…and this is a 
Missouri isn't for lovers
Category:
Posted on: March 17, 2007 9:28 AM, by PZ Myers
Little things can expose serious injustice. For example, this story about two women being thrown out of a restaurant for a kiss…we need reminders like this that discrimination is real, and it hurts people.
There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Neither Kansas nor Missouri are among the few states that protect gay people from being discriminated against in areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.
Kansas City does have an ordinance protecting gays, as do St. Louis, Columbia and University City. But if you're anywhere else in Missouri and you're gay, you can legally be denied service in restaurant. Landlords can refuse to rent you a place to live.
You can even be canned from your job on the suspicion that you're romantically inclined toward members of your own sex.
(via Daily Irreverence)
Comments
I guess im blinded...I didnt think things like this happened anymore. Discrimination, I know it will persist in the horrible fashion that it does...but open and obvious purging of people based on their love - unbelievable.
I wonder why love is suppressed, while it is claimed to be the core moral belief of our species. There was no mention of religious belief in the decision of the restauranteer but I can only assume.
It can be an unfortunate world.
Posted by: monkey | March 17, 2007 10:15 AM
IHOP is a chain. They should have this sort of thing written into their manager rules/training so it doesnt reflect poorly on their company as a whole.
Im a 3-am-Sunday IHOPer, and they will be hearing from me. I wont be going back until these women are given a public apology from the manager himself. *shrug* There ARE other places open at 3 am.
Posted by: ERV | March 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Geez, Grandview is just down the road from me. It's gotten to be a tough part of town in recent years. I don't suppose there is much enlightenment there. It's about where I would expect something like this to happen.
Posted by: pablo | March 17, 2007 10:45 AM
If night club owners are be allowed to refuse service to ugly people, restaurant owners should be allowed to refuse service to same-sax-kissing* people as well. I don't think neither is a very nice thing to do, but it's their property, and they should have the right to choose. I'd also rather have them be open about it, so as to give those who might object a chance to take their business elsewhere; I also think the persons discriminated against would prefer the there's-a-big-"No foreigners"-sign-outside-type discrimination to the stand-in-line-for-thirty-minutes-and-then-get-told-you're-not-welcome-for-some-made-up-reason kind. At least I would.
* Why won't ScienceBlogs let me use this word spelt correctly? Is seks-kissing something spambots say often?
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | March 17, 2007 10:52 AM
brtkrbzhnv:
Fine- no kissing in certain restaurants.
But don't tell me who I can kiss.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 17, 2007 11:05 AM
I hope they were smart enough to have eaten first. That would be a useful strategy to get out of paying a bill.
Seriously, IHOP is probably a franchise operation, and, if so, pressure on the franchisor could get them to change their franchisees' policies. If they are not a franchise operation, but a direct owner, so much the better--pressure on the corporate owner can get them to change their corporate policies. That's what happened with the Cracker Barrel chain a few years ago.
Posted by: raj | March 17, 2007 11:06 AM
Sex, Sex, Sex Sex Test complete.
Lunch counter owners in the Confederacy learned a lesson or two from people that refused to leave despite being refused service. I am willing to join a bunch of gays and lesbians at a sit-in if it would help.
If the manager's motivation is indeed religious, then it only serves to illustrate Dawkins' point that it is foolish to allow people's beliefs to have weight merely by allowing them to tag the word "religious" on to them. Discrimination is discrimination, whether the dolt thinks it is part of god's commandment or not.
Jefferson said his neighbor's religious beliefs neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. And I agree, but this is an example of where people use religion to "pick and break." I could be an "apatheist" if not for this kind of bigotry. Until the religious learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, then I will be an "evangelical atheist."
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | March 17, 2007 11:06 AM
brtkrbzhnv:
Fine- no kissing in certain restaurants.
But don't tell me who I can kiss.
(Arrrggghh! your spam-filter is overactive!)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 17, 2007 11:07 AM
I can understand why PZ would be concerned.
If this sort of blatent discrimination catches on, he soon won't be able to get a table for himself and his favorite ewe, much less plant a spontaneous smooch on her.
