RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=-

RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/20/2013 6:46:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren one local paper claimed to have tracked the family down and they were members of an evangelical church.. I would be curious how they managed to do that. Do you have a link? [Asian Gallup Bistro General Manager Byron] Lapolla said he has received several requests to shame the family by name, but the restaurant will not. “We don’t want to attack the family,” he said. ~Source K.

xxblushesxx -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/20/2013 10:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren one local paper claimed to have tracked the family down and they were members of an evangelical church.. I would be curious how they managed to do that. Do you have a link? [Asian Gallup Bistro General Manager Byron] Lapolla said he has received several requests to shame the family by name, but the restaurant will not. “We don’t want to attack the family,” he said. ~Source K. But my point is...so what? What if I went out tomorrow and proceeded to kick a dozen cute cuddly puppies, and I was on the news? And what if someone found out I am into BDSM? Would that mean that because I am into BDSM, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Or what if they found out I am a follower of Christ? Would that mean because I am a follower of Christ, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Maybe, I'm just a jerk.* (*hypothetically speaking of course)

DomKen -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 6:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren one local paper claimed to have tracked the family down and they were members of an evangelical church.. I would be curious how they managed to do that. Do you have a link? [Asian Gallup Bistro General Manager Byron] Lapolla said he has received several requests to shame the family by name, but the restaurant will not. “We don’t want to attack the family,” he said. ~Source K. But my point is...so what? What if I went out tomorrow and proceeded to kick a dozen cute cuddly puppies, and I was on the news? And what if someone found out I am into BDSM? Would that mean that because I am into BDSM, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Or what if they found out I am a follower of Christ? Would that mean because I am a follower of Christ, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Maybe, I'm just a jerk.* (*hypothetically speaking of course) The point here is that a lot of people are assuming, quite reasonably, that the person who failed to tip and wrote the nasty note instead is basing their objection to homosexuality on their twisted version of Christianity. You kicking cute cuddly puppies would presumably be because you like kicking cute cuddly puppies not that you believe either BDSM or Christianity instructed you to kick cute cuddly puppies

Kirata -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 6:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The point here is that a lot of people are assuming... Period. Nobody attends a church for long if it preaches shit they don't believe and teaches crap they find objectionable (except Obama, of course). They join a congregation that supports their beliefs, and kids learn the stuff from their parents and peers. The problem is people. There's tons of other stuff in the Bible that nobody pays any attention to. K.

DomKen -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 7:21:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The point here is that a lot of people are assuming... Period. Nobody attends a church for long if it preaches shit they don't believe and teaches crap they find objectionable (except Obama, of course). They join a congregation that supports their beliefs, and kids learn the stuff from their parents and peers. The problem is people. There's tons of other stuff in the Bible that nobody pays any attention to. K. So am I to understand that you don't consider children to be people?

njlauren -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 7:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The point here is that a lot of people are assuming... Period. Nobody attends a church for long if it preaches shit they don't believe and teaches crap they find objectionable (except Obama, of course). They join a congregation that supports their beliefs, and kids learn the stuff from their parents and peers. The problem is people. There's tons of other stuff in the Bible that nobody pays any attention to. K. Sounds great in theory, but it isn't true in reality. It is true some people have finally had enough, and walk out the door , there are plenty of ex Catholics, Evangelicals, etc to make that point. But it also leaves out something else, the strong cultural ties to a church, people grow up in them, and they find it hard to leave since it is a comfort. The prime case in point are found among Catholics, 54% of Catholics support same sex marriage, 90% of Catholics use birth control, most think that the all male priesthood is a joke, many thing priests should marry..yet they belong to a church whose leaders crucified a bunch of nun cause they didn't yell and scream about same sex marriage and abortion, and so forth. Very few Catholics are orthodox, most are cafeteria, yet they still go to church..and they rationalize this, by saying their church is wonderful, how they think the leaders are a joke, but this is very real. The classic case is people with children, how the heck do you stay in a church where the leadership not only looked the other way while priests were molesting children, there is a global abuse scandal (in Ireland, for example) that has cause many people to walk away, yet here in the US those same cafeteria Catholics continue to fill the pews, even though they know the hierarchy is still doing the same crap they once were, despite the rules, etc (before anyone claims differently, a Bishop in Kansas was convicted by a judge last year for covering up for a priest caught with child porn, violating law, and the man is still bishop).... There are all kinds of reasons people stay in churches they don't agree with in many things, human beings have tremendous capacity to do so. It is actually a lot more likely that a conservative religious person will leave a church for being too liberal than the other way around IME.

njlauren -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 8:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren one local paper claimed to have tracked the family down and they were members of an evangelical church.. I would be curious how they managed to do that. Do you have a link? [Asian Gallup Bistro General Manager Byron] Lapolla said he has received several requests to shame the family by name, but the restaurant will not. “We don’t want to attack the family,” he said. ~Source K. But my point is...so what? What if I went out tomorrow and proceeded to kick a dozen cute cuddly puppies, and I was on the news? And what if someone found out I am into BDSM? Would that mean that because I am into BDSM, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Or what if they found out I am a follower of Christ? Would that mean because I am a follower of Christ, I kick cute cuddly puppies? Maybe, I'm just a jerk.* (*hypothetically speaking of course) The point here is that a lot of people are assuming, quite reasonably, that the person who failed to tip and wrote the nasty note instead is basing their objection to homosexuality on their twisted version of Christianity. You kicking cute cuddly puppies would presumably be because you like kicking cute cuddly puppies not that you believe either BDSM or Christianity instructed you to kick cute cuddly puppies Thank you Ken, you said it well. What is being left out with the argument "I am a Christian, I kick puppies, therefore all Christians are puppy Kickers" leaves out something very, very basic, that Homophobia and gay hate has been a solid part of Christianity for many,many years, and it is only within my lifetime (now 60 years) that churches have started coming around, but it also leaves out the tremendous damage that was done and the lingering effects, you don't remove 2000 years of bias against gays (actually, probably more then that) in a generation or two. Put it this way, the more religious someone claims to be, the more likely it is that they look negatively upon gays; as a whole, Atheists have been a lot more friendly towards gays then most religious people have been, and to argue that religion has not been one of the prime promoters of anti gay bigotry is really, really stretching things. Getting back to the puppy kicking thing, if there were lines in the Bible that said "thou shalt kicketh the puppies, for they are unclean" or 'thou shalt not trouble the young dogs, who are dirty and bad", and someone used to to justify going out and kicking puppies, you might have an argument; but there is no such thing in the bible (it mentions dogs but only once, a dog called Tobit), and there has never been a church teaching against dogs (the idiots in the Catholic Church, on the other hand, with their usual accuracy, promoted pogroms against cats during the plague years, the same cats that could kill off the rodents that were spreading the disease as a vector for the fleas). I am not saying that all Christians are homophobic, but what I am saying is the kind of hate that would cause someone to judge a waitress like that is likely to come from someone with religious beliefs, twisted or not. As far as them being Christian, you have whole denominations who would not mind if gays were put in concentration camps or killed, you have supposed men of God saying gays should be stoned to death, and there are roughly 25 million people in the US who follow Christian dominionism, who believe the penalty for being gay should be death. Many evangelical groups, losing the battle in the US, are supporting efforts in places like Uganda to have draconian laws put in place, including death sentences, for being gay. These are all people who claim to be Christian, claim to be born again, and saying "they aren't really Christian" is a cop out, because the label is self applied...... Again, not all religious people are homophobic or hateful, and I wouldn't claim it, there are lots of wonderful people of all faiths who kind of have realized their parents and the rest were full of shit, and young people by far, other then the kids of evangelicals and ill educated people, are amazingly open. I think in context of what has happened with gay marriage, and living in NJ not all that far from where this incident took place, it really stands out, Bridgewater is isn't the backwoods someplace or northwest NJ, it is in one of the wealthiest, well educated counties in the country and this kind of thing isn't typical, and for someone to do something like that is unheard of, and I can tell you from personal experience, having lived here my whole life and seeing things from a variety of angles, the only people you see doing stuff like this are evangelical Christians and their ilk, and if what the claim on one of the news sites in the comment section was true (and I apologize, the story I referred to in an earlier post cited comments claiming they knew the person who had done it and they were evangelicals, I thought they had interviewed the people claiming). Around here, most people tend to be libertarian to liberal with social issues and most simply don't care, and when there is trouble 99% of the time it is some uber Christian type......even people who hate everyone, even if they wouldn't leave a tip, wouldn't bother to leave a note, the only people who routinely are driven to that level are evangelical Christians and the like. It shouldn't be so surprising, we have seen the Catholic Church's leadership in the past 30 years turn church teaching into being anti abortion and anti gay rights, we have seen a major political party have as a major plank wanting to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage and we have seen the GOP routinely want to deny gays rights, including legal protection from discrimination, and guess who they are catering to? You got it, religious people, and if it were only a few nuts, they wouldn't bother, they do it because it represents a huge part of their base.......

