"Christian" couple leaves anti-gay rant instead of tip

[Deleted]

"Or are the Christians just damned here for general beliefs by our board members, whether the customers are following their beliefs, right or wrong?"

I don't care what they believe. I care that they feel the have the right to subject 'me' to their beliefs...

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 10:34:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 10:32:05 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I hate that when this happens.
Sometimes I am in a hurry, have pages of a thread to cover, with little time to read all the pages.......and on multiple threads.....
Sorry.

LOL!  No problem, Value Buy.  We've all done it.  It's just funny when it happens again, and again, and again.  It ain't just you! 

How were you infected? I thought you as a moderator were "protected"?
Yesterday I was a scientist, today I am infected......
Just do not understand this game.
I think some of our posts must make us susceptible! 

[Deleted]

People, I think, are wary of rumors for good reason. Have you seen the news about the young people who have taken their own lives because of rumors? Have you ever seen someone who had to leave a workplace because of rumors circulating that were untrue? I have. It's not a pretty picture.

I am not writing this to disagree with your position, or your rationale (even if I did, I wouldn't expect to change or invalidate either).

I do think that there's a difference between rumour-mongering - which is certainly harmful - and recognizing somebody's identity.

Now, it may be the case that sexual orientation is not part of someone's overt identity: but there certainly are people for whom it is, whether it be the PDA of a young heterosexual couple reveling in their newly-discovered ability to decide for themselves who to love, or the political assertion of equality in a same-sex couple openly challenging the bureaucrats who discriminate against their love. Insofar as sexual orientation is expressed consciously and overtly by the individual, I think that individual has removed it from the private sphere.

It is also certainly the case that outgrouping individuals because of some component of their identity is a harmful thing, and I think it is the implicit fear of being inadvertent party to this sort of bigotry that contributes to a desire to 'respect the privacy' even of a gay man who is flamboyantly and publicly gay for the sort of political reasons I alluded to above.

I guess, as long as we're consistent in our dealings with people irrespective of the identifier, we're not outgrouping anybody. I'm interested by how many well-meaning half-measures in our society fall short of this, indirectly validating the outgroupers by outgrouping them.

The hatespeech cited in the OP is vile. The subtextual condemnation of a religion is not of the same order, or character, but is an approach that discourages unity in the long-term. It isn't immediately obvious to me why homophobia is any worse coming from a self-declared Christian (or an imputed one; was Christ mentioned anywhere in that note? I don't recall) than from anybody else.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Or are the Christians just damned here for general beliefs by our board members, whether the customers are following their beliefs, right or wrong

They can believe whatever they want but leaving that note was just plain petty/rude. 

Even if they believe they need to save his soul I don't think writing an offensive message on the back of a reciept is going to suddenly make him see the light and embrace the lord.   You'd think if that was their real desire they'd talk to him face to face rather than write a nasty note and run.

[Tennesseer]

"Or are the Christians just damned here for general beliefs by our board members, whether the customers are following their beliefs, right or wrong?Myself, I think they were cheapskates just trying to think of a reason for not stiffing a server.

Just trying to play devil's advocate here......"

Yet they stood behind their Savior to fling mud at the server.

Not cheapskates-just judgmental Christians with tall redwoods in their eyes.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 10:40:36 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Oct 29, 2013 10:34:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  No problem, Value Buy.  We've all done it.  It's just funny when it happens again, and again, and again.  It ain't just you! 

How were you infected? I thought you as a moderator were "protected"?
Yesterday I was a scientist, today I am infected......
Just do not understand this game.
I think some of our posts must make us susceptible! 

No, moderators aren't "protected".  I think the game restarted this morning, so what you were yesterday ended and a whole new world has begun! 

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 10:42:11 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

People, I think, are wary of rumors for good reason. Have you seen the news about the young people who have taken their own lives because of rumors? Have you ever seen someone who had to leave a workplace because of rumors circulating that were untrue? I have. It's not a pretty picture.

I am not writing this to disagree with your position, or your rationale (even if I did, I wouldn't expect to change or invalidate either).

I do think that there's a difference between rumour-mongering - which is certainly harmful - and recognizing somebody's identity.

Now, it may be the case that sexual orientation is not part of someone's overt identity: but there certainly are people for whom it is, whether it be the PDA of a young heterosexual couple reveling in their newly-discovered ability to decide for themselves who to love, or the political assertion of equality in a same-sex couple openly challenging the bureaucrats who discriminate against their love. Insofar as sexual orientation is expressed consciously and overtly by the individual, I think that individual has removed it from the private sphere.

It is also certainly the case that outgrouping individuals because of some component of their identity is a harmful thing, and I think it is the implicit fear of being inadvertent party to this sort of bigotry that contributes to a desire to 'respect the privacy' even of a gay man who is flamboyantly and publicly gay for the sort of political reasons I alluded to above.

I guess, as long as we're consistent in our dealings with people irrespective of the identifier, we're not outgrouping anybody. I'm interested by how many well-meaning half-measures in our society fall short of this, indirectly validating the outgroupers by outgrouping them.

The hatespeech cited in the OP is vile. The subtextual condemnation of a religion is not of the same order, or character, but is an approach that discourages unity in the long-term. It isn't immediately obvious to me why homophobia is any worse coming from a self-declared Christian (or an imputed one; was Christ mentioned anywhere in that note? I don't recall) than from anybody else.

I don't think I've seen anyone say there's a difference between a "self-declared Christian" being homophobic and anyone else being homophobic, Mojo.  The whole concept of this "note" is vile.  That's what most people have said.

ETA:  I do think some people perceive an aspect of hypocrisy if the leaver of such a note claims to be a "Christian".  That may, or may not be the case.  I don't choose to pursue that aspect.

[Deleted]

Just trying to play devil's advocate here......

It's rude to criticize somebody providing you a professional service for reasons unrelated to that professional service.

It's merely bigoted to keep those criticisms to yourself, and vote with your feet to get services elsewhere in future.

It's capitalism in action to inform the business owner of the reasons for your voting.

... At what point does intolerance of intolerance become itself a mask for bigotry? At what point are we just moving the 'infallible' label onto new Popes?

[Deleted]

I don't think I've seen anyone say there's a difference between a "self-declared Christian" being homophobic and anyone else being homophobic, Mojo.

It's right there in the thread title.

And I'm not sure where hypocrisy arises in adherents to a faith recognizing a sin in accordance with the articles of their faith.

And I'm not sure where people outside of that faith, as experienced by those faithful, get to dictate to them how they should experience it.

And I'm not sure how us talking about them on here is really superior to them talking directly to the object of their animus. It just seems a bit smug to me.

All imho, and not aimed at anybody in particular. Or even in general.

ETA: There's actually nothing in either the OP or the source article that says the bigot was Christian. Yet lots of responses here are waxing (admittedly mild) wroth against Christians as a result. What was that about rumors, again?

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 10:39:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

VB-the couple enjoyed the service. They said so. Bu they decided to punish their server for being gay by leaving no monetary tip.

The only 'tip' the couple offered him was he better change his sexual orientation for future tips from them.

I fully understand that.
I said they were wrong.
My question was, if they left a tip, how much would be acceptable with leaving the note, or would they be attacked here even if they left a fifty percent tip.
Is leaving a note for management even "acceptable"?
How do we know they were even actual Christians? Just because the note said so?

[Tennesseer]

Oct 29, 2013 11:02:42 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Oct 29, 2013 10:39:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

VB-the couple enjoyed the service. They said so. Bu they decided to punish their server for being gay by leaving no monetary tip.

The only 'tip' the couple offered him was he better change his sexual orientation for future tips from them.

I fully understand that.
I said they were wrong.
My question was, if they left a tip, how much would be acceptable with leaving the note, or would they be attacked here even if they left a fifty percent tip.
Is leaving a note for management even "acceptable"?
How do we know they were even actual Christians? Just because the note said so?

Fuck the tip.  Leaving the note and the contents within was the work of assholes.


clear enough for you?

[Deleted]

Judgement so entered...

Refershingly, the server here remarked afterward via social media that he desired his standards of service to be the only criterion for tipping. Exactly right.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 10:52:43 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

I don't think I've seen anyone say there's a difference between a "self-declared Christian" being homophobic and anyone else being homophobic, Mojo.

It's right there in the thread title.

And I'm not sure where hypocrisy arises in adherents to a faith recognizing a sin in accordance with the articles of their faith.

And I'm not sure where people outside of that faith, as experienced by those faithful, get to dictate to them how they should experience it.

And I'm not sure how us talking about them on here is really superior to them talking directly to the object of their animus. It just seems a bit smug to me.

All imho, and not aimed at anybody in particular. Or even in general.

ETA: There's actually nothing in either the OP or the source article that says the bigot was Christian. Yet lots of responses here are waxing (admittedly mild) wroth against Christians as a result. What was that about rumors, again?

No, it isn't in the thread title (unless you choose to place it there in light of some bias of your own).  There is an assumption in the thread title that may, or may not be true; however, there is no indication of any difference between a Christian being homophobic and anyone else being homophobic.

I haven't seen any poster dictating to anyone how they should experience their faith.  People all over the country have reacted to this incident having gone "viral" and the vast majority are reacting with disapproval.  I haven't seen any posts that are "waxing wroth" against Christians, in general, either.