Posted by: Bah-Bah | March 17, 2007 11:31 AM
Who said anything about religion? The establishment should have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish - and people should respond accordingly.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 11:32 AM
Sure. I mean, if somebody wanted to open a "whites only" restaurant, nobody should have a problem with that, right?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 11:37 AM
The women were not put out for who or what they are; they were put out for *behavior* that others found offensive.
We discriminate behaviors of all types, and for good reason. For a society to function peacefully, people agree to abide by certain civil rules.
Those who do not agree are shunned.
You may like to pick your nose and eat it, but people should not have to watch you do it while they eat.
Posted by: vox populi | March 17, 2007 11:46 AM
Are you even aware you're arguing against a strawman? Or do the arguments you don't like always transmute in your mind into ludicrous parodies?
"Having a problem with that" is precisely what I'm suggesting.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 11:52 AM
At $12 a pancake I'm going to use that booth as though it were a hotel room.
Posted by: Pattanowski | March 17, 2007 11:53 AM
Caledonian,
maybe my "having a problem with it" isn't sufficiently clear. Let me restate: are you suggesting that the restaurant owner should have the right to do that?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 11:56 AM
If that were true, a man and a woman shouldn't be allowed to kiss in the same manner in that restaurant, and I highly doubt that would be the case. They were most certainly put out for who they are.
Posted by: Nick | March 17, 2007 11:58 AM
A man kissing a woman (lightly and not prolonged) does not offend 98.9% of the population, but if it did, asking the kissers to leave would be appropriate.
If what you wish to believe were true Nick, why were the women granted a table and service in the first place? I think it is safe to say that if they had focused on eating their pancakes there would have been no incident.
No one objects to women sharing breakfast together.
Posted by: vox populi | March 17, 2007 12:06 PM
First, I think the restaurant owners are stupid for kicking them out for being gay. Kicking someone out for kissing is somewhat acceptable because it can make your customers uncomfortable and after all it is a business. I think that businesses do reserve the right to cater to their customers (without breaking the law).
Secondly, what would you do if you ran a restaurant frequented by mostly athiests and some disgusting religious family came in and started praying or preaching to each other talking about how their great grand daddy tamed the T-rex? What I mean is that most atheist don't like having their beliefs (even if they are correct) challenged. Not that I think we would be so rude to as to kick someone out, we are often very intolerent also.
Posted by: John W. | March 17, 2007 12:08 PM
Why would the owners immediately think that two women entering an IHOP together were gay?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 12:10 PM
John W.,
do you have an actual example to cite? And what do you mean by a "disgusting religious family"?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 12:12 PM
"First, I think the restaurant owners are stupid for kicking them out for being gay."
Again, there is no evidence to suggest that they were ejected for "being" anything.
They were ejected for "behaving gay". Kissing is a verb, not a noun.
You admit as much yourself:
"Kicking someone out for kissing is somewhat acceptable because it can make your customers uncomfortable and after all it is a business."
Agreed.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:13 PM
Why are people patronizing IHOP in the first place (unless they absolutely have to)?
The less money going to the giant corporations, the better.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 17, 2007 12:15 PM
"Why would the owners immediately think that two women entering an IHOP together were gay?"
By Goerge, I think you've got it!
They had to DO something to make that fact known. It was their DECISION to act out a BEHAVIOR that the resturaunt and it's customers found offensive.
Descriminating behavior is perfectly acceptable.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:17 PM
But if the objection is just to kissing, then why throw them out altogether? Just go over and say "We don't condone any public displays of affection here, please don't touch each other any more". Of course, I would expect the manager to then say that to anyone seen kissing, including male-female couples, parent-child interactions, and the like.
I'd say the overreaction by management in this case makes it very clear that it's the fact that they're gay, not their exact actions, being discriminated against.
Posted by: Carlie | March 17, 2007 12:19 PM
"Of course, I would expect the manager to then say that to anyone seen kissing, including male-female couples, parent-child interactions, and the like."
wow.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:22 PM
Whether or not asking the couple to leave is appropriate (that becomes a question of owners' rights, which I'm not qualified to address in full) is irrelevant; the point is that discrimination against gays and lesbians is real and alive.
