No Tips After Dinner For Gays!

On top of that she sent the fake receipt to have a gay day page on Facebook. Enough evidence for slander weather or not she wrote the note which she more than likely did.

ENDA and Obama's inconsistency are things I've railed against before, too. There's really nothing to debate there when we agree on it. The problem is that you automatically assume someone disagrees with you and make hyperbolic trolling comments. I promise you, a large part of the gay community has lost faith in Obama and the Democrats, but the problem is that the alternative is even worse. When stuck choosing between two evils, opt for the lesser.

As for the question of whether this hoax was a wedge issue... for whom, exactly? I've seen several identical stories to this one with different minorities having been the target (and as a result of this story, I now suspect the validity of all of them, which is another good reason to want to chuck this woman in an oubliette for a few months). If you're suggesting this lunatic is some kind of Democratic plant, a liberal conspirator, I'd have to say you're nuts. If you're suggesting that some groups have used this to further their particular agendas... that's a bloody given.

Any kind of news story or anecdote will be utilized by someone. Last Christmas a house burned down that killed a family of four. Turns out the house had no heat because the landlord was a slumlord who should've been jailed years ago. It was a touchpoint for people who have been protesting for better oversight of landlords who regularly break the law. That's what happens when you find something that supports your agenda. If a report is released tomorrow showing that anti-discrimination legislation causes cancer, I'm sure some people here will be rushing in to gloat about it.

Think for a moment where homophobia and other forms of bigotry come from. Sure there's a religious aspect to it, but religious people have a long established history of incorporating reason into their beliefs (cue the tired argument about Christians getting tattoos and eating shellfish). Religion is not the root of the problem; a widespread lack of reason and education, compounded with a massive network of "family organizations" knowingly spreading misinformation about LGBT people, are to blame.

People get "outraged" when issues like this crop up because we are being shat on for no reason--even the religious excuses are internally inconsistent! We have to fight just to get the apathetic masses to acknowledge us. Obviously there are always going to be *** in the world, but why does it bother you so much that we'd like to try changing their attitudes?

You've denied it, but the prevalence of homophobia and its directly harmful effects are clear as day when you look at school bullying, LGBT teen homelessness and suicide rates, and the rising rate of violent hate crimes perpetrated against people who are only even suspected of being gay. This will not stop as long as we legitimize homophobia by turning a blind eye.

There are 2 things responsible for creating the atmosphere in which this horrible violence can so freely thrive: 1) the "innocent" anti-gay opinions of misinformed people who have cast away their reason, and 2) the prevalent attitude among apathetic individuals such as yourself that homophobia is not even worth addressing. You may not be homophobic yourself, but you don't care enough to think about what it's doing to our world.

Now don't get me wrong. This isn't some "thought police" ***, I'm not talking about silencing anyone. I'm trying to show you why I and so many others think it's important to fight homophobia and change attitudes. We don't need any more people using the alleged legitimacy of homophobia to justify their crimes. Lay off with the "fake outrage" comments; you clearly don't understand where this is coming from.

From what I've read she is something of a compulsive liar and attention ***. She supposedly lied about being in Afghanistan and being the lone survivor of an explosion that killed everyone else in her platoon and if I remember correctly she didn't go over there at all. She lied about having brain cancer and how her house was damaged by Sandy. Also, she did not make any donations to the Wounded Warriors Project like she pledge she would and have only recently said she would refund the donations she received instead. I wouldn't hold my breath for that either.

Oh, and I'm not denying that politicians appropriate LGBT issues and hijack the movement for their own gain. They're just the same as this waitress. It's reprehensible, but it doesn't mean the issues don't still deserve attention on their own.

I'm also not a Democrat and have no particular attachment to president Obama.

Actually, most of the thread was about tipping.

Call if what you like but intolerance of intolerance is not the same as the bigotry that likes to fuel threads around here. Their end games are fundamentally different. Let me know when gays start refusing service to straight people or when an LGBT organization gets a proposition on the ballet that bans heterosexual marriage. Then we can start talking similarities.

What if I want to ban all legal definitions of marriage?

Agreed with all but the bold. I feel like we don't see very many actual bigots on this site, just people who don't see the importance of taking a stand against bigots. They either don't like the noise or they don't enjoy feeling like they should put forth any effort to do something. As a result, they defend their apathy by criticizing anyone who does take a stand.

Obviously we can't expect everyone to stand up for everything, but the antagonism is unnecessary and annoying.

@Carrelo
I meant the acts of bigotry that likes to inspire the creation of threads, such as the cake guy or this one (even though it isn't credible anymore). Sorry, looking at it I can see I worded it ambiguously.

Oh, also, it's "ballot." "Ballet" is the thing I used to do as a teenager.

lol! Oops, I knew that looked weird.

I won't sit here and try claim that homosexual people have the same freedoms as heterosexuals. However the point was that this woman got pissed at the fact that this couple called her Dave and went to her manager and complained, the manager apparently didn't do what she expected and so she used the LBGT community to rally against them. And they did. In this effort to combat "Intolerance against Intolerance" they persecuted a couple that did nothing wrong and became bigots themselves.

