T Nation

Fatties Not Welcome!

As much as I dislike witnessing fat-asses feed at the trough in public this just seems wrong to me:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-fat-people-allowed-only-slim-will-be.html

I suppose it was only a matter of time before socialized health care made us consider such repugnant regulations.

Welcome the nanny-police state with open arms and blind acceptance because here it comes regardless.

What do you want to bet this is riding on the coat tales of all the cigarette bans in place?
Once you start baning things you just open the flood gates for all kinds of oppressive legislation.
In order to keep doing the things you like to do, you have to put of with the thing you don’t like others doing even if it bothers you. If you want to stop others from doing things, they will find a way to stop you from doing things. It really is that simple.

I’m not even going to get into everything that is wrong with this. I just wanted to throw in that it appears they are basing obesity on a bmi over 30.

I only need to gain about 5 pounds and my bmi will be 30.

I am under 10% bf. I bet there are quite a few people on this site that are perfectly healthy with bmi’s over 30. I guess they won’t be served in Mississippi.

[quote]pat wrote:
What do you want to bet this is riding on the coat tales of all the cigarette bans in place?
Once you start baning things you just open the flood gates for all kinds of oppressive legislation.
In order to keep doing the things you like to do, you have to put of with the thing you don’t like others doing even if it bothers you. If you want to stop others from doing things, they will find a way to stop you from doing things. It really is that simple.[/quote]

Your annology is flawed because if you smoke in an inclosed space, other people have to breath your smoke, therefore, you are doing harm unto others. But in this case, there is no harm to anyone else. The fatty is only harming themselves, so the government has no right to tell a private business who they can and cannot serve.

Of course I get what you are saying, you give the anti-smoking jihad, or in this case the nanny-staters an inch and they demand a yard.


Well, there are already laws allowing establishments to refuse to serve alcohol to anyone who appears intoxicated. This is a more apt analogy than smoking bans, in my estimation. Drunkenness is a harmful overuse of alcohol, obesity is a harmful overuse of food.

I dislike the idea of more laws, just on general principles, but I think that a restaurant should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone that may potentially disturb the other patrons, be he lush or lardass.

And to be honest, Gabby, if I’m trying to enjoy a romantic night out with my lady friend, I’d be less disturbed by a little tobacco smoke than by the sight of a 400-pound porker at the next table noisily shoveling food down his gullet.

Keep your powder dry gents. That’s all I have to say.

mike


I keep it pretty dry, Mike. :wink:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, there are already laws allowing establishments to refuse to serve alcohol to anyone who appears intoxicated. This is a more apt analogy than smoking bans, in my estimation. Drunkenness is a harmful overuse of alcohol, obesity is a harmful overuse of food.

I dislike the idea of more laws, just on general principles, but I think that a restaurant should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone that may potentially disturb the other patrons, be he lush or lardass.

And to be honest, Gabby, if I’m trying to enjoy a romantic night out with my lady friend, I’d be less disturbed by a little tobacco smoke than by the sight of a 400-pound porker at the next table noisily shoveling food down his gullet.[/quote]

I work at a place that serves alcohol and on occasion we have decided we won’t even serve a drink to someone who is perfectly sober if we know that this individual can’t handle his liquor. My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to. But as to alcohol specifically the Law in VA is very strict and we’re not even supposed to let someone get intoxicated on our premises, though this is almost never enforced, so the law backs us up there.

But the idea of law makers coming in and telling us who we can and can’t serve is loathsome on many levels.

As far as the romantic night out, I’d rather sit next to fatty than a family with young children any day, since apparently it is out of style to teach children how to behave in public these days. I would be all for laws that banned anyone under 5 years of age from coming out in public, at least until parents get their shit together.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to. [/quote]

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?[/quote]

Yes it is. But you’re taking taking a logic argument and carrying it to its illogical extreme.

In an ideal world the government would never have to step in to set things right. Once it crosses that line into what should be a private matter, where does it stop?

In an ideal world, citizens would take it upon themselves, with boycotts, sit down strikes, etc, to either make the restaurant serve everybody, or drive them out of business. Lawsuits wouldn’t be necessary. And if Denny’s refused to serve blacks, and they didn’t go out of business, then the racists could keep on eating at Denny’s and the rest of us could eat elsewhere.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

Yes it is. But you’re taking taking a logic argument and carrying it to its illogical extreme.