The women were granted a table since it wasn't clear they were homosexual. If they kissed while walking in, I don't think they would have been given that table and food. You seem to be implicity taking the stance that open acknowledgement of homosexuality in public is offensive to the majority of people and, therefore, it is okay to suppress it (please feel free to correct me). I think that, if a gay couple shares a short kiss, that *should* be socially acceptable. While it's true that, if they'd only come in, ate, and left, none of this would have occurred, there's a larger issue: is it okay to be openly homosexual? I say it is.
Posted by: Nick | March 17, 2007 12:22 PM
@John:
Although I think that the "first" was a much better defense of their actions than the idiotic vox populi's (98.9 percent of people are not bigots like you.) the second one is lacking. All the couple did was kiss. I would have a severe problem if a religious family started preaching out of nowhere despite the circumstances, but if they just opened their bible and read quietly or discussed it amongst themselves without involving any other patrons would be fine. To kick them out or show disdain at them would be exactly like this.
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:26 PM
"I think that, if a gay couple shares a short kiss, that *should* be socially acceptable."
And you have the right to your opinion. However the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens do not agree.
"While it's true that, if they'd only come in, ate, and left, none of this would have occurred, there's a larger issue: is it okay to be openly homosexual? I say it is."
Well I'm sure that your restaurant will be quite popular with homosexuals, and I sincerely wish you success!
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:28 PM
VP:
The issue here is that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Despite your claims the overwhelming majority of citizens (of the US I presume) are not raving bigots.
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:30 PM
I think we all got your take on the issue the first time CV.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:32 PM
And we all got that you are a contemptible simpleton the first time you posted, vp.
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:33 PM
Slavery used to be the accepted norm. That doesn't make it any less wrong.
Maybe my restaurant can appeal to the homosexual abolitionist crowd.
Posted by: Nick | March 17, 2007 12:33 PM
wow.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:33 PM
VP:
My what a convincing argument for discrimnation! I am turned!
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:36 PM
Nick if you ask me, I'd say you can position your restaurant to appeal to any crowd you wish.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:36 PM
I think the 98.9% criterion, even though it is entirely plucked out of Vox's ass, is useful.
Atheists, by even the most conservative estimates. are more than 1% of the population. Therefore our biases must be pandered to by shopowners. So, next time you see someone saying grace in a restaurant, raise a stink and get them kicked out. After all, if offending a tiny minority is sufficient grounds for policing behavior, we've got a good case.
(For the sarcasm impaired: I don't object at all to someone saying a quiet prayer at a restaurant, and I think it is perfectly comparable to a chaste kiss between two people of the same gender. I would object to public groping and excessive sexual abandon -- I'm at a restaurant for a meal, not a show -- just as I would object to someone turning dinner into a tent revival and splashing holy anointing oil everywhere.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 17, 2007 12:36 PM
The "wow" was for you cv.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:37 PM
I don't have an example to cite it was hypothetical.
As for a disgusting religious family, I was using it as my impression of how some people here seem to feel about religion (your right it was too strong a word), while my sister is a paster I may not believe everything that she does, but I am totally tolerent of her beliefs.
Many people don't seem to share this tolerence. What I was trying to get at is that "if" they were booted out for being gay then that is intolerence. People here can be equally intolerent of any form of religion creeping into their lives. So, if we expect the theists to be so tolerent of freedom shouldn't we be equally tolerant of freedom of religion? After all I think that is in your constitution.
Posted by: John W. | March 17, 2007 12:38 PM
One word used condescendingly is not enough to win an argument. :/
YOu are not connected to Vox day are you?
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:39 PM
1) Do you have a reference for that assertion?
2) ...and that makes the discrimination ok why?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 12:43 PM
So, next time you see someone saying grace in a restaurant, raise a stink and get them kicked out.
"After all, if offending a tiny minority is sufficient grounds for policing behavior, we've got a good case."
I think you misread the post PZ. It is my opinion that only 1% of the population would find a man kissing a woman offensive, which is why doing so (lightly and not prolonged, if you take my meaning) is highly unlikely to get one kicked out of a business of any sort.
