polksalet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/03/1183351173134.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I think I love you, but what am I so afraid of? returns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Shouldn't she be gladd that she was so masculine looking that she was mistaken for a man? I mean isn't that the point of the uber-butch dykey types? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 they made her pay before kicking them out??!! If you are going to be a small minded ahole and expect everyone else in the world is as small minded as yourself (thus a need to kick someone like this out) it would seem to me that the benefit of doing so (or lack of a loss of business as ridiculous as that is) should well out weigh a tab that has not even been completed. So long as the person was not dressed obscene or dressed below a code, the owner is wrong for kicking this person out – especially if the person as deemed ‘okay’ to come in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ya know, I haven't seen a post from Squeegiebo in a really long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 So long as the person was not dressed obscene or dressed below a code, the owner is wrong for kicking this person out – especially if the person as deemed ‘okay’ to come in the first place. The OWNER can do whatever the hell he wants, and there isn't a damn thing your whiney crying can do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I saw this story on the news and thought it was ridiculous. The woman clearly goes out of her way to look as much like a man as possible, and then complains because she got kicked out of a woman's bathroom. This would be like me going around having a contest to see how close I could get to punching black guys in the face without actually touching them and then complaining of racism after they kicked my ass. Retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The OWNER can do whatever the hell he wants, and there isn't a damn thing your whiney crying can do about it. I marginally agree. Assuming that the dress was not offenseive (assless chaps or somesuch) Can I legally not have blacks in my establishment? Say, I am a burger king. No blacks allowed. Is that good with you? Okay - with you - I am sure that is good. Is it legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Okay, stupid question time: If it's okay (most of the time - the story above being an exception) to allow a flaming gay male into a men's locker room or a dyke into a women's locker room, why isn't it okay to allow men into women's locker rooms or women into men's locker rooms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I saw this story on the news and thought it was ridiculous. The woman clearly goes out of her way to look as much like a man as possible, and then complains because she got kicked out of a woman's bathroom. This would be like me going around having a contest to see how close I could get to punching black guys in the face without actually touching them and then complaining of racism after they kicked my ass. Retarded. why allow the person into the establishment in the first place, Atomic? why make a big deal once the person went to the bathroom? I can see why they did at first - but why not after it was revealed the person was a woman (in a stall). what happened between letting the person in and letting them go to the bathroom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I marginally agree. Assuming that the dress was not offenseive (assless chaps or somesuch) Can I legally not have blacks in my establishment? Say, I am a burger king. No blacks allowed. Is that good with you? Okay - with you - I am sure that is good. Is it legal? Obviously ridiculous comparison. Not only in the eyes of the law, but also in the fact that the only way anyone knows someone is gay is if they provide the information in an overt and conspicuous manner. Black people hardly have the same option. Legislating morality is very dangerous business. Let's not let the idiots in Washington go down that path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i agree, if she wants to look all butch so that everyone thinks she's a dude, she should have to go into the mens room and look at schlong. next time she'll put on some f'n lipstick and mascara, i reckon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i agree, if she wants to look all butch so that everyone thinks she's a dude, she should have to go into the mens room and look at schlong. next time she'll put on some f'n lipstick and mascara, i reckon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 So which bathroom is one supposed to use at Atomic's party???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 the only way anyone knows someone is gay is if they provide the information in an overt and conspicuous manner. "I said, 'I am a woman and I am where I am supposed to be'," said Farmer, speaking at a a news conference. "I offered to show him some identification. I was told that's neither here nor there." Problem solved? Can we agree if the person was let in there in the first place that she obviously wasn't dressed in an offensive manner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Obviously ridiculous comparison. Not only in the eyes of the law, but also in the fact that the only way anyone knows someone is gay is if they provide the information in an overt and conspicuous manner. Black people hardly have the same option. Legislating morality is very dangerous business. Let's not let the idiots in Washington go down that path. Have you met Irish yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 why allow the person into the establishment in the first place, Atomic? why make a big deal once the person went to the bathroom? I can see why they did at first - but why not after it was revealed the person was a woman (in a stall). what happened between letting the person in and letting them go to the bathroom? Ok, you're missing the point here, and I think it's because you haven't actually seen this woman. Nobody questioned her when she came into the restaraunt because she looked like a man. They kicked her out because she was in the ladies room, and looked exactly like a man. This has nothing to do with discrimination against anyone. It's mistaken identity. She looked like a man in the womans room and they reacted appropriately. Nobody called her a dyke or a tranny or anything. They just removed a "man" from the ladies room at the request of a lady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i think it's discrimination that there's no aerosmith song about lady lookin like a dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ok, you're missing the point here, and I think it's because you haven't actually seen this woman. Nobody questioned her when she came into the restaraunt because she looked like a man. They kicked her out because she was in the ladies room, and looked exactly like a man. This has nothing to do with discrimination against anyone. It's mistaken identity. She looked like a man in the womans room and they reacted appropriately. Nobody called her a dyke or a tranny or anything. They just removed a "man" from the ladies room at the request of a lady. maybe I need to reserve my judement until I see how she looked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/06/30/amd_farmer.jpg There you go. That's the picture she chose to show up and pose for. Whaddaya wanna bet she didn't even look that much like a woman when the incident occurred. This wasn't discrimination. The club caters to gays, and had a rainbow in their window. This woman clearly has some kind of problem with society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 this picture is clearly okay with me. Do you think that she needs to have long hair? Does she need to have makeup? Does she need to wear a dress? There does not seem to be anything crude or vulgar - so once the mistake is cleared up 'I am a woman, here is my ID' I don't see any problem. This is quite conservative in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 this picture is clearly okay with me. Do you think that she needs to have long hair? Does she need to have makeup? Does she need to wear a dress? seems like she could've at least grown a rat-tail or something so everyone would know she's a carpet-muncher and not a guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 AHA! It WAS discrimination against a black person after all...the white women were terrified by the person they thought was a big black man in their bathroom...obviously there to rape them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 this picture is clearly okay with me. Do you think that she needs to have long hair? Does she need to have makeup? Does she need to wear a dress? There does not seem to be anything crude or vulgar - so once the mistake is cleared up 'I am a woman, here is my ID' I don't see any problem. This is quite conservative in my eyes. You win. This woman clearly has more rights than the women who really believed some weirdo guy was in the bathroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Legislating morality is very dangerous business. Let's not let the idiots in Washington go down that path. we have already let that happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.