Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex

[rightwinger]

Who wouldn't want society to suit their needs? Isn't that what voting is for?

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

No, they're not. Religious people are brought up to believe, rather than think. Other people just do it because society is trained towards this, rather than towards thinking.

Look at those on the right who see education as "indoctrination". In part education has to be indoctrination, you have to learn stuff, and when science is competing with made up religious stuff, then what?

It's all indoctrination if the truth is scorned.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Well, whether the people in the bridal shop believe something or not is neither here nor there really. What they should KNOW is that there are laws. They don't have to like the laws, they don't even have to follow them, but they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

As for berate, I disagree. I once got told by someone of the opposite sex that there were many different ways of communicating, because apparently I spoke to much. I stuck my middle finger up and said "like this?"

There are different ways of berating. Scolding can be done through hot water or through words. Therefore it can also be done in other ways. To tell someone "you're not welcome in shops in this country" is as scolding as throwing hot water over them.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who wouldn't want society to suit their needs? Isn't that what voting is for?

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

No, they're not. Religious people are brought up to believe, rather than think. Other people just do it because society is trained towards this, rather than towards thinking.

Look at those on the right who see education as "indoctrination". In part education has to be indoctrination, you have to learn stuff, and when science is competing with made up religious stuff, then what?

It's all indoctrination if the truth is scorned.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Well, whether the people in the bridal shop believe something or not is neither here nor there really. What they should KNOW is that there are laws. They don't have to like the laws, they don't even have to follow them, but they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

As for berate, I disagree. I once got told by someone of the opposite sex that there were many different ways of communicating, because apparently I spoke to much. I stuck my middle finger up and said "like this?"

There are different ways of berating. Scolding can be done through hot water or through words. Therefore it can also be done in other ways. To tell someone "you're not welcome in shops in this country" is as scolding as throwing hot water over them.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

Yes, this is why when they come and talk about their religious views, and you're like, but what about the religious bits you decided to ignore. That's how religious you really are.

 

[rightwinger]

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

Yes, this is why when they come and talk about their religious views, and you're like, but what about the religious bits you decided to ignore. That's how religious you really are.

Their religion stops at God hates fags and so do I

 

[j-mac]

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

 

[rightwinger]

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

 

[j-mac]

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

 

[rightwinger]

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

 

[j-mac]

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

 

[rightwinger]

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost


Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.


Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

 

[j-mac]

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

 

[rightwinger]

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

That is the essence of Jim Crow
White only businesses and black only businesses
Same with schools and universities

Only they were far from equal

That is what we are trying to do to same sex couples

 

[j-mac]

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

That is the essence of Jim Crow
White only businesses and black only businesses
Same with schools and universities

Only they were far from equal

That is what we are trying to do to same sex couples

Nope....not at all....And frankly, I find it insulting that you are trying to in a backhanded way call me a racist, because I support freedom in business....

Word gets out that this business owner discriminates, and that business looses far more business and will go out of business....

I don't believe in the force of government putting businesses out.

 

[rightwinger]

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

That is the essence of Jim Crow
White only businesses and black only businesses
Same with schools and universities

Only they were far from equal

That is what we are trying to do to same sex couples

Nope....not at all....And frankly, I find it insulting that you are trying to in a backhanded way call me a racist, because I support freedom in business....

Word gets out that this business owner discriminates, and that business looses far more business and will go out of business....

I don't believe in the force of government putting businesses out.

Just educating you on conservative revival of Jim Crow techniques
It would be nice if market forces could end discrimination

But Jim Crow showed sometimes you need government to get involved

 

[j-mac]

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

That is the essence of Jim Crow
White only businesses and black only businesses
Same with schools and universities

Only they were far from equal

That is what we are trying to do to same sex couples

Nope....not at all....And frankly, I find it insulting that you are trying to in a backhanded way call me a racist, because I support freedom in business....