And actually, I think that your sarcastic remark provides the grounds to support my 98.9% "ass stastistic".
Give your wife a light smooch in public and record the number of times someone objects. We will anxiously await the results ;-)
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:44 PM
John W.,
I'm still not quite understanding the parallel.
If somebody started bothering other customers in a restaurant by either being very noisy or directly disturbing them, then it would not be unreasonable for the owner to kick them out.
This has nothing to do with the nature of the disturbance being religious, however, and I certainly wouldn't say it was ok to kick them out in the event that they discuss their belief among themselves in the same manner that other customers discuss whatever it is they might be talking about...
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 17, 2007 12:47 PM
Just because the majority think that something is disgusting DOES NOT mean that the thing they object to is wrong or it is right to discriminate based on that. Why do you think it is?
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:48 PM
"One word used condescendingly is not enough to win an argument."
Neither is mindless invective cv.
I do not even know who Vox day is.
Millimeter Wave, I think that the results of PZ's experiment might provide ample proof..don't you?
I think I answered your second question in post #12.
Posted by: Vox Populi | March 17, 2007 12:48 PM
My previous comment was supposed to be addressed to VP.
Posted by: cv | March 17, 2007 12:49 PM
Laugh and invite them back next week?
Posted by: ceejayoz | March 17, 2007 12:53 PM
I'm interested in knowing just how passionate this kiss was. Are we talking a peck on the cheek, or full on Jenna Jameson and Brianna Banks face-sucking?
Anyone have a link?
Posted by: w00t | March 17, 2007 1:03 PM
Re:#42
I was assuming that the anti-gay motivations were religious in nature and based on such intolerence.
I was simply wondering if people here exibit the same degree of intolerence towards religion.
While obviously many people here are very very tolerent, my experience has shown me that many religious people are equally or more tolerent. Obviously not the ones usually highlighted by PZ.
Posted by: John W. | March 17, 2007 1:04 PM
A link to full-on JJ and BB face-sucking? What kind of site do you think this is, anyway?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 17, 2007 1:07 PM
woot: follow the link in PZ's post; here it is again.
John W.: Regarding tolerance, I think many of us would say ceejayoz has the right idea (post #46).
Posted by: Nick | March 17, 2007 1:12 PM
Wait, this isn't a porn site?
Ah, well. Here's some boobies.
(.)(.)
Posted by: w00t | March 17, 2007 1:16 PM
I'm confused. It seems they were told to get out as they were leaving?
Or did he just bring them to the lobby to tell them why?
And the description is that the kiss was a harmless G rated type.
IHOP sucks anyway.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 17, 2007 1:28 PM
And what's all this about whether owners "ought" to have a right.
People have rights, period. Those rights may or may not conflict with the law - which is why disobeying an unjust law can be a deeply ethical action, and why sometimes laws need to be forcibly overturned.
What I think is really being asked is whether such behavior should be permitted legally - and yes, I do.
Because it's an utterly terrible idea to make the law the ultimate and sole arbiter of what's permitted. There are alternatives which are even better - like protests, boycotts, and other forms of bad publicity.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 1:53 PM
What the manager did was wrong. But he most likely didn't even see the kiss.
But had some uptight parent make a big deal.
Weren't there some kiss-in protest some years back where gay ans straight people would just show up where a protest was needed and just make out?
I think that kind of protest gets the best press. And it freaks out alot of people too. ;)
Posted by: Steve_C | March 17, 2007 2:00 PM
Even assuming VP's rectally produced overwhelming majority are offended by two women kissing, what makes them think they have the right to not be offended?
There's a lot of things out there that offend me but I don't try to have them removed from my sight.
If someone's belief isn't doing anyone any harm, is it really that hard to just let it be?
Posted by: Rasputin | March 17, 2007 2:08 PM
Growing up and living in MN my whole life I was uncomfortable with -any- public displays of affection. :)
I got over it. And most people will too over time. However it will only be through positive displays will it happen. Per the article - that appeared to be the case between the two women. Personally I make it a point to hold hands or grab a quick kiss if the opportunity presents itself with my BF. It -does- bother people. People will move away from you in movie theaters for something as simple as holding hands. You get a face from the couple next to you. Times are changing and for the "Vox's" of the world - they are on the losing side.
