DescentBB

Nice people. "Gee, I'm not tipping you because I hate your lifestyle." Might as well come out and say to that person that they repulse you and get it over with. They should have had the balls to say it to her face BEFORE she served them.

http://www.today.com/news/waitress-deni ... 2D11603655

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/waiter-rec ... e-instead/

If anyone ever deserved a swift kick to the balls, it's assholes like that.

Yea, if the service was good, they deserve a tip just like anybody else, one has to wonder why people who feel like that would even let themselves be served by a gay person in the first place.

didn't read the story, but if they chose not to tip someone because of their lifestyle they are wrong.

CUDA wrote:didn't read the story, but if they chose not to tip someone because of their biologically determined sexual orientation they are wrong.

Fixed.

CUDA wrote:didn't read the story, but if they chose not to tip someone because of their lifestyle they are wrong.

Read the stories CUDA, plural. Read what they wrote. It shameful that these people even call themselves Christian. These are the types of "Christians" that give the whole religion a bad name. Plus, they waited until AFTER they'd eaten, and LEFT, to make their little "statement". Cowards.

I tend to have a male-ish appearance because my old crappy gray hair is short and thinning, I don't wear makeup because of skin allergies and I prefer to wear pants. Sometimes I get mistaken for a lesbian, and sometimes it's pretty nasty and irksome because some people can be insensitive A-holes with their religious beliefs or just plain revulsion towards others they dislike. If I was a waitress and these people said this to me because they "thought" I was gay person, it would really piss me off. I'd be far less charitable than these 2 targets of this s**t were.

There are two reasons not to tip someone. #1 Because you didn't like the service. #2 Because you didn't like the person (and maybe don't want them to be serving you next time). The last time I went to a restaurant where there was a homo serving tables I went to another restaurant. I think not tipping for good service because you don't like the person just makes you an ass. I would have just asked for another waiter/waitress right off... and she still would have been royally pissed off.

And what if you're assuming someone is "homo" because of their looks, but they're not? You're profiling someone based on false assumptions. Still not a Christian way to treat people just because you don't like them.

What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo? What are these false assumptions? Who says it has anything to do with their looks? The last time I picked out a lesbian (nothing to do with restaurants), it was a fairly attractive looking girl with long hair.

On a bit of a side note, I think it's interesting that these things represent someone we need to deal with as a society, because if that kind of behavior warrants some special national effort I've got quite a long list of behaviors to address. "We" have a very long way to go. I'm glad to see everyone on Facebook is up to the challenge.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo? What are these false assumptions? Who says it has anything to do with their looks? The last time I picked out a lesbian (nothing to do with restaurants), it was a fairly attractive looking girl with long hair.

What was it that set off your gaydar? It HAD to be something in her appearance or mannerism, unless you were told by that person that she was gay. There's no other way to tell that someone is gay. Either they tell you, or they have some mannerism or appearance that you notice. Neither of these are always accurate either. So you have to be intentionally profiling and making assumptions to make that judgement call. If you're wrong, you WILL insult people.

I think the best way to say it is that when I profile someone I take a lot of little indicators into account. I see all kinds of strange looking people, and the causes range from ethnic, fad, foolish, to the genuinely odd. Basically the way I handle it is I note appearance, observe behavior, listen to things they say, cross-examining one in light of the others, and usually withhold judgement until a number of indicators push a single conclusion to the fore-front. Behavior is not a mystery, it's just more complex (but also more obvious) than people make it.

The setting was a state park, and in my experience this is a vote against the conclusion (I would expect to see a lesbian in a mall, outlet, or other hip public place more). This girl was with another girl, but that by itself is not strange. The way they had their hair, makeup, and clothing was pretty sharp, but there was something to it that I couldn't quite put my finger on... maybe I would say it seemed to be more for themselves than for others to see as is usually the case (the way they carried themselves). She put her hand on the other girl's back for a moment, which by itself is not terribly strange, except the manner in which it was done. Their manner in relation to me was a small tell, but again nothing necessarily on its own (you can't entirely rule out incredibly poor taste ). The final kicker was the way they acted toward my mom and my sister, and how they spoke to them. No, nothing was ever said about either of them being lesbians. It was a very brief encounter.