Word gets out that this business owner discriminates, and that business looses far more business and will go out of business....

I don't believe in the force of government putting businesses out.

Just educating you on conservative revival of Jim Crow techniques

No, you are trying what every other liberal does, and that is if I don't agree, then somehow I am a racist....That is lazy, and insulting....

 

[bodecea]

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost


Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.


Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No...it breaks down with you thinking that all businesses refused to serve black people....Separate but equal meant that blacks went to their own lunch counters, their own water fountains, their own hotels, their own businesses......their own schools....it didn't work....it still won't work. This is America.

 

[bodecea]

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

If a business gets a business license, should they expect to follow all business laws? Health, safety, public accommodation?

 

[rightwinger]

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

That is the essence of Jim Crow
White only businesses and black only businesses
Same with schools and universities

Only they were far from equal

That is what we are trying to do to same sex couples

Nope....not at all....And frankly, I find it insulting that you are trying to in a backhanded way call me a racist, because I support freedom in business....

Word gets out that this business owner discriminates, and that business looses far more business and will go out of business....

I don't believe in the force of government putting businesses out.

Just educating you on conservative revival of Jim Crow techniques

No, you are trying what every other liberal does, and that is if I don't agree, then somehow I am a racist....That is lazy, and insulting....

Link

Where did I say you were racist?

Play the race card much?

 

[rightwinger]

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No it doesn’t.

Not all businesses implemented Jim Crow, only in southern states

I think you know I was speaking locally in the area, or town they were looking for those services....IOW, was there not another business they could have purchased their goods from that would have been happy to take their money?

For the record, and I thought I was clear about this...I have NOTHING against gay couples wedding....Hey, to each his or her own....

If a business want's to turn down money, or a sale, that is up to them, but not a great business model....

If a business gets a business license, should they expect to follow all business laws? Health, safety, public accommodation?

Not if their religion says you don’t

My religions health and safety requirements have priority over the law

 

[rightwinger]

Regardless of political stand, business worships the color of green....Frankly, I don't see the problem in selling the homosexual couple a wedding dress, or a tux, as long as their money is legal tender....

As a conservative, I may be in somewhat of a minority on this, but let's be honest about one thing here....It isn't that the couple can't find another business that would be happy to take their money for the goods they need, this is about forced recognition, or attacking those that disagree....While not illegal, it sure is uncivil.

The same argument was used to justify Jim Crow

Really? Please, elaborate....Be specific please.

Gladly

Separate but equal was the supposed backbone of Jim Crow. Only it was far from equal.

In fact, it was society saying.....we don’t serve n*ggers here

Now conservatives are back to their old tricks saying.......we don’t serve fags here

So, is it all businesses that are refusing to serve gay people? This I think is where your comparison breaks down...

No...it breaks down with you thinking that all businesses refused to serve black people....Separate but equal meant that blacks went to their own lunch counters, their own water fountains, their own hotels, their own businesses......their own schools....it didn't work....it still won't work. This is America.

That is the cornerstone of conservatives attempting to harass same sex couples under the guise of religious freedom

If one business won’t serve you, go somewhere else

In most of conservative, red state America, there is no equivalent somewhere else

There may be just one high class hall to have a reception, one place that makes wedding cakes, one luxury hotel, one person in town who does wedding photography

What if EVERY business in Buttfuck Idaho refuses to service a same sex wedding?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Who wouldn't want society to suit their needs? Isn't that what voting is for?

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

No, they're not. Religious people are brought up to believe, rather than think. Other people just do it because society is trained towards this, rather than towards thinking.

Look at those on the right who see education as "indoctrination". In part education has to be indoctrination, you have to learn stuff, and when science is competing with made up religious stuff, then what?

It's all indoctrination if the truth is scorned.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Well, whether the people in the bridal shop believe something or not is neither here nor there really. What they should KNOW is that there are laws. They don't have to like the laws, they don't even have to follow them, but they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

As for berