Gay couple asked to reverse shirt at Dollywood

[jimnyc]

Amazing. It's ok when people are asked to remove or turn an American flag shirt inside out - but don't ask the queers! It's ok to remove Christmas trees and other religious icons so as not to offend the filthy muslims, but don't ask the queers!

I say "too fucking bad". If you don't like their policy, and you don't want to reverse your shirt - then boycott their establishment and go elsewhere.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?

ASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A lesbian couple is asking for changes at Dollywood after an employee asked one of the women to turn her T-shirt reading "marriage is so gay" inside-out to avoid offending others on a recent visit to the Tennessee theme park complex.

Olivier Odom and Jennifer Tipton said Tuesday they want the park to be more inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families after Odom was asked to reverse her shirt when they visited Dollywood Splash Country next to the Pigeon Forge amusement park. The story was first reported by WBIR-TV in Knoxville.

Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said on Tuesday that Dollywood is open to all families, but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-ask...200120079.html

[jimnyc]

On the gay subject - the queer marriages in NY now...

Queers say they are normal, and should be allowed to be married and receive "equal rights". "They are no different than you and I".

If 2 women love one another, and they are normal and just like everyone else - why are they wearing a dress and one wearing a tuxedo? This is what I have seen from tons of pictures here in NY. Is it supposed to be normal when one thinks and/or acts like the man?

[ConHog]

Amazing. It's ok when people are asked to remove or turn an American flag shirt inside out - but don't ask the queers! It's ok to remove Christmas trees and other religious icons so as not to offend the filthy muslims, but don't ask the queers!

I say "too fucking bad". If you don't like their policy, and you don't want to reverse your shirt - then boycott their establishment and go elsewhere.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?



http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-ask...200120079.html

This all started in 1964 when the patently unconstitutional equal rights law was passed. No person nor government should be allowed to tell me what I may or may not do with my own property or who I may or may not serve at my own business. Now mind you this isn't to say that I personally would turn down gays, I wouldn't , their money spends just the same ; BUT that should be MY choice. Just as it should be Dollywood's choice. The consumer of course has the choice of not doing business there if they don't like the way they do business.

[KartRacerBoy]

This all started in 1964 when the patently unconstitutional equal rights law was passed. No person nor government should be allowed to tell me what I may or may not do with my own property or who I may or may not serve at my own business. Now mind you this isn't to say that I personally would turn down gays, I wouldn't , their money spends just the same ; BUT that should be MY choice. Just as it should be Dollywood's choice. The consumer of course has the choice of not doing business there if they don't like the way they do business.

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...

[ConHog]

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...

Oh for the love of God, Gunny told me the level of discourse was higher over here than where I came from. Did he lie to me? NO ONE, and I mean absolutely NO ONE suggested that you ought be able to commit crimes on your own property.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh for the love of God, Gunny told me the level of discourse was higher over here than where I came from. Did he lie to me? NO ONE, and I mean absolutely NO ONE suggested that you ought be able to commit crimes on your own property.

I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.

[ConHog]

I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.

Excuse me, you are correct. I should not have just assumed that you are intelligent enough to understand that I was of course not opining that we should be able to commit crimes as long as we are on our own property while doing so.

[KartRacerBoy]

Excuse me, you are correct. I should not have just assumed that you are intelligent enough to understand that I was of course not opining that we should be able to commit crimes as long as we are on our own property while doing so.

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

[logroller]

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

Asking someone to abide by a dress code isnt automatically discrimination. If it were, health codes enforcing "NO shirt, No shoes, No service" would be discriminatory.

I believe all people have a right to be comfortable with who they are. If this were a case of a cross-dresser they'd maybe have a claim, as were another gender to dress the same way, it'd be fine. But what this boils down to is someone trying to make a derisive political statement, which could affect the establishment's business, and being asked to refrain. If they had instead worn a shirt stating "Celebrate diversity" , I doubt they'd be asked to change; likewise, if I wore a shirt that said "God Hates fags", I'm sure i'd be asked to change-- thus the policy of Dollywood is not only indiscriminant, but antidiscriminatory.

[fj1200]

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

What discrimination occurred? They weren't banned from the park they only wanted a shirt turned inside out. They don't have freedom of speech there do they?

[ConHog]

What discrimination occurred? They weren't banned from the park they only wanted a shirt turned inside out. They don't have freedom of speech there do they?

See that's my problem with the law as written . It's my property shouldn't I have the right to said property, not a customer? But we have it backwards, we are giving customers the right to do business with people who may or may not want to do business with them. Just as an example.

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

What a ridiculous argument. If a person is a bigot and doesn't want to do business with say a Muslim, then that isn't hurting that Muslim, he can simply go do business elsewhere , and besides why , other than causing trouble, would he WANT to do business with someone who wants nothing to do with him? Murder on the other hand would obviously harm the Muslim and can't be allowed. I can't even believe you made such a stupid comment.


Oh, here's another thing. If we in the US do not allow discrimination, how then do you explain the Black Caucas, the black coaches association, the NAACP, etc etc etc???? Oh oops.

[Trigg]

Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said on Tuesday that Dollywood is open to all families, but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.

Dollywood did the right thing. The woman wore a shirt that she knew would be offensive to some. They weren't removed from the park they were simply asked to reverse the shirt.

[Missileman]

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

[ConHog]

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

People have a right to set a dress code for their own property. People do NOT have a right to force their dress code on others people's property.

Do you understand the concept of private property?

[Missileman]

People have a right to set a dress code for their own property. People do NOT have a right to force their dress code on others people's property.

Do you understand the concept of private property?

Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.