If people here wish to discuss this matter, as it is being discussed across the internet, they're welcome to do so as long as they keep it within the bounds of the ToS and our CoC, regardless of your opinion of the discussion.  You can always opt out if you feel it's "smug" to do so.

[Deleted]

How do we know they were even actual Christians?

A fact assumed, not in evidence. They did mention God.

One wonders how sympathies might be torn if they'd said 'Allah' instead of 'God.' Perhaps then we'd be glad they just left a note, instead of castrating the infidel right there in the restaurant.

What a glorious thing it is to have the luxury of choosing our prejudices!

[Deleted]

* Enough Archie.  Stay to the subject and off the posters. - mmhmm, Administrator

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 11:02:42 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Oct 29, 2013 10:39:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

VB-the couple enjoyed the service. They said so. Bu they decided to punish their server for being gay by leaving no monetary tip.

The only 'tip' the couple offered him was he better change his sexual orientation for future tips from them.

I fully understand that.
I said they were wrong.
My question was, if they left a tip, how much would be acceptable with leaving the note, or would they be attacked here even if they left a fifty percent tip.
Is leaving a note for management even "acceptable"?
How do we know they were even actual Christians? Just because the note said so?

I wouldn't choose to leave a note to management for something like this, but each to his/her own.  If this couple had done that and left without being served and without eating the food provided by someone of whom they, apparently, strongly disapprove, I'd have no issue with it.  I don't imagine anyone else would have had an issue with it.  They can eat somewhere else.

The note, by the way, did not say they were Christian.  That's an assumption.  Jesus was never mentioned.  Only God was mentioned.

[EVT1]

Educated guess- maybe they were Wiccans.

[Deleted]

You can always opt out

Indeed. I feel quite bathed in the tolerance on display. We can discuss, just as long as we say the right things, and don't actually think too much about the implications.

It would be nice if there were a third course between conformity and ostracism, but that isn't how societies function.

With respect mmhmm, what you see no more dictates the validity of my perception than what I see does yours. I explicitly clarified that courtesy at the outset of my remarks on here. We're allowed to disagree on tangential matters; we're in accord on the basic point made, as who honestly wouldn't be?

[mmhmm]

I don't expect to validate your perception; nor, do I expect to invalidate it.  Disagree where you wish, but if you complain about the contents of a thread, I will point out to you the option to opt out of said thread.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Educated guess- maybe they were Wiccans.

I agree you were probably right in your educated guess.

I'm not sure why you rather than they are best placed to say what 'being Christian' means, but I don't mean that with any personal edge against you, or any of the other posters who have, apparently surreptitiously, offered their own implicit substitute definitions.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Educated guess- maybe they were Wiccans.

We don't know what denomination these people were, for sure, EVT.  We're assuming based on stereotypes, but we do not know.

[EVT1]

Oct 29, 2013 11:20:33 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Oct 29, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Educated guess- maybe they were Wiccans.

I agree you were probably right in your educated guess.

I'm not sure why you rather than they are best placed to say what 'being Christian' means, but I don't mean that with any personal edge against you, or any of the other posters who have, apparently surreptitiously, offered their own implicit substitute definitions.

I'm a lapsed Catholic that went to Catholic schools, Mass every day, Sunday school and served in the church- I know the territory.  The more fanatical 'pro-active' Christians are quite clear where they stand on these issues and are just the type that would leave a note like this. The ones that believe the gospel of wealth for example, and other bullshit that anyone with a Bible can point out where they went wrong.  It's a funny book- people seem to read into it 'to interpret' whatever fits their agenda and ignore other parts that do not.

[EVT1]

Oct 29, 2013 11:21:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Educated guess- maybe they were Wiccans.

We don't know what denomination these people were, for sure, EVT.  We're assuming based on stereotypes, but we do not know.

Christian is not a denomination.  If they are not Christians, then that leaves only groups that preach against homosexuality that would capitalize GOD in a hate note 4 times and refer to gay people as f*gs.  Not buying they were Jewish....

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 11:34:24 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 29, 2013 11:21:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

We don't know what denomination these people were, for sure, EVT.  We're assuming based on stereotypes, but we do not know.

Christian is not a denomination.  If they are not Christians, then that leaves only groups that preach against homosexuality that would capitalize GOD in a hate note 4 times and refer to gay people as f*gs.  Not buying they were Jewish....

I'm aware Christian is not a denomination, EVT.  I misstated.  Mea culpa.  How, however, do we know they weren't Jewish, or held some other, lesser-known group affiliation?  We don't. We're making an assumption; albeit, a probably valid assumption.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 10:29:13 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Got a question for everyone.
Maybe several.....
Yes, the couple was judgmental and wrong.
Ten years ago or so, a ten percent tip was generally acceptable.
Today it is between fifteen and up to what, twenty percent for exceptionable service?