xxblushesxx -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 9:52:06 PM)
Lauren, I'm sorry, but you are taking a discussion of one thing, and turning it into another. This isn't about cheap tippers. This isn't about Christians. This is about one family of bigots who chose their bigotry as their excuse to be jerks, and to rip another person off. Seriously. That's all this is about. You can try to make it about Christianity, but since the people doing the jerky stuff didn't, we can't do it for them. As much as some people would like to.

sloguy02246 -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 10:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Lauren, I'm sorry, but you are taking a discussion of one thing, and turning it into another. This isn't about cheap tippers. This isn't about Christians. This is about one family of bigots who chose their bigotry as their excuse to be jerks, and to rip another person off. Seriously. That's all this is about. You can try to make it about Christianity, but since the people doing the jerky stuff didn't, we can't do it for them. As much as some people would like to. Well, not entirely true. I believe their written statement (from a prior post) was: "Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. Queers do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours." Clearly they are bigoted, but this bigotry is obviously rooted in their belief in a "GOD" and in what their "GOD" has told them is right. I readily agree that they might not be evangelicals, and they might not even be Christians, and it was wrong to jump to that conclusion. However, their expressed belief (and the consequent action) are based in a religion.

Kirata -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/21/2013 11:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren it is only within my lifetime (now 60 years) that churches have started coming around... A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded. Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century. The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667). While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. ~Source K.

xxblushesxx -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/22/2013 8:26:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Lauren, I'm sorry, but you are taking a discussion of one thing, and turning it into another. This isn't about cheap tippers. This isn't about Christians. This is about one family of bigots who chose their bigotry as their excuse to be jerks, and to rip another person off. Seriously. That's all this is about. You can try to make it about Christianity, but since the people doing the jerky stuff didn't, we can't do it for them. As much as some people would like to. Well, not entirely true. I believe their written statement (from a prior post) was: "Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. Queers do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours." Clearly they are bigoted, but this bigotry is obviously rooted in their belief in a "GOD" and in what their "GOD" has told them is right. I readily agree that they might not be evangelicals, and they might not even be Christians, and it was wrong to jump to that conclusion. However, their expressed belief (and the consequent action) are based in a religion. That is not AT ALL what was said. (I feel like I'm in a weird online game of telephone now) This is what the note actually said: "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life." Link: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9331720

sloguy02246 -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/22/2013 10:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Lauren, I'm sorry, but you are taking a discussion of one thing, and turning it into another. This isn't about cheap tippers. This isn't about Christians. This is about one family of bigots who chose their bigotry as their excuse to be jerks, and to rip another person off. Seriously. That's all this is about. You can try to make it about Christianity, but since the people doing the jerky stuff didn't, we can't do it for them. As much as some people would like to. Well, not entirely true. I believe their written statement (from a prior post) was: "Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. Queers do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours." Clearly they are bigoted, but this bigotry is obviously rooted in their belief in a "GOD" and in what their "GOD" has told them is right. I readily agree that they might not be evangelicals, and they might not even be Christians, and it was wrong to jump to that conclusion. However, their expressed belief (and the consequent action) are based in a religion. That is not AT ALL what was said. (I feel like I'm in a weird online game of telephone now) This is what the note actually said: "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life." Link: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9331720 You are correct. My error was in blindly accepting a different version of the statement in a prior post. Still an act of bigoty, just not an act that can be further ascribed to a particular religion's beliefs.

kalikshama -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/22/2013 10:52:31 AM)
A recent Bill Maher piece which I quoted here gave several examples of under-tipping which were in the same vein as the OP but were not the same people as in the OP.

thishereboi -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/22/2013 10:58:29 AM)
already answered