Posted by: yoshi | March 17, 2007 2:38 PM
Why all the surprise in the article?
This is the country that REJECTED the ERA as being some insane, laughable idea.
We don't even legally recognize women as equal to men, and then we're surprised that gays are discriminated against?
Posted by: craig | March 17, 2007 3:07 PM
I read stories like this - and some of the comments posted here - and I fall to my knees and thank ... (gee, it's times like this when it would be nice to have someone to thank) that I was born, raised, and live in New York City.
Right out of the birth canal we are exposed - assaulted - with the beliefs, idiosyncracies, likes, dislikes, bad habits, and objectionable behaviors of lots of people from all races, most religions, and many countries of the world. And they are similarly exposed to us. The result is that, with a few exceptions that feed the headlines in other parts of the country, everyone here gets along with everyone else. Doesn't love and may not respect, but does get along with. Furthermore, the economic competition is so great here that no restaurant or store can afford to discriminate against any customer, for fear of losing many. The net result is a very tolerant, very resilient, very productive, and very creative community.
My fellow Americans living in their idyllic suburbs and Mayberry-like small towns are cursed with the freedom to set up small communities of like-minded souls where they can all live just as they please and make sure that their neighbors do the same. They feel they have the right to complain about "objectionable behavior" which is nothing more than code for "discrimination". Just who the heck do these yokels think they are, anyway, that anyone should care that they are offended by two women kissing? Or by a mixed race couple? Or by people who don't say grace before meals? Or by someone who doesn't go to local church?
My cold-as-ice New York heart bleeds for those who are a little bit different (and, IMHO, a little bit better because of that) from their neighbors, and who suffer because of their inability to live that difference freely. Just know that if you've got the money for the crazy rents we welcome you with open arms.
Posted by: hephaistos | March 17, 2007 3:29 PM
Were I to observe someone being kicked out for this, I would demand the restaurant kick out the people who asked for the original kissers to be removed.
Posted by: BillCinSD | March 17, 2007 4:19 PM
Every community has standards that it enforces on its members. The "accepting" ones no less than the "non-accepting". It's my experience that the supposedly open-minded communities may have a longer list of things they explicitly reject, but are in fact more likely to reject anything not on that list.
Being parochial-minded isn't something to be thankful for, whether you grew up in an isolated country community or the center of a metropolis.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 4:30 PM
As Hephaistos says, this isn't about "if" some percentage of people are offended, its if they even understand tolerance at all. The problem that a lot of us here have with religion isn't just that its driving principle is that is **should** be allowed to invade our space, whether we like it or not, but that its prejudices must be protected, at the exclusion of anyone else's offense about them. They want tolerance, they need to first stop insisting that their intolerance is acceptable, but that everyone else's is a form of attack on their faith or attempt to undermine the moral fiber of the nation. Its bullshit pure and simple.
As to *if* this particular case is somehow related to religion, we don't have enough information, but its not an unreasonable prediction. There are places in this country where if you where a white women in a restaurant with a black man (and to some lesser extent the other way around) and you just held hands you would get thrown out. Religions is probably not a major component of that particular bigotry, but it exists never the less, and in some of those places, you might find that having held hands in the restaurant you might find that your room was no longer available at the local inn and you couldn't even get the local police to help you when your wallet was stolen. I am sure I am not the only person here that has hear of this sort of crap still happening in some places.
The problem is that we have a screwed up double standard. On one hand, a large majority think they all have the *right* to not have to have things *shoved in their faces*, which I am not entirely in disagreement with, but at the same time, "shoved in their faces", is taken to mean, "Happening any place I might see, overhear or be told by a third party about it." The concept that some things, like public effection, must be off the table as "offensive" things for society to remain sane, while actively working to prevent **real** disruptions by things that only the perpetrator thinks are non-offensive, like maybe dropping your pants in the hotel lobby and peeing on the cradenza, is completely absent in most of the US. Instead, most have the mentality that nothing *they* do, even if its dumping fifty bear bottles out of their car door into the parking lot of the local Safeway, is *bad*, but just having a fracking tattoo that depicts, who knows, the wrong hair cut from the three stooges?, or something equally irrelevant and stupid becames of #@$#@$#@ hanging offense for the same bunch of idiots.