For the record I don't believe I've ever "insulted people". I always profile people, everywhere (I imagine everyone does this on some level). Has nothing to do with your "gaydar". I try not to make assumptions.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The last time I went to a restaurant where there was a homo serving tables I went to another restaurant.

You have absolutely no idea how disgusting this makes you, do you?

I know exactly what this does and doesn't make me, and what little you think of it. I find your choice of classifiers to be ironic.

No irony there, just plain truth. I mean even if you were taking the ridiculous position that simply being gay was a sin, I can rattle off a few dozen instances of Christ himself associating with sinners throughout his ministry. And yet your reaction when presented with someone who runs contrary to what you yourself believe is to hold your nose and walk away? What a massive hypocrite. Might want to take a look at that plank in your eye, chief.

Top Gun wrote:Might want to take a look at that plank in your eye, chief.

Smacked Down!

A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow. Christ associated with sinners for the reason he gave, which was in the capacity of a physician. I know that you would only think less of me if I claimed to be there in this capacity, so where is the argument? And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo?

hilarious!
"I know one when I see one!" Do you have any idea, Thorne, how truly idiotic that sounds?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow. Christ associated with sinners for the reason he gave, which was in the capacity of a physician. I know that you would only think less of me if I claimed to be there in this capacity, so where is the argument? And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..

so is not eating shellfish, for the record........and women trying to exert control over men. And, if one wishes, as MOST sane Christians do, to limit the list of actual sins to the Ten Commandments, I don't see homosexuality on the list anywhere. On that note, I'm off to my shore house to fish, and consume enough shellfish to float a small boat.

"Whatever you do to the least of these, my children, you do to me". I'll leave it at that.

Yes I know how idiotic that sounds, slick, but you made it up to sound idiotic. I never said I could always tell one when I see one, I said "what makes you think I can't". Important difference. This is where you bring your illustrious education to bear on the subject. To make it dirt simple, I was asking what might make you (tc) think me to be so unperceptive that I might think anyone wearing, say, a funny hat is this sort of person or that sort. I don't know that I've ever actually given that impression here, so I figure it's coming from elsewhere.

Fast-forward to the New Testament, and we are told that homosexuals have their place in the lake of fire, and that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. That's what it says. I didn't write it, and I can't change it.

Ummm, how do you all know the offenders were really Christians? Because they used the word God? Did you ever think it was some stupid atheist who wanted to use God to trick knee jerk reactionaries like you? I would expect better analytical skills from most of you.

I was thinking the same thing…and the only thing I could come up with was the usage of Jesus’ name in the one case where it was a restaurant owner that said or had written something to some employees. (not either case tc posted)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.

Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..

The Bible also says to not eat pork products and to avoid contact with women who are menstruating. The Bible makes many statements that were a product of the culture in which it was written, and no longer have any relevance in the modern world. The fact that you continuously place far more emphasis on those statements than the ones that DO matter today pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Fast-forward to the New Testament, and we are told that homosexuals have their place in the lake of fire, and that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. That's what it says. I didn't write it, and I can't change it.

The New Testament also says, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands in all things." Though you probably agree with that one too...how's the single life going for you?

I've resisted chiming in on this, but here it is.

the bible is clear old and new testament, that homosexuality is a sin.

BUT

it is also clear that we are NOT to judge others especially the unsaved. Christ paid too high a price for us to pick and choose who should be accepted.

It does tell belivers to warn those believers that are heading to or living in sin to change their ways.
But only to restore NEVER to ostracise.

you cannot help, convince, or bring to Christ someone with a club.

1 cor 13
though I speak with the tongue of men and of angels, but have not love. I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...........but do not have love I GAIN NOTHING.



LOVE the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all uour mind and with all your strength. And LOVE your neighbour as your self

And as for wives be submissive to you husband. You CLEARLY do not understand the verse. And as with the seperation of church and state. You pick and choose the portion you wish, without look at all of the verse. And clearly your understanding of the word submission is lacking. It means to yield to. NOT to be a slave of. HUGE difference.

