Arkansas | Discrimination | News

Arkansas Cafe Says No to Equality Group's Fundraiser, Compares Them to the KKK

Hodo

Richard Hodo, the owner of Sisters Gourmet Bistro in Van Buren, canceled a planned fundraiser by River Valley Equality Center, a local LGBT rights group, after he found out who they were, ABC4029 reports:

"I told them that I do not support their cause, that if they want to do that that's their business. I do not care, but I don't support their lifestyle and their cause," said Hodo.

The organization said they raise awareness for the gay and lesbian community in the River Valley.

"What I told the lady on the on the phone, look I said if the KKK came here and wanted to hold a fundraiser rally and all that, I wouldn't allow that either," said Hodo.

Check out the video interview here.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. @ mmike

    "When are all these bigoted old white males going to die off? It's not happening fast enough!"

    Isn't a caucasian people and European culture the commonality of all countries where gay people are safest and have the most legally secured rights? Let's see now:

    USA vs. Uganda
    Canada vs Saudi Arabia
    Israel vs Egypt
    Australia vs Iran
    Spain vs Morocco
    Netherlands vs Nigeria
    Argentina vs Jamaica
    England vs Yemen
    Ireland vs Jordan
    Scotland vs Rhodesia
    Denmark vs Burma
    Sweden
    Norway
    Finland
    Germany
    etc....

    Really the only caucasian countries/cultures that aren't the best places for gay people to live are Russia and the caucasian countries infested with Islam.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 10, 2013 8:36:02 AM


  2. @ Andrew said : "FYI: Most of the adults living in Public Housing and using Food Stamps already work, often very hard and for low wages."

    HUD says:

    "21 percent of public housing households reported income from wages and salaries" - source HUD

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 10, 2013 8:45:16 AM


  3. @David Hearn: Above you are bragging about Western Nations and their egalitarian ways. In another post you seem to be saying that SNAP money is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. According to the USDA SNAP (food stamps) costs about 80 billion dollars per year and gives food assistance to about 45 million Americans. By comparison that 80 billion only funded 3months of the Iraq war which wound up costing American taxpayers about ! trillion dollars. According to USDA about 1/2 of all new food stamp recipients only stay on the program for about 9 months.

    Posted by: andrew | Feb 10, 2013 2:50:07 PM


  4. @ Andrew

    You're trying to deflect from the fact that you made a claim that is demonstrably false. Even so, "egalitarian ways" are about equal rights which has nothing to do with welfare or food stamps. The entire point of my original comment on food stamps and public housing is that the taxpayers/government have the right to place conditions on receipt of public charity, they do not have a right to take the private property of a citizen or make is ability to earn a living conditional on surrendering his civil rights.

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone who clearly believes himself to be intelligent does not understand the principles of liberty and private property.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 10, 2013 3:42:55 PM


  5. @David Hearn: You correctly quoted the HUD data that about 21% of Public Housing households receive income from wages. You failed to mention that HUD estimates that about 40% of Public Housing households are headed by a person 65 or older ( 88% of whom live alone) and another 12% of the household are headed by a disabled person. We are not talking about a huge program here. In a nation of over 330 million people there are fewer than 1 and 1/2 million units of occupied public housing.

    Posted by: andrew | Feb 10, 2013 3:53:12 PM


  6. @ Andrew

    "Above you are bragging about Western Nations and their egalitarian ways. In another post you seem to be saying that SNAP money is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds."

    Your reading comprehension needs work. While I'm not averse to bragging about the superiority of Euro and descendant cultures the point was made in response to a stupid remark about the apparent bright future in a post caucasian world. Clearly there is no basis for such a wish.

    My reference to welfare was limited to the authority of government to make conditions for those things, applying rules to the property the government owns and conditions under which a person may or may not work to get those benefits. The point was and still is that _private property_ and the labor of self employed people ought to be respected in the context of an individual's right to freedom of association.

    We have gay bars, gay hotels, and gay restaurants do we not? How did they get that way and how do they stay that way? Would you have us believe it's serendipity? Having worked in several gay businesses I assure you that it was not by accident that these places were predominantly gay and stayed that way. We expressed a preference. Now the lightest version of the laws you seem to think are OK (as long as it works for you or you think it does) is expressing a preference. Under nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations, it's against the law to advertise or promote a preference based on the protected categories.

    So that black bar? It's in violation. That gay bar? It's in violation. If there is a spanish speaking bar where they can speak English but refuse to do so.... that is discrimination.

    Not only that, but something which you might do for some perfectly legal reason can be actionable if it has the effect of discrimination. For example, if you were to open a restaurant in an area of DC that whites are reclaiming, and you only accept American Express cards (no other cards no cash). That could be seen as discrimination. A restaurant in Myrtle Beach was threatened with a lawsuit by the NAACP because it planned to be closed during Black Bike Weekend. The place planned to be closed because their experience with that event was not good. But the NAACP thought they could make a case in court, and apparently so did the atty for the restaurant.

    People have a right to freedom of association and the enjoyment of their privately owned property. Somewhere along the way the courts decided it was OK for the government to trample those rights in the name of "civil rights".

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 11, 2013 12:15:06 AM


  7. just die already!

    Posted by: Jenson | Feb 11, 2013 11:53:39 AM


  8. « 1 2 3

Post a comment







Trending


« «James Dale, Plaintiff in 2000 Supreme Court Case, Calls on Scouts to Drop the Gay Ban« «