I expect this kind of stupid BS from grade schoolers. Sadly, it doesn't improve in highschool, and given that the vast majority of nitwits never leave their home towns, almost none of them go past highschool, and some don't even pass that, its not clear exactly where or how we expect this to be any different. Worse... Recognizing this as a problem, colleges who have found a lot of intolerance stays with the students that pass through, and started running scripted "diversity" classes, often run by people that are worse bigots than the people they are trying to fix. After all, how the heck do you promote a "diversity" class that has prescripted course work, without pigeon holing every student into some predetermined group with BS collections of "common traits"? Instead of mandating that students talk to each other about who they "really" are and why, that happens outside the class, and instead we get some black guy who is a business psychology expert telling all the white people that black people *tend* to be late for things, so you should be tolerant of differences by "expecting" this... WTF?
Instead of fixing the problems, which ironically the colleges often did for more than half those that attended, by forcing them into contact with real people with different beliefs, they are now trying to "fix" the other 30%, or what ever it might be, (who failed to change because their prejudices drove them immediatiately into the local chapters of, "We only take people like us", clubs), by instead actually promoting pre-scripted bigotry that some diversity experts think is more "tolerable". Worse, these are the clowns teaching a whole new generation in many places to believe that the highest intellectual and legal position to hold on such things is one of, "Hold any stupid prejudice you like, just keep your mouth shut about it and arrest anyone that dares to open theirs." In other words, "You have a right to *not* be offended by other people's acts."
Um, no, sorry, there is no such right. It doesn't matter if the offense is gay people kissing, black people riding in the front of the bus, women daring to wear pants, or any of a miriad of other things that do or have "offended" some stupid intolerant majority. Had the federal law stated that these people had a "right" to not be "offended" by any of this BS *ever*, the entire civil right movement would have collapsed the first day it started. Laws designed to protect prejudice, instead of enabling what those prejudiced consider an "offense" only produce more prejudices.
Tolerance comes of allowing people to do things and having the offended realize that the world didn't suddenly come to an end just because someone kissed in public. Intolerance and promiting prejudice comes when you start with, "Yuck, two women kissed in public, throw them out!", and end with, "Yuck, that person *looks* like they might be a lesbian goth atheist hiding tattoos, don't even let them in the door!!" If its OK to throw out two people for "obvious" behaviour, why not one person for "looking" like they might do something that offends you? And does it matter at all if that's wearing the wrong earrings (or just wearing some), instead of acting gay?
All aguments of this sort are non-strawmen. Why? Because its damn #@#$#@ hard to not make what "sound" to some people like strawman arguments to talk about an issue like this, when the original idiocy under discussion amounts to complaints by some fool that they don't serve scarecrows in their restaurant.
Posted by: Kagehi | March 17, 2007 5:26 PM
I'm offended by Vox's glaring example of stupidity. I demand the management eject him from this blog forthwith!
that said, was there anything to support whether or not it was customers or the management themselves that was/were "offended"?
not that I would agree with it personally, but if several/many customers complained to the management about ladies kissing in a booth, it could be argued a simple business decision to ask the source of the offense to leave; much like asking a smoker to put out a cigar or leave a restaurant if enough complained. If a lot of customers complained; you have a much larger issue than what the manager did. don't boycott the restaurant; boycott the whole friggin town.
however, if it is clear that nobody was complaining, and it was all the manager's decision, then you have a much clearer case of a specific example of applied bigotry.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 5:27 PM
Does anyone here have any evidence that the ousting was based on the religious beliefs of anyone involved?
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 5:30 PM
I get it. Delicious-meat-sack-boy is convinced that sandwich boards and chantings can counter institutional torment by the landed gentry.
Why don't we let the rich hunt the homeless for sport? I mean, the homeless can protest and boycott. They shouldn't write their congressperson, though. That would be resorting to the law to protect the minority.
Oh wait. He doesn't believe that humans should be treated with dignity.