CUDA wrote:It does tell belivers to warn those believers that are heading to or living in sin to change their ways.
But only to restore NEVER to ostracise.

Since you brought it up, what does the Bible say of those believers who will not be restored with a warning? Your last sentence here is confusing. It's like you're rolling intent and cause-and-effect into one, and treating it only as intent...

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.

Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?

What? You didn't know you reject Christ, or you didn't think your wielding a position you don't subscribe to is empty?

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..

The Bible also says to not eat pork products and to avoid contact with women who are menstruating. The Bible makes many statements that were a product of the culture in which it was written, and no longer have any relevance in the modern world. The fact that you continuously place far more emphasis on those statements than the ones that DO matter today pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go.

"pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go." This seems to be your favorite tactic. Your imagined emphasis on something I was supposed to be talking about, while ignoring the fact that we are in a topic and a topic is necessarily narrow, is convenient. Secondly, the Bible does not issue a universal command not to eat "pork products". I am well able to see the context and emphasis which you folks so enjoy stripping away when you deal with the scriptures, and having never been a Jew, but also understanding that even Jews who believe in God are under a new covenant, I do not feel myself constrained by old covenant law. I do realize that old-covenant law is no less a statement of the requirements or standards of God. Finally, the Bible says not to have sex with a woman who is menstruating.

Top Gun wrote:The New Testament also says, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands in all things." Though you probably agree with that one too...how's the single life going for you?

Yes, that's what it says. Don't tell me Top Gun is married?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CUDA wrote:It does tell belivers to warn those believers that are heading to or living in sin to change their ways.
But only to restore NEVER to ostracise.

Since you brought it up, what does the Bible say of those believers who will not be restored with a warning? Your last sentence here is confusing. It's like you're rolling intent and cause-and-effect into one, and treating it only as intent...

it says to separate from them.

but you're comparing people that are turning their backs on Christ with those that do not know him. again what would Christ tell them?

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

you are telling the crowd to stone homosexuals, by both your words and your actions. you are condemning them for their lifestyle. that is something that Christ himself would not do. are we not supposed to emulate him?

James 1:22

22 But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.

STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no better

CUDA wrote:but you're comparing people that are turning their backs on Christ with those that do not know him. again what would Christ tell them?

No I'm not, when did I do that? You're the one that brought believers up. I just wanted to clarify that point with regard to what you brought up. While we're at it... why did you even bring believers up in the first place?

CUDA wrote:you are telling the crowd to stone homosexuals, by both your words and your actions. you are condemning them for their lifestyle. that is something that Christ himself would not do. ...

No I'm not. Where?

CUDA wrote:STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no better

Where have I condemned anyone?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CUDA wrote:STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no better

Where have I condemned anyone?

The last time I went to a restaurant where there was a homo serving tables I went to another restaurant

sounds like you condemned your server by not going back to where he worked because

#2 Because you didn't like the person (and maybe don't want them to be serving you next time).

Also considering the use of the word Homo is a derogatory slang

What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo?

and you are basing your judgement of them on their appearance or mannerisms. and also basing your choice of association on the same criteria.And again the derogatory term Homo. you might not call a man a Homo to his face, but you do here, and your actions by your own words exhibit the same condemnation.

Seems to me some judgment going here and not just by Sergeant Thorne

CUDA wrote:

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

I agree with most of your argument, but I wouldn't use this particular passage to back it up... there's question about whether is really belongs there.

I'd say it comes more directly down to "love your neighbor as yourself." I don't think the note really fits that criteria. There may be times when expressing judgement is a loving and appropriate thing to do, but I don't think this one of those cases.

That's all pretty ★■◆●ing thin, CUDA, and there are a lot of assumptions at work. FYI I use "homo" as an abbreviation, not a derogatory term. Would it make everyone feel better if I used the full term, or is there another that is more acceptable to the hyper-sensitive? I never liked to use the word "gay", because this has an unrelated, positive English meaning.

