California's Great America sued for gay slur on-ride photo

Supposedly Cracker Barrel made amends and policy changes to rid itself of the "boycott". I was there in the original protests, and to be honest - their target clientele isn't exactly sympathetic to GLBT culture.

I think they settled just to get it out of the newspaper year after year.

It is Cracker Barrel's policy not to hire African Americans either. Cracker Barrel is probably the lowest of lows that I can think of, and go right along with Chick-fil-A as businesses that I refuse to patronize because of their public bigotry.

I really think that California's Great America is not anywhere in the same category that these restaurants are. I bet they hire all kind of different people. The stupid kid who made this photo and publicly displayed it for everyone to see is the problem, and not so much the park.

I saw 2 girls holding hands at Indiana Beach the other day, and another 2 girls holding hands at (SF) Great America tonight. It's always nice to see people have courage and it is still a surprise to see - when not in the 'big city'.

LostKause said:
It is Cracker Barrel's policy not to hire African Americans either.

Hmm...the black waitress that served my family yesterday must've found a loophole.

Vater said:

LostKause said:
It is Cracker Barrel's policy not to hire African Americans either.

Hmm...the black waitress that served my family yesterday must've found a loophole.

Same as the one when I was at a training class in Atlanta back in March

Cracker Barrel discrimination info

In the early 2000s and again in 2006, Cracker Barrel faced accusations including a pattern of racial discrimination in its treatment of guests. After national press attention to these accusations, the company announced explicit policies intended to address the charges, and paid $2 million for race and sexual harassment at three Illinois restaurants.

I knew Cracker Barrel had been sued for racial and gender discrimination. The stories that I'd seen had been for refusing to seat/serve black patrons, and for employment discrimination against females (lack of raises and promotions on par with male counterparts). These were probably close to ten years ago now...never did hear the outcome of either.

edit: Given the recent SCOTUS decision re: Wal*Mart, I expect that every company will pay close attention to making sure they have a written policy against employment discimination based on gender. Then they can promptly ignore that policy, and (apparently) no one will be the wiser... ;)

^ Heh, kinda like when our former owner started smoking in his office even though he'd written a no-smoking policy into the employee handbook. The handbook was only 'official' when he needed to deny someone unemployment benefits. ;)

I liked that story. It was pretty interesting. I do not like douchebag owners like that. Reminds me of the place I worked for a couple of months. His employee handbook for everyone? The Bible. Well, more importantly, the verses in the bible that talked about being subservient to men (for the women in the office - one of them even had signs up on her walls that said "my mission is to obey [owner's name]" She made it herself, but you can see how brainwashed she was.)

Strangest, most arrogant guy I've ever worked for. Didn't stay there long.

The Supreme Court now needs an acronym? Really? Only on a coaster enthusiast site!

SCOTUS isn't new. The first google result is supreme court and then there is the wiki page.

I don't care if it's new. It's unnecessary.

I don't see it as any different than POTUS. It's not really chat shorthand and gets the meaning across.

Yeah, SCOTUS has been around for a while. And 6 < 13, so I dig it. :)

Oops, sorry. I spend too much time on political sites.... ;)

If Bachmann becomes "The President", then everyone will be allowed to doctor phots like the one that started this thread... (just to tie things back to the forum thread).

rollergator said:
everyone will be allowed to doctor phots

Oh great, so now we're shortening "photos" to "phots" too?! ;)

^If it's in the handbook, we can... ;)

This Bryan guy is amusing the daylights out of me today... :)

Jeff said:
The Supreme Court now needs an acronym? Really? Only on a coaster enthusiast site!

Until you said that I had no idea what that was referring to. Thanks for the translation Jeff.

As I said before, I shouldn't have to turn to google in the middle of a conversation just to decipher an acronym that could just as easily have been typed out.

And yet plenty of people that use and get acronyms should have to cater to those that don't bother?

I still not see the issue of typing something into googles search bar that's likely at the top if your browser. Which is just as quick or quicker than asking. And it's a message board, not real time conversation.

It's just annoying. I've declared it so. Let's move on.