This is where fighting for what you want can easily make you the bad guy. I will say nine times out of ten it is probably the reversal of the situation. However being wrong just one time makes you no better than your sexual counterpart.

As far as letting me know when gay people try to take rights away. I will say that there are gay people out there that try to live off of lawsuits to get by in life.

I had a Lesbian working for me in a physical job which she had no business doing. She took me to HR and complained to them that I had a problem with her being gay multiple times. The truth was as I told them I didn't care if she was an dendrophiliac as long as she can do the job. In the end she quit because she couldn't hold on any longer or do the job and I didn't give her any ammo. I never once said to this woman anything derogatory to her. On the same token from that point on I felt like had to watch my back around people that are not like me. Most people are probably fine. I know that. However one slip up could cost me everything. In the end I know in my heart that I cannot ever treat someone like I would one of my friends because I will constantly have that fear if I say something wrong, It could cost me everything all because the woman either felt inferior or was using this as an opportunity for a law suit.

I have no problem with people fighting for something they believe. I actually somewhat agree with onogul. I believe couples should get tax breaks and all people deserve the same benefits as married couples even if they are not married as long as they are living together.

That isn't bigotry. Those who supported this *** were tricked. Being tricked does not make you suddenly culpable for how you feel; it makes you the victim. If someone had gone out and murdered the family in question, they'd still be responsible for that, but nothing of that sort happened. It's not bigotry when you're acting in good faith on bad information.

For that matter, what if anything has happened to the family accused? They have been deliberately staying out of the limelight, so I am uncertain that they've even been identified. I would hardly call it "persecution" to know that some people who were maliciously manipulated thought and said bad things about them in an oblique manner.

So what? There are welfare cheats, there are embezzling CEOs, there are con artists and liars and miserable people of all sorts. The Americans with Disabilities Act is responsible for thousands of malicious and fallacious lawsuits, but that's no reason to kick someone in a wheelchair down a stairwell. *** exist regardless of their minority status or lack thereof.

Also, the reason I oppose marriage is exactly because of the long list of legal privileges (they are not rights) bestowed by that. Marriage under the law is essentially a contract with similar terms and benefits as forming a corporation. I think that's wrong, both because it unduly favors people who can arrange a marriage and because it denigrates the emotional and/or spiritual commitment that 90%+ of marriages are based on. And when I say it unduly favors people, I am not just launching into some screed about same-sex couples being denied. Lots of people stay single for any number of reasons. Ironically, I have relatives who aren't getting married because it would cost them more money than remaining single does.

If you're not aware, by the way, the reason why the government gives so many benefits to married couples, especially in the form of tax incentives, is because they're trying to promote stable households in which to raise children. Because nothing serves children as well as a disgruntled couple that won't divorce because it'll cost them too much money to be single again. And this flies in the face of multiple long-term studies that demonstrate same-sex parents are as good as or, often, better than heterosexual couples (largely because gay parents very rarely have unintentional kids -- they plan beforehand and schedule for it). Moreover, being married and remaining child-free means you still get the tax benefits with none of the associated burden. Note that there are tax breaks for having kids, but those apply whether single or married and, as such, actually make sense.

Finally, given marriage tax breaks are largely for the sake of raising the next generation, why does the legal institution convey a number of completely unrelated benefits, some of which are entirely unique? If I live with someone for the next 50 years, regardless of gender or relationship, I will not be granted visiting rights at the hospital nor any say in his/her funeral, among other things. I have an older friend whose husband died and his homophobic mother "in-law" (no marriage here, so they weren't married by law) sought to deny the execution of the deceased man's wishes even though he had been estranged from his parents for 20+ years, all because this state says the next of kin gets precedence unless there is a legal marriage. What bollocks.

Sorry but while you may be a victim you still become a bigot. All these people that jumped to the defense of that girl did so because they have become so enamored in protecting their community. They forget to step back and say hey, there is a possibility that there is more to this story. Which means you weren't looking at what is right, as soon as there was trouble you raised your forks and ran. That's not tolerance sorry.

I can't decide if you're out of your *** mind or completely incapable of basic logic. You clearly don't know what the word "bigot" means because it sure doesn't mean "someone who thinks badly of another person." "Bigotry" has a specific meaning, namely, "deliberate and systemic prejudice against a group."

And it is both unreasonable and outright stupid to suggest that people should automatically doubt everything said to them. I'm sure you'll claim that's not what you mean, but it is what you're saying. It has the exact same hallmarks as the fox claiming those grapes he can't reach much be sour, anyhow.

No I wont claim that's what I mean. I am very much that way. I will not go out and try to ruin people unless I unequivocally know that they deserve it and even then it's none of my business it's the business of those two individuals. No one should ever jump up and take someones side in these cases. Let it play out until the end but do not jump up make phone calls threats and stalk people to try to ruin them because you may very well ruin someone who is a good person.

You may be right it may not be bigotry, but what do you call a group of people that go out and persecute someone that didn't do anything wrong??