Fuck you, psychopath. Take your chianti and fava beans elsewhere. Me? I'll be working for the law to provide freedom from torment.
Posted by: Stogoe | March 17, 2007 5:31 PM
Caledonian: Honest request for clarification. What do you think ought to happen if such free-will action (protests, going to other restaurants, boycotts, angry letters) don't work? What if the majority is really so powerful as to withstand those things with no real consequences, and therefore no incentive to change their actions? Should the injustice simply be allowed to stand?
Posted by: cbutterb | March 17, 2007 5:34 PM
the question seems to be where to apply the focus of wrath.
I rather think the title of this thread:
Missouri isn't for lovers
is probably good advice in general.
it seems pointless to try and play "find the bigot" in this case, and rather look to putting pressure on the legislature to investigate whether anti-bigotry laws need to be more generally applied.
or else pass laws prohibiting public displays of affection.
It's the responsibility of the state itself to either verify or more clearly explain why Missouri isn't as described.
Is this an isolated incident? or a common pattern?
why does Kansas City have an ordinance, and not the rest of Kansas? was bigotry such an issue in Kansas city that it alone needed the ordinance?
I seriously doubt the answers to these questions will be found in a tiny article on a poorly described incident.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 5:42 PM
er, make that the rest of Missouri, not Kansas.
meh, they all look the same to me.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 5:45 PM
Ichthyic,
In terms of policy, MO is one of the most anti-gay states in the nation. Its courts have consistently been hostile to treating gay families as families, and the article linked from the KC Star notes that anti-discrimination legislation has been filed but has pretty much no chance of passage.
Queers would be well advised to avoid MO if they want to be treated as full citizens.
Posted by: MAJeff | March 17, 2007 5:48 PM
Why are such laws on the books? Why would anyone enforce them? I bet one can smack their dog's lips, but not lock two lesbians lips in MO and KS and other strange lands. Wasn't Ashscroft from one of these states? UFOs do exist.
Posted by: The Gay Species | March 17, 2007 5:55 PM
cbutterb:
If the majority is that powerful, how do you expect to change the laws?
Posted by: archgoon | March 17, 2007 6:49 PM
No, obviously we need to legislate the offending attitudes away. And if they come back, we need to legislate even harder. No tolerance for the intolerant!
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 7:18 PM
No, obviously we need to legislate the offending attitudes away. And if they come back, we need to legislate even harder. No tolerance for the intolerant!
think for just a second, would you, rather than just liberally applying sarcasm?
if the civil rights movement NEVER had any legislative backing whatsoever, how far do you think it would have gotten?
go back even farther;
did we really need to have a civil war?
based on your comment, obviously not.
no point to legislate slavery, right?
after all, slaveowners had every right to excercise their right to own slaves.
you're overreacting to the idea that behavior does, in fact, need to be impacted by legislation from time to time. Not the ideal solution, but often the start of it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 7:35 PM
If the South hadn't ultimately been shamed by the chasm between its professed values and the values that motivated the attacks on the Civil Rights activists, no amount of legislation would have helped. (Same with Gandhi and the UK - the nonviolent resistance only worked because the British couldn't bring themselves to do the things that would have broken the resistance.)
No one is arguing that our lives should never be "impacted by legislation from time to time". But you cannot solve certain problems by force - and even when you can, there are often even better ways to resolve the issue.
Forcing people to behave the way you think they should is a bad thing, even if you're right - and you all typically do not closely examine your own sense of righteousness.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 7:47 PM
If the South hadn't ultimately been shamed by the chasm between its professed values and the values that motivated the attacks on the Civil Rights activists, no amount of legislation would have helped.
cart before the horse, my friend.
But you cannot solve certain problems by force - and even when you can, there are often even better ways to resolve the issue.
but you have to start somewhere, by pointing out to those that might think otherwise, that at least at some level, their government does not support their bigotry.
if not, it acts as a green light to enable those to continue unacceptable practices.
like i said, you gotta start somewhere, and if there were no attempts to legislate the bigotry in the south, do you seriously think "shame" would have gotten very far?
if so, you're completely deluded.
fuck, just how long would you have been willing to wait?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 7:57 PM
I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public.
