HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Speechless.......Yes even I can be speechless........Anti-Gay patrons at Carraba's

As outspoken some of you might have thought I was in trying to petition for some understanding in the Barrilla thread, I will be the first to say, this is unacceptable in our society. Absolutely ridiculous, if your belief's are this strong than you simply need to stay home.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/23784990/a...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. What they did is awful, but what angers me about it almost more than anything else is the fact that they are doing this in the name of God?

    The perverted use of Christianity and God's name is the most disgusting thing about this. Those people wouldn't recognize Jesus if he turned their bathtub water into wine while they were bathing in it...

    1. Well. It's Kansas, after all. And god. God makes every behavior excusable.

      6 Replies
      1. re: linguafood

        LINGUA!!! (yes all cap's cause I'm yelling at you)

        You were ready to hand me my head on a plate for trying to use the "It's Italy" explanation on Barrilla, but because this is Kansas you have more understanding?? Really??

        1. re: jrvedivici

          Dude. There's a whole book about Kansas that makes quite a few valid points.

          I'm not personally excusing anyone's assy behavior for any reasons.

          1. re: linguafood

            If you don't mind enlightening me, a book regarding Kansas and their anti gay views?

        2. re: linguafood

          I'm from Kansas. In fact this restaurant is just a few blocks from where I used to live. I don't appreciate the generalization. There are those that prejudge everywhere. Chowhound too, apparently.

          1. re: chileheadmike

            yeah it's Overland Park, a fairly comfortable suburb of KC where you wouldn't expect such behavior. in this part of the world you can't equate the urban centers with the stereotype of the outlands.

            yet I lived a number of years out in the Flint Hills and rarely encountered such bile.

            assholes occur everywhere.

        3. How exactly did the diners know their server was gay?

          3 Replies
            1. re: gaffk

              Sometimes, it's obvious. And after reading the story, I don't see any denials from the waiter that he's NOT gay.

              NB: I said SOMETIMES.

              1. re: mwk

                You're right.

                Sometimes it's very obvious. Many times quite deliberately.

                And if he were not gay it likely would have been mentioned in the article.

            2. How exactly did these restaurant customers know his sexual orientation?

              11 Replies
              1. re: JAB

                To my knowledge Richard Simmons has never made any announcements, but I'd take that bet.

                1. re: jrvedivici

                  I wouldn't. I went to school with guys who seemed much more feminine than I. They are, for the most part, married to women and have kids. Likewise I've known some pretty masculine-seeming women who are married to men and have kids.

                  I have learned to never make such assumptions based on appearances/mannerisms.

                  1. re: gaffk

                    Having worked in the Hospitality business my entire life....I would not say never.

                  2. re: jrvedivici

                    That he's gay....or made any announcements?

                    1. re: fourunder

                      That he is gay. Obviously I don't know for sure.

                    2. re: jrvedivici

                      I'd never make that leap. Could be an effeminate hetero or they could be effeminately asexual.

                      1. re: JAB

                        That's why I said I'd make a bet, a bet is NOT a guarantee. I didn't say Richard Simmons is gay, I just said in my OPINION his public persona would lead me to assume he is.

                        That is most likely how these customers ASSUMED the waiter was gay, which was your original question.

                      2. re: jrvedivici

                        I'd bet he is equally attracted to chubby housewives.

                    3. I think we are supposed to hate the sin, but love the sinner. This was just pure hate, an example of worrying about the splinter in someones eye instead of the telephone pole in your own. And if this is hardwired into genes, it surely needs to be rethought.

                      17 Replies
                      1. re: Nanzi

                        "hate the sin, but love the sinner" excellent example of what a true Christian should be. Not these idiots.

                        1. re: jrvedivici

                          As painful as that is to accept, it's probably what can be best expected.

                            1. re: karenfinan

                              I'm pretty sure they are referencing the diners, not the server.

                                1. re: youareabunny

                                  Oh dear god in fucking heaven, really? I would be ashamed to have any bullshit reason to condone thinking that

                                  1. re: karenfinan

                                    I like turning the "hate the sin" phrase on the cretins, not the waiter, but used in this context even if the customers considered him a hell-bound wretch, they should still offer him, if not love then, dignity and respect.

                                    1. re: karenfinan

                                      Just going off of what I've read. Are we reading the same book?

                                      1. re: youareabunny

                                        Well, this is not a religion forum, so I'll let this be my last post on the subject, but that book also condones slavery, stoning to death a woman who is not a virgin at time of marriage, not eating shellfish, or wearing clothes of blended materials, so I don't think using it as a guide for your bigotry holds water

                                        1. re: karenfinan

                                          Hmmm. I think we're having an error in communication here.

                                          As in, from what I understand about "hate the sin, not the sinner" is that the bible teaches against the act not the person. So, that's why when you asked "how is being gay a sin?" I responded "the bible."

                                          I'm agnostic, probably atheist. So, I was alluding to what reasoning others' who do not share my pro LGBTQ/humankind views have. It seems to me it's usually either religious or just plain ignorance. But usually religious

                                          1. re: youareabunny

                                            I getcha bunny, one can consider (harmless) acts a mortal sin, yet still be cordial and even warm to the poor damned soul (exaggerating for effect). what it comes down to is: if one thinks it's such a horrible thing, either don't leave the house lest you encounter 'others' (black, gay, Muslim, Jewish, Finnish or gasp! all of the above) or just keep your yap shut, no children have been hurt and it's not your immortal soul in question to consider.

                                            1. re: hill food

                                              I agree. I find it sad that anyone could view anyone with such a label, but in the least they can STFU, better yet treat them as they'd treat anyone else, and if they must - pray for them. :)

                              1. re: Nanzi

                                Being Gay is a sin?... I would want no part of that religion!

                                1. re: karenfinan

                                  karen - only in the old testament and only in a few verses out of thousands that are open to wide interpretation.

                                  as an agnostic (who actually reads and comprehends) I have an attic full of evangelicals who ought to remember better that by becoming a "Christian" the old testament is to be considered superceded and only alluded to as a historic (definition pending) document yet are more than happy to quote Leviticus etc, even when in contradiction of the gospels we have today, which have no comment whatsoever.

                                  it's a big mishpocka.