Is what the server put on this receipt offensive?

993405_10201802866864309_602609731_nWe’ve all been to a restaurant and gotten a receipt that identified us as “Table 4” or “Station 12” or “Diners 1-4.” It’s how restaurants keep track of their customers. No prob.

But a waitress in York, England, used not only “Table 11” and “Stools” to keep track of her customers, but this indication “Gay guys.”

And it turns out, the guys were not gay.

Maybe she meant they looked happy (possibly, if she was alive in 1923). But she was probably just profiling them.

So my question is: Is this offensive?

Before you answer, keep in mind: I always dine out, see a table, and tell my dining companion, “Did you see that dessert?” “Which one?” “The one those gay guys at the next table ordered.” C’mon, you know you do it. Is it worse when a server does it — or worse when you are straight? And it’s it more offensive that she charged them two pounds (about three bucks!) for “half” a Diet Coke?

—  Arnold Wayne Jones

Globes had ‘offensive agenda’, says group that finds glee in denying gay kids are all right

The Family Research Council’s assessment of last night’s Golden Globes:

Wu11A14 Normal

As in past years, the Globes proved that studios are far less concerned about entertaining people than they with indoctrinating them. Last night’s awards were a celebration — not of America’s values, but of Hollywood’s. Projects like The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan, “Glee,” and others were rewarded for pushing the cultural envelope or advancing a liberal political agenda.


Ooh, someone’s bitter their script about a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated “hate group” choosing to call for the exportation or criminalization of the minority population whose love lives they compare to that which might exist between a man and a horse is stalling in production turnaround!

But don’t worry, FRC: We’re sure your film will eventually get made. Many future civil rights documentarians are collecting B-roll…

*SOURCE: Gays seek immigration reform [Medill Reports]


…even as we speak.

Good As You

—  admin

A politically-connected reader calls the administration’s failure on gay rights ‘morally offensive’ and ‘politically stupid’

From a reader active in gay politics:

I said back in 2009 that I could not believe we were several months into this administration, with likely the most liberal (or “liberal”) president I’ll see in my lifetime, with the largest majorities in Congress we are likely to see in our lifetimes, and we, the gay community, were utterly dead in the water. Because even in the first few weeks it became clear that doing anything on our issues was the lowest possible priority. It was hypothetically possible at some future point, but that point woud never arrive, because it was premised on an imaginary day on which it would not cost the administration anything politically (in their view). And the situation is the same or worse, almost two years into this.

I guess they think there is some other base of Obama voters who would be offended by actually doing anything about gay rights, and that other base is more important than their base among gay voters. They are wrong. I understand there are times when priorities have to be ranked; I wasn’t born yesterday. But Barack Obama was very clear on gay issues in 2008, and the voters who didn’t like that have already discounted him for that, but voted for him anyhow. They supported him in full awareness that he had promised to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA, etc. Why would they be surprised or disappointed now, if he actually did these things? They wouldn’t. So he is losing the gay community by inaction, and he’s not even gaining anything in exchange for it. The administration’s failure on this is not only morally offensive (even by Obama’s own rhetoric, given his many statements about how the current state of gay rights is an injustice), but politically stupid.


—  John Wright