ResidentSadist -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/25/2013 2:08:58 AM)
Yes, the OP was only about gay hate. Not religious fanaticism and beating up gays with crosses in the name of Jesus . . . although that was touched on in some replies during thread drift. I liked this story better than the other stories that had "just cause" in the name of religion. This focuses only on the mindset of the hater. No excuses, no religious justifications. Just a feeling that they have the right to rip someone off for their just dues, to mistreat them after being served by them, and it is based on, "my lifestyle is acceptable but your legal right to choose is not". They feel they had the right to overrule federal law and punish someone for their legal right to choose and take away money that should be their reward for serving them. The act is so close to fraud, almost like a robbery . . . it is a pungent violation of our social order and customs. It left me a little stunned trying to perceive the uptight, judgmental, self-righteous mind of the perpetrator.

theshytype -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/25/2013 9:07:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Yes, the OP was only about gay hate. Not religious fanaticism and beating up gays with crosses in the name of Jesus . . . although that was touched on in some replies during thread drift. I liked this story better than the other stories that had "just cause" in the name of religion. This focuses only on the mindset of the hater. No excuses, no religious justifications. Just a feeling that they have the right to rip someone off for their just dues, to mistreat them after being served by them, and it is based on, "my lifestyle is acceptable but your legal right to choose is not". They feel they had the right to overrule federal law and punish someone for their legal right to choose and take away money that should be their reward for serving them. The act is so close to fraud, almost like a robbery . . . it is a pungent violation of our social order and customs. It left me a little stunned trying to perceive the uptight, judgmental, self-righteous mind of the perpetrator. Very well put, RS, and I agree. I don't believe it to be a religious issue. Such a person may or may not use religion as the basis of their opinion, but I believe that it's just an excuse for their hatred whenever it is used. I've known a few religious people that have stated they may not agree with it but do not feel their opinion should be the basis of how others' lives are ran. While I may not agree with their opinion, I respect that they do not let it get in the way of treating any human less than a human because of it.

descrite -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/25/2013 11:35:14 PM)
Oh, bullshit. I am not required to tip. It is my money. I can do what I want with it. And why didn't the family state their case before they ate, as some on this thread asked? Well, because you, as a customer, rarely have a choice in your waitstaff. And you don't know until you're seated and ready to eat. That is: hungry. Getting up and going somewhere else is a lot more inconvenience to you (the customer). Moreover, they left a note, explaining why they stiffed her. Good for them for being honest, instead of leaving her wondering if she fucked something up. At least then she just knew they were bigots, instead of faulting herself. If foodmonkeys are going to start complaining about when they get stiffed for whatever their personal traits are, then they ought to start giving up any money they get for having big tits or a nice smile. For instance, I don't like smelly, unkempt people. If a friend invites me to a restaurant, and the server ends up being some hippy fuck wearing dreads and smelling like the west end of an eastbound horse, I probably won't tip well. (I won't even say why on the receipt-- I am not as forthright as the diners in question.) That's my choice, as a customer. Is the hippy fuck entitled to their lifestlye choice? Sure! Go to it, dirtmongler. But I ain't gonna reward you for it...in fact, I will punish you for it. My choice. Their choice to be employed in a field where caprice determines their income.

searching4mysir -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/26/2013 6:58:55 AM)
FR It recently came out on NBC that the waitress lied. The couple provided a copy of their credit card statement and a copy of their receipt showing the $18 tip to NBC. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gay-Server-Tip-Lifestyle-Receipt-Discrepancy-233040811.html This isn't the first time that people have tried to create a controversy where there was none.

theshytype -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/26/2013 8:02:43 AM)
The example you provided is not the same as this case. In your example, it's an opinion based on appearance and presentation. I think many people would be offended by a foul-smelling waitress. They chose how to present themselves. Since when did being gay become an appearance or a choice? I think the OP is more closer to judging tips based on age. If an older waitress is slow, sure you can lower the tip because of the slow service. That's understandable. But if you're basing the tip solely on the fact that she's old, regardless of how well the service was performed, it just makes you an asshole (at least in my eyes). quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir FR It recently came out on NBC that the waitress lied. The couple provided a copy of their credit card statement and a copy of their receipt showing the $18 tip to NBC. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gay-Server-Tip-Lifestyle-Receipt-Discrepancy-233040811.html This isn't the first time that people have tried to create a controversy where there was none. No, it's not the first time. If someone is stirring up controversy in the name of their cause, it really doesn't help and may even have an opposite effect IMO. But, I do still enjoy the discussions.

searching4mysir -> RE: -=No tip for waitress, cause she's gay=- (11/26/2013 8:18:25 AM)
I live in the area theshytype. it is the same case as the OP.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625