If the couple left a ten cent tip with the note, is that acceptable?
If they left five percent with a note, is that acceptable?
If they left ten percent with a note, is that acceptable?
If they left fifteen percent with a note is that acceptable?

Or, were they just supposed not to leave a note?

I understand being gay is not a choice.
Does anyone think it would be correct for the couple to leave a tip, and a message at the cash register for the manager/owner that they will no longer frequent that establishment due to homosexual attendant(s)?

Or are the Christians just damned here for general beliefs by our board members, whether the customers are following their beliefs, right or wrong?
Myself, I think they were cheapskates just trying to think of a reason for not stiffing a server.

Just trying to play devil's advocate here......

I see the note and tip as separate issues, but the tip being used as point of reference to get a message across to the waiter and management.

If this Christian pair was really concerned about the waiter's soul, why not speak with him directly in a loving way, first? 

I believe Christians would do well if they'd learn how Christ himself, approached unbeliever's according to their Bibles. He is the perfect example of witness. Jesus offered himself, first, inwardly (into their hearts). And provoked change, outwardly, secondly. 

No. I do not feel Christians are damned here for their general beliefs. We know sin is wrong. It's just that, the customers approach to change a life was out of Bible order. Had they shared the gospel with the management or the waiter prior to their non tipping actions? First things first. First share the gospel and then allow a response to follow. The unbeliever cannot understand spiritual truths. Same thing can be said of a newbie believer, but at least the newbie has proper foundation in which to mature from.

I cannot make the connection to NOT tip.   I believe what the word of God says. That is this -> The kindness of God is intended to lead men to turn to him. (Romans 2:4 Amp.)

[Deleted]

I'm a lapsed Catholic that went to Catholic schools, Mass every day, Sunday school and served in the church- I know the territory.

I was educated a Catholic, and spent some time in a seminary. I can relate.

The great thing about Holy writ is its inconsistency, which is a function of its completeness. The Christ is quoted in the canonical Gospels as saying "who is not against me, is for me;" and "who is not for me, is against me." Logically, both cannot be true of the genuinely agnostic person struggling with faith. Similarly, the last words of the Christ - which might be considered of some importance - are rendered differently in each of the four canonical Gospels. And don't get me started on the Apocrypha.

And I think in our mindset today we like to think that Jesus, who hung out with whores and lepers and tax-collectors and other ne'er-do-wells, would have assailed the hypocrites who shunned a sinner. We have Biblical support for that. But Christ was also very clear about what following Him meant - "take up your cross, and FOLLOW ME." I personally see that in a Buddhist light of trying to do as Christ did, but it's surely legitimate for people to do as He says in the alternative. And it's not clear anywhere in the New Testament that Christ or his Apostles allowed sinners to simply continue in their sin, indeed Timothy is the chief doctrinal source of orthodox disapproval of homosexuality as a form of carnality. I think Timothy is a wildly misunderstood and misappropriated book of the Bible, but that's just my casuistic opinion. I wouldn't want to argue that I understood Timothy better than a preacher, or that I understood Christ, or even Paul, better than Timothy. Not saying you're doing that, either. Just rambling.

[The Captain]

We all know trolls exist on the internet.

Has anyone considered that fact that they exist in real life as well?

I see this note as a tool to stir up predictable hatred against Christians, and you know what?

It seems to be working very well.

[EVT1]

Oct 29, 2013 11:37:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 11:34:24 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Christian is not a denomination.  If they are not Christians, then that leaves only groups that preach against homosexuality that would capitalize GOD in a hate note 4 times and refer to gay people as f*gs.  Not buying they were Jewish....

I'm aware Christian is not a denomination, EVT.  I misstated.  Mea culpa.  How, however, do we know they weren't Jewish, or held some other, lesser-known group affiliation?  We don't. We're making an assumption; albeit, a probably valid assumption.

Mormons?

Never mind- they are way to nice to do anything like that.  This is more into Phelps territory.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 11:53:07 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 29, 2013 11:37:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm aware Christian is not a denomination, EVT.  I misstated.  Mea culpa.  How, however, do we know they weren't Jewish, or held some other, lesser-known group affiliation?  We don't. We're making an assumption; albeit, a probably valid assumption.

Mormons?

Mormons are Christians.

[Deleted]

Jesus offered himself, first, inwardly (into their hearts). And provoked change, outwardly, secondly.

Very well put. I still suspect the problem society has with Christianity is the "provoking change" aspect, in the sense that everyone has sales resistance to proselytization; but definitely it's true that "you catch more flies with honey."

"Even more with poop," some wag is now thinking; but your point stands.