Posted by: Reverend M | March 17, 2007 8:01 PM
Missouri isn't a good place for lovers. I know. I live there. It's full of tiny towns, where people actively choose to live out in the country because the tiny towns are too urban for them. "No phones, no lights, no motorcars, not a single luxury..."
It's full of people who think role-playing means wife-swapping, which they do actively. I discovered this by accident, and keep finding more and more of the buggers.
(any dirty thoughts about the poster are the responsibility of the reader, not due to anything I said)
Don't even ask about the IQ level. They think Bush is doing a great job, overall. Yeah, a giant leap forward for the gay community here. I can't wait to get my wife and I back to Washington State.
Posted by: steelcaress | March 17, 2007 8:13 PM
There is a saying about Americans - I don't know if it's true about people in general, which I suspect is the case, but I can certainly confirm its accuracy for my fellow citizens - that they don't understand that you can have too much of a good thing. That includes the intrusion of law.
Sit-ins were useful not because it was legal for people to remain in private establishments when it was demanded that they leave, but because of the negative publicity and wasted effort it took to force them out.
Indeed, we have to start somewhere. But "somewhere" does not imply the government. And why should it? Why should the government be enforcing your particular moral code onto people - don't you disapprove of that? Or is it just that you only disapprove when it's not your code being imposed?
Some people are just in favor of top-down control. American political liberals usually are - it's one of the many traits they share with American political conservatives. Things will be the way you want them, or you'll force them that way, regardless of the consequences.
When working people were without protection, they banded together in unions so that they could utilize collective bargaining power. What happened to those unions? Why, they became corrupt and inefficient, because people are unable to restrain themselves. Power to bargain for necessary protections is also power to get concessions on demand.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 8:16 PM
If the people at large don't favor your position, so that protests will have no effect, how exactly do you think you'll manage to enforce the laws you wish to pass?
If you manage to create an enforcement group that agrees with you and has enough power to enforce what you want upon the majority, what protections will be in place to prevent someone else with positions you don't agree with from seizing control of the enforcers and imposing their own ideas on you?
But that issue is a long ways away. The first solution ought always to be to exercise social and economic pressure. Coercion should be the weapon of last defense, not the first. (Of course, there's no control in that, which is why you go straight to the force.)
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 8:20 PM
aside from your argument of top-down politcs and liberaldom being wrong (uh, in case you hadn't noticed the gross invasions of privacy supported by the current administration, for example), it's also a near-complete strawman of the current argument.
What happened to those unions? Why, they became corrupt and inefficient, because people are unable to restrain themselves.
WHAAA?
ok, you're just trolling i see.
you do say the damndest things from time to time.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 17, 2007 8:23 PM
Selective perception at its finest.
Ichthyic, go back and read my previous two posts, and do so until you understand what's absurd about your complaint.
No, it's really not. When the first reaction to something you consider objectionable is "there oughtta be a law!", you're doing something wrong.
Write angry letters to the chain. Boycott them until they change their policies. Exercise social and political strength first - resort to using the law only when all else fails, because misuse of that power is ultimately against everyone's best interest.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 8:28 PM
We're talking about a simple law that states it's illegal to descriminate based on sexual orientation. All it does is give people standing to sue when it happens.
You get kicked out for being gay... they sue... manager doesn't do it again.
It's not about legislating tolerance. It's about giving gay people the right to defend their rights in court. Technically they could be thrown out for holding hands or just looking gay and they would have no course of action through the law.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 17, 2007 8:29 PM
Whoa, whoa - do they have the right, or don't they? (You don't need rights to defend rights in court - it's an integral part of the right.)
All this talk about laws is because there is no general right to demand service, so a de facto right will have to be created for them. If they had such a right already, they could go straight to the courts - they don't, so a justification for going to court must be constructed.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 17, 2007 8:37 PM
All this talk about laws is because there is no general right to demand service,
For some people there is. We have laws in this country which bar discrimination in the provision of public services, and restaurants fall under those laws. In MO, for instance, it would be illegal to refuse service on the basis of race or religion. Queers, however, are fair game for discrimination.
Posted by: MAJeff |