I don't think their identity was ever public knowledge.

Irrelevant. If it were they would have been sunk. You can tell that by the people on here who openly say we should make them known and shame them.

People were already persecuting them, they just didn't have a face to put with the anger.

Ok, so I see where your fundamental flaw is: you're insistent upon generalizing. In order to make your argument remotely sensible, you have to remove any kind of extenuating circumstances and proffer a pseudo-philosophical generalization. Life is messier than that.

Fact is, everyone is going to make an error at some point in their lives. I may never end up joining the mob that holds the flaming torches and pitchforks in order to crucify someone innocent, but I've gotten into screaming rows with friends and family because of simple misunderstandings. At the end of the day, I apologize, because I was wrong to get angry, but I only found that out after the fact. That's how real life works: you can't know everything, you can't anticipate everything, and you often don't have the time to spend. If you were in the wrong, you apologize and make amends.

What do I call a group of people who "persecute" someone wrongly? Nothing. Circumstances are considerably more complicated than your argument wants them to be. Even an ethicist or philosopher would find this gross generalization distasteful for the sake of a thought experiment.

Can I get a citation on that? Most of this thread has been off-topic, there was skepticism from the outset (I spent more time being pedantic about handwriting than condemning anyone because I actually do withhold judgment), and everyone who was angry has reversed their position.

Were not talking about a simple misunderstanding though...... your arguments with your friends and family more than likely wouldn't completely alter a family's life. This could cause a parent to lose a job, a child to not be able to go to college. I really didn't think that understanding 3 sides of the story was extenuating. The attitude of "***happens" when something of magnitude comes into play is really scary. I know this doesn't happen with just the gay community. I know it's all forms of communities.

I know you reserved judgment which is what should have happened, but the point is missed. If you had to reverse judgment, that means you immediately sided with the lesbian. That has a lot to be said for someones prejudice.

You are right though, I probably generalize too much and one will not be right about everything. It is asking too much of a population.

Mosin said it on page page 15, in context of the baker (even though on that guy he is right on that guys stance)

You're answer boils down to nothing more than:

"It's not bigotry when I do it!"

You only perceive yourself to have the moral high ground, because you're bigotry is aligned with your own self interest. Some gay people want to "affect" marriage with the same intent that some strait people don't. Self interest.

You claim to be tolerant and enlightened when all you really push is a selective endorsement of one particular group's self interest while shunning another.

As I said before you're just as much of a bigot as those you call bigots.

One reporter was shown something that resembles and they were told was a CC statement... The restaurant still denies that they received the extra $18...

Maybe I'm missing the point of your comparison as this was charged to a CC so why would anything be in a safe? What does that have to do with this case in particular? I guess I could see your point if they were talking about all the contents of the safe... not the alleged $100+ that everyone already knows about? that was charged and exists as digital currency...

The case is probably closed... not because anyone was told what really happened but because everyone probably just wants it to go away at this point...

You can prove it was a fake receipt? I mean you say it's enough evidence and then in the next breath say that you can't even prove it other than "she more than likely did" Do you pass judgement on people that you think did something without actual proof?

How do gay people want to "affect" marriage Nausi?

In the USA they want to change its definition to be inclusive of same sex couples.

Duh!

There's something wrong with that?

There was a time when women couldn't vote and minorities had no rights... change like this comes to include everyone in the benefits we all share...

In any case it's only a matter of time...

Edit: I guess I don't get why anyone cares...

They want to be miserable just like everyone else ?

I would guess that they don't want to be liable for her (which they would) is the reason they are saying they didn't receive it. I could be wrong though.

The safe comparison was to show (which was $2k btw) that even though reporters are told one thing, it's not always the case in order to protect the company in the future. It's apples and Oranges I know, but it's the same comparison.

The part I find interesting about the inconclusive response is "The results of that investigation are inconclusive as to exactly what happened between Ms. Morales and the customers that night. However, in light of the investigation and recent events, both Ms. Morales and Gallop Asian Bistro have made a joint decision that Ms. Morales will no longer continue her employment at our restaurant. We wish her well in the future."

It's almost like they are saying they don't exactly know what happened though the whole ordeal, but she decided to quit. It's just me inferring though.

And yeah, given the fact that the news company was shown the date and time stamp of the copy of the receipt and the CC statement showing the charge, yeah it's fake. Can I say with 100% certainty, no but %99.9 should cover it.

Btw, I went back and read a couple of sites to see if I missed it, but where did the restaurant say they still haven't received the $18

So again you're guessing?

So you're saying that the restaurant has reasons to lie or withhold information but the couple in this matter doesn't? I mean they both told reporters something... couldn't they both be lying?

They know how much money they got from the transaction... It's on the books... I assumed they used her infraction to get rid of her because after things came to light they didn't want her on as a liability...

Their copy of the receipt in meaningless... you can write whatever you want on the customer copy... I could say I tipped her $500 on that if I wanted... If the CC statement is real that's a different story... still conflicts with the restaurants statement that they did not receive the amount with the tip...

Here...
Couple's comment:
Restaurant's comment: