort of stretched argumant from equivalence - but it just isn't there. And name-calling and blathering about "liberals" just makes you look stupid. If you can't really argue an issue, you won't fool anyone by pretending to.
2014-02-07 03:16:02 PM
1 votes:
So what would he say if a vet missing a limb showed up at his place, they are cripple after all. What an asshat, the one good thing is at least he is honest about his ignorance and people can avoid him.
2014-02-07 03:15:44 PM
1 votes:
While we continue to rail the owner of the restaurant let's not lose sight of the fact that he's successfully been in business for 44 years using the same business model.  Wouldn't that mean that some portion, if not the majority, of his customers are of like minds?  He alone is not the problem.
2014-02-07 03:13:05 PM
1 votes:

sovietski: It makes me wonder how well his restaurant and views would go over in Tulsa.


West of I-35 means no one cares about it. 

The only things of value west of I-35 is the natural gas rigs... and Fort Sill.

The US Army realizes the only thing good about western is you can lob artillery shells all over it and no one cares.
2014-02-07 03:12:22 PM
1 votes:
From Google's reviews

Best place I've ever eaten! Gary served me a huge plate of steak before asking me to come to the back and check out his other "meats". I'll definitely be going back for the "Closet Case Cake" and the famous "Obama Fries". Oh, and don't be fooled by the articles saying he discriminates. Just give him a wink or flash some chest hair and watch that silver fox jump into a leotard and lipstick faster than you can say "John Wayne".

He is not loved on the internet /smirk
2014-02-07 03:11:35 PM
1 votes:

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


You're going to answer his challenge with prejudiced discrimination against a whole state?

/like a boss
2014-02-07 03:10:58 PM
1 votes:

Swanji: Felgraf: Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.

So I take it you agree with Paul that the Civil Right's act is unfair and tyranny, and that discrimination based on race or gender should be allowed by businesses, yes?

You're not upset about discrimination based on race or gender, as long as the right people (in your opinion) are discriminated against.


Yeah - it's fine for a public accomodation to discriminate - if it is on a reasonable basis. Drunk? No shoes/shirt? Hiostory of starting fights in the establishment? Fine - discriminate.
Don't like someone's skin tone? Who they sleep with? their physical handicaps? Tough titty.
It's a matter of reasonable and unreasonable, legal and illegal.
2014-02-07 03:08:00 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: scottydoesntknow: Why not stop it right now?

You will NEVER stop it.

Bloody William: I think as long as said house doesn't have a problem with gays or gimps, stones can safely be thrown in this case.

I'm sure he has a problem with someone over something. But it's probably not a designated "someone" so it's all good right?


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."
2014-02-07 03:07:47 PM
1 votes:

Felgraf: Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.

So I take it you agree with Paul that the Civil Right's act is unfair and tyranny, and that discrimination based on race or gender should be allowed by businesses, yes?


You're not upset about discrimination based on race or gender, as long as the right people (in your opinion) are discriminated against.
2014-02-07 03:06:02 PM
1 votes:
Man turns away paying customers, losing their revenue? Sounds like he's been punished in exact proportion to the stupid crap he's pulling. I don't see a problem.
2014-02-07 03:05:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:04:49 PM
1 votes:
If there truly were such a thing as a righteous and just god, this man would be struck with polio (or a car) and lose the use of his legs.  Alas, there's not.  I'm not advocating that somebody do that in his/her/its steed, but I would laugh if they did.
2014-02-07 03:04:35 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.


So I take it you agree with Paul that the Civil Right's act is unfair and tyranny, and that discrimination based on race or gender should be allowed by businesses, yes?
2014-02-07 03:04:17 PM
1 votes:

Magnanimous_J: The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.


The "right people" being pretty much limited to people who are evil, and do evil things.
There is no point in pretending that hating evil, harmful people is analogous to hating people because of the color of their skin, or their handicapped status. I think it's odd, and suspicious, that someone would attempt to pretend that.
2014-02-07 03:02:02 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Zeppelininthesky: Why even have the law in the first place?

Good question.


img.fark.net

That. That is why. And where was that? In the small fish city of Greensboro, North Carolina.
2014-02-07 03:00:51 PM
1 votes:
He's just a typical Republican.
2014-02-07 03:00:12 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-07 03:00:02 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: 1) Wait until the dinner crowd is all there.
2) Chain the doors from the outside.
3) Apply gasoline and road flares.
4) Profit!


i2.cdnds.net
2014-02-07 02:59:57 PM
1 votes:

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
2014-02-07 02:57:40 PM
1 votes:
No-name establishment in one of the southern plains most progressive cities outs itself on regional television as a front for hate.  Knowing the differences between Portland and OKC in terms of diversity and acceptance, I'm thinking this place will close faster than that bakery in Gresham that wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Congratulations, guy, hope you saved for retirement.  Good luck with the ADA lawsuit.
2014-02-07 02:55:56 PM
1 votes:

CeroX: Look at all this uproar...

Guys... he's cashing in on the Chic-fil-a/Duck Dynasty marketing scheme. Make a public spectacle spouting some insanely bigoted crap, cry "Freedom! (of speech)" and watch millions upon millions flock to your business "to show their support of Freedom(TM)".


Good point... while all of us far-off types are thumbing our noses and wishing him all manner of papercuts and lost business, the yokels will circle the wagons around him knowing that their way of life is under attack and he is their beacon.

It could work... just look at Duck Dynasty's ratings... oh.
2014-02-07 02:55:46 PM
1 votes:

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!


Lady parts aren't actually called pussies, ya know? It's slang that has taken on it's own context.
2014-02-07 02:55:17 PM
1 votes:

sendtodave: Theaetetus: sendtodave: Do these articles get greened just to make Fark coastal liberals feel smug, superior?

Either that or to make places stuck in the 1950s look stupid.

Some would say that the 50s were America's best time.


Only straight white christian males who remember leave it to beaver and not what was actually going on at the time. Everyone else pretty much got shafted... Which explains why regressives want to "go back"...
2014-02-07 02:54:53 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-02-07 02:54:32 PM
1 votes:
Who cares if this guy is a racist asshole?  Why would people want to eat at his restaurant if he's racist, anyway?  Seems like people are missing the point.  If you force this guy to allow everyone into his business, do you think he'll suddenly not be racist?  Will unicorns and butterflies start flying out of his ass?  The best way to hurt this guy is don't patronize his business in the first place.
2014-02-07 02:54:03 PM
1 votes:
The lesson from all of this is: You can be the most hateful person on the planet, just make sure you hate the right people.
2014-02-07 02:53:53 PM
1 votes:

trickymoo: Ok, I'll bite....

As this is Oklahoma we're talking about, I'm not surprised by the "freaks, 'f*****s, and welfare recipients"... but the disabled? That's ... really.... low.


He's apparently lumping them in with welfare recipients (if drawing disability checks).
2014-02-07 02:53:26 PM
1 votes:

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!


Yea, that dude is such a dick.
2014-02-07 02:53:08 PM
1 votes:

darwinpolice: fark that. I hope people stop patronizing his restaurant, he is forced to close it down, goes fully broke, and ends up on welfare.


And in a wheelchair.

/farking karma, how does it work?
2014-02-07 02:52:21 PM
1 votes:
Nor does he cotton to men wearing hats indoors or  men with all kinds of metal in their face, whatever that means.

And what in sam hill is a chicaro?

I wonder how that election he ran in turned out.
2014-02-07 02:51:31 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt"  "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "


 I almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea


Right now it appears that the law they can get him with would be Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

Matt Gard claims that the owner of Gary's Chicaros restaurant, Gary James, banned him from the restaurant because of his wheelchair.
2014-02-07 02:50:32 PM
1 votes:

neversubmit: Boise City, Oklahoma was the only city in the United States to be bombed in WWII


I am thinking the whole state needs to be bombed.  72 hours notice, you have to score a triple digit IQ to leave the state and be spared.
2014-02-07 02:49:17 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh?


Well people like you are a bit workshy, somebody has to do the job.

Good to know your house is 100% squared away.

This gentleman is free to take umbrage at my poorly manicured lawn if he likes. Won't change what he's up to.
2014-02-07 02:48:53 PM
1 votes:
Oklahoma is the only State to have its Capital stolen and moved in the middle of the night from Guthrie to Oklahoma City. Also Guthrie has an original Carnegie Library and the Largest Masonic Temple in the World. Watonga, OK has more rattle snakes than people.

Boise City, Oklahoma was the only city in the United States to be bombed in WWII. On Monday night, July 5, 1943, at 12:30 a.m., a B-17 Bomber based at Dalhart Army Air Base, Texas, dropped six practice bombs on the sleeping town, mistaking the city lights as target lights.
2014-02-07 02:46:51 PM
1 votes:
That place must have friggin' awesome food to want to go to a place that looks like a run-down shack and has an owner like that.
2014-02-07 02:46:39 PM
1 votes:

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've lived in Oklahoma for 20 years.  Oh, the stories I can tell about the native populace.


/Can't wait to leave.
2014-02-07 02:46:13 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Problems are made for correcting.

So you're the self appointed "fix other people's problems" guy eh? Good to know your house is 100% squared away.

El_Perro: The Civil Rights Act and ADA disagree.

I suppose so. Good to see that we are about to spend a bunch of money trying to change an asshole in Enid Oklahoma that you and I never knew existed before today.


So if we give a pass to this guy, we give a pass to everyone. Why even have the law in the first place?
2014-02-07 02:45:42 PM
1 votes:

WTFDYW: While this guy is a USDA Grade 'AA' asshole, he is the sole proprietor of the joint and has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, if he remodels the joint, he'll have to damn sure make sure he's up to code with ADA compliance whether he allows disabled people in or not.


You clearly don't understand the idea of a "protected class".  There's a lot of reasons that don't legally fit in "any reason", and this guy seems to have hit damn near all of them.
2014-02-07 02:45:27 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: thisisyourbrainonFark: Who washes the dishes?

His son/nephew.


Which, coincidentally, is the same person.
2014-02-07 02:44:28 PM
1 votes:

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


Read the article... or at very least... read the Fark headline.

This is in Oklahoma, not "the South."
2014-02-07 02:43:01 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: he doesn't like "f*ggots, n*ggers, cripples and democrats." i'm guessing his CPAC invitation is on its way.

what a vile, subhuman piece of shiat. i really hope he dies a slow death from ass cancer.


fark that.  I hope people stop patronizing his restaurant, he is forced to close it down, goes fully broke, and ends up on welfare.
2014-02-07 02:42:18 PM
1 votes:
Everyone hates him, but he's not allowed to hate anyone.
2014-02-07 02:41:25 PM
1 votes:
Who washes the dishes?
2014-02-07 02:40:51 PM
1 votes:
While this guy is a USDA Grade 'AA' asshole, he is the sole proprietor of the joint and has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, if he remodels the joint, he'll have to damn sure make sure he'
s up to code with ADA compliance whether he allows disabled people in or not.
2014-02-07 02:40:04 PM
1 votes:
Why am I not surprised that it's a shiathole?
2014-02-07 02:39:42 PM
1 votes:
0.tqn.com
2014-02-07 02:38:54 PM
1 votes:
Ok, I'll bite....

As this is Oklahoma we're talking about, I'm not surprised by the "freaks, 'f*****s, and welfare recipients"... but the disabled? That's ... really.... low.
2014-02-07 02:35:27 PM
1 votes:

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


my BIL is from Oklahoma.

/It explains a lot about him.
2014-02-07 02:35:05 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: That's his problem. Not mine.

Or yours.


Problems are made for correcting.
2014-02-07 02:33:08 PM
1 votes:
Good for them.
2014-02-07 02:30:41 PM
1 votes:

Torgo_of_Manos: "Would you call me a chink?"  said the non-chink woman.


What, she can't call one her own damn self?

She must be a cripple.
2014-02-07 01:59:25 PM
1 votes:
Signs signs everywhere the signs
2014-02-07 01:48:25 PM
1 votes:
HE's a Libertarian's best friend.
2014-02-07 01:46:51 PM
1 votes:
Assholes always welcome
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report