In an ideal world the government would never have to step in to set things right. Once it crosses that line into what should be a private matter, where does it stop?

In an ideal world, citizens would take it upon themselves, with boycotts, sit down strikes, etc, to either make the restaurant serve everybody, or drive them out of business. Lawsuits wouldn’t be necessary. And if Denny’s refused to serve blacks, and they didn’t go out of business, then the racists could keep on eating at Denny’s and the rest of us could eat elsewhere. [/quote]

Well then, it’s far from an “illogical extreme”.

In the real world, there are plenty of businesses which invoke your argument to get away with racial, religious or any other kind of discrimination.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side on this argument. Just pointing out the abuses that can result from that.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

Yes it is. But you’re taking taking a logic argument and carrying it to its illogical extreme.

In an ideal world the government would never have to step in to set things right. Once it crosses that line into what should be a private matter, where does it stop?

In an ideal world, citizens would take it upon themselves, with boycotts, sit down strikes, etc, to either make the restaurant serve everybody, or drive them out of business. Lawsuits wouldn’t be necessary. And if Denny’s refused to serve blacks, and they didn’t go out of business, then the racists could keep on eating at Denny’s and the rest of us could eat elsewhere.

Well then, it’s far from an “illogical extreme”.

In the real world, there are plenty of businesses which invoke your argument to get away with racial, religious or any other kind of discrimination.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side on this argument. Just pointing out the abuses that can result from that.[/quote]

Right, but those abuses are the same kind you get with free speech, you have to tolerate the assholes, because if you set limits on anyone then you open up the possibility for limits on everyone.

Nothing wrong with the idea, just poor implementation.

Restaurants should have the legal right to refuse to service anyone - black people, poor people, or fatties.

However, the government shouldn’t be setting the rules for everyone to follow.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?[/quote]

Yes, and a private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Explain to me what right the government has in telling me who I have to serve? This is straight out of Conscience of a Conservative.

Discrimination is the duty of the free citizen. If I see a business that refuses service on account of a man’s race, religion, ect, I will refuse to patronize that business. But as usual with this country, instead of doing the enforcement with our feet we instead put the onus on government to do the job for us.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

Yes, and a private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Explain to me what right the government has in telling me who I have to serve? This is straight out of Conscience of a Conservative.

Discrimination is the duty of the free citizen. If I see a business that refuses service on account of a man’s race, religion, ect, I will refuse to patronize that business. But as usual with this country, instead of doing the enforcement with our feet we instead put the onus on government to do the job for us.

mike[/quote]

Are you trying to invoke the right of private property and the freedom of association here? Those are racist code words, you know?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

Yes, and a private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Explain to me what right the government has in telling me who I have to serve? This is straight out of Conscience of a Conservative.

Discrimination is the duty of the free citizen. If I see a business that refuses service on account of a man’s race, religion, ect, I will refuse to patronize that business. But as usual with this country, instead of doing the enforcement with our feet we instead put the onus on government to do the job for us.

mike

Are you trying to invoke the right of private property and the freedom of association here? Those are racist code words, you know?[/quote]

"I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned. Social and cultural change, however desirable, should not be effected by the engines of national power. Let us, through persuasion and education, seek to improve institutions we deem defective. But let us, in doing so, respect the orderly processes of the law. Any other course enthrones tyrants and dooms freedom."

-Barry Goldwater, the one guy with whom I agree on damn near everything the man says.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
My opinion has always been that we are a private business and we don’t have to serve anyone anything if we don’t want to.

Isn’t that the same logic behind refusing to serve Blacks, Jews or homosexuals?

Yes, and a private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Explain to me what right the government has in telling me who I have to serve? This is straight out of Conscience of a Conservative. [/quote]

Hold you horses! I wasn’t judging. Serve whom you will; that’s your pregrogative.

Seems bad for business. If I owned a restaurant I’d want all sorts of people with money on my restaurant. As long as they pay.

The fact that this is from Mississippi of all places is kind of amusing…

Unless it’s a stealth way for restaurants to be sued by fatties’ families who argue that the restaurants had a legal duty to refuse to serve the fatties - which I would actually suspect, given it’s from Mississippi…

You should be allowed to kill yourself anyway you want.

But seriously, they can’t force people to take care of themselves. People have to learn to mind their own business.

This reminds of some article a long time where you could get fired from a job for eating junk food.