An Ironic Double Standard

By | November 15, 2013

In the category of double standards, there is a recent article on the Gay Star News blog about possibly the “worst tipper ever.” It seems that Dayna Morales, a server at the Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, New Jersey, served a family that did not leave her a tip on a $93.55 restaurant tab. In deciding to not leave the tip, the following message was left on the merchant copy of the charge slip:

I’m sorry, but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle & how you live your life.

receiptMorales summarized her Facebook post about the incident by saying she was “THOROUGHLY offended mad pissed off and hurt” and that whichever family member wrote the note should “keep your damn mouth shut and pray we never cross paths again.” On a follow-up comment she said that “it took very [sic] fiber of my being not to spit in their food and say something.” In reporting on the incident, the Huffington Post called the message “homophobic.”

Let me get this straight: It is permissible for a person to be labeled homophobic for not leaving a tip, but it is fine for gays to establish blacklists and call for boycotts (don’t forego just the tip, but the entire check) if a person contributed to the passage of Proposition 8 in California?

Can you say double standard?

The irony exemplified by the double standard would be head-shakingly sad, but what is really scary is that there are folks on the Gay Star News blog leaving comments such as the following:

It’s appalling behaviour. Unfortunately they’re not breaking any law but it underlines how wary we have to be around religious folk. They’re full of hate!

It is notable that the note-leaver never said anything about being “religious folk.” That is an assumption on the part of the commenter. Then there is this one which also stereotypes the note-leaver into the religious-folk category:

Further proof that religious people are subhuman, and we need to stop freaks like this bringing up children.

Similar comments against religious people appear among the hundreds of comments on the Facebook post.

Why are such comments scary? If the comments had been turned around so the same words were directed at gays, would they then be considered homophobic? If the person explaining why a tip was not left is painted with the broad brush of bigotry, should those calling for extreme sanctions against religious people also be considered bigots?

If there were no double-standard at play, then one would think so.

I find the comment by the tipper hurtful, but I don’t think it rises to the level of homophobia. (It is helpful to remember the old maxim: Never attribute to malice what can be explained with stupidity.) I also understand the reaction of Morales; if I had been her I would also have been hurt by the insensitivity of the commenter. However I find the over-the-top comments left in support of Morales to go beyond hurtful and some should be clearly considered in the category of religious bigotry.


4 thoughts on “An Ironic Double Standard

  1. Milton Roberts

    Thank you for giving more information on the incident. I liked the “old maxim”. Besides, Lifestyle isn’t really the issue. The issue is that people aren’t comfortable with a birth defect they don’t understand, or are afraid of (it could just as easily have happened to them). Why do people think that being Gay is a choice?


  2. David

    Why do I think that being Gay is a choice? Because EVERYTHING in life is a choice. Does a murderer have choice to murder or is there no hope for him to do anything but commit murder. Same with pedophiles – Do they have a choice or must they follow their “predisposition”. I know your counter-argument – “But the gay lifestyle doesn’t affect society like the examples you just gave”. You couldn’t be more wrong. This movement is restricting the rights, freedoms and religious liberties of many fine citizens of this country. We are no longer free to follow the religious convictions if it interferes with the gay agenda. We can cite case after case of Christian business owners who are being sued for (respectfully) denying to provide services (and thereby support support gay marriage) based on their religious beliefs. They did not ask for the gays’ business, but are being forced support their agenda or be faced with a lawsuit. They preach “tolerance” to those who oppose them, but do not practice this “tolerance”. In fact, they have re-defined “tolerance”. It no longer means to “agree to disagree.” It now means you “must agree and support wholeheartedly”. Unless of course you are talking about those “Christians” and those who hold differing viewpoints from your own. You can oppose them, persecute them, sue them, bully them…..whatever. They have no idea what the true definition of tolerance is. Their tolerance is a one way street.

  3. Tony

    My Grandma used to say “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Maybe the server could be considered wrong for her/his lifestyle, but the Christian family would’ve been wrong to discriminate against her/him.

    Unfortunately there is lots of agitation for gay rights and non-discrimination, but there’s a diminishing amount of protection for Christian rights in this modern era.

  4. JC

    On a side note, I find it disturbing that some servers might consider contaminating a customer’s food or drink. In my opinion it’s not justified, regardless of the behavio of the customer.

Comments are closed.