Just to clear something else up, when I don't want to be served by a homosexual at a restaurant, it doesn't have anything to do with them personally. For that reason I wouldn't get any enjoyment out of asking for another server, or walking out to find another location. I'm not trying to hurt them. You wouldn't find me writing notes on receipts unless maybe somehow I thought I could help them. The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis, and I don't want the people I'm going out to eat with to have to be exposed to it on a casual basis. Most people will not go back to eat at a restaurant, or will get up and walk out if the atmosphere is not to their liking, even for relatively little things... guess what? I'm not looking to make a scene or make trouble for anyone... I do, on some level, take issue with a restaurant essentially asking me to take that sitting down when they know perfectly well how some people feel about it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis, and I don't want the people I'm going out to eat with to have to be exposed to it on a casual basis.

Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.

Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?

snoopy wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

I agree with most of your argument, but I wouldn't use this particular passage to back it up... there's question about whether is really belongs there.

I'd say it comes more directly down to "love your neighbor as yourself." I don't think the note really fits that criteria. There may be times when expressing judgement is a loving and appropriate thing to do, but I don't think this one of those cases.

I used that passage earlier.

Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.

Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?

Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's all pretty ★■◆●ing thin, CUDA, and there are a lot of assumptions at work. FYI I use "homo" as an abbreviation, not a derogatory term.

the mouth says what the heart feels

why the labels? why cant they just be people?

Just to clear something else up, when I don't want to be served by a homosexual at a restaurant, it doesn't have anything to do with them personally. For that reason I wouldn't get any enjoyment out of asking for another server, or walking out to find another location. I'm not trying to hurt them. You wouldn't find me writing notes on receipts unless maybe somehow I thought I could help them. The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis, and I don't want the people I'm going out to eat with to have to be exposed to it on a casual basis. Most people will not go back to eat at a restaurant, or will get up and walk out if the atmosphere is not to their liking, even for relatively little things... guess what? I'm not looking to make a scene or make trouble for anyone... I do, on some level, take issue with a restaurant essentially asking me to take that sitting down when they know perfectly well how some people feel about it.

Kinda Westboro baptist church thinking. IMHO

The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis,

I didn't realize Homosexuality was contagious.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.

Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?

Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.

ya that's what they said about Christ when he had dinner with the Tax collectors. they were wrong then and you are wrong now

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.

Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?

Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.

I still don't follow.

For argument's sake, let's accept your premise, specifically that every homosexual makes the statement "my life is acceptable" simply by their existence. Are you suggesting that a service transaction with that person somehow implies a level of agreement with their life-message?

If so, does this apply everywhere? E.g. Would it apply at a grocery store, or at your bank... or online? (i.e. does discussing E&C topics with a homosexual carry the same weight of social/cultural transaction?)

Also, does this apply vice-versa? In your workplace, would you eschew transactions with a homosexual customer?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:FYI I use "homo" as an abbreviation, not a derogatory term. Would it make everyone feel better if I used the full term, or is there another that is more acceptable to the hyper-sensitive?

I recommend that you be mindful of who your audience is here, Sarge.

CUDA wrote:And as for wives be submissive to you husband. You CLEARLY do not understand the verse. And as with the seperation of church and state. You pick and choose the portion you wish, without look at all of the verse. And clearly your understanding of the word submission is lacking. It means to yield to. NOT to be a slave of. HUGE difference.

I have heard that entire passage many times, and I feel like I have a good understanding of it. Even if you take that word to mean "yield to," I find that absolutely unacceptable in the year 2013. If I ever wind up getting married, I want my wife and myself to be EQUALS in every sense of that word, including any important decisions that we need to make. The only thing I want "submissive" to me is a dog.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.

Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?

What? You didn't know you reject Christ, or you didn't think your wielding a position you don't subscribe to is empty?

I don't reject Christ, so you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. I simply know how to apply basic reasoning and critical thinking when it comes to what's being said in the Bible.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.

So just the fact that someone whom you think (NOT know) is gay might be serving you dinner is too much for you? You don't even want to acknowledge the fact that, hey, some people happen to be gay? I mean I could maybe see if the waiter was aggressively trying to hit on you (which would be wrong no matter what their gender), but just for being there? Christ...

And this is all completely ignoring the massive elephant in the room that people don't just wake up one day and say to themselves, "You know, I'm gonna start being gay," no more than you woke up one day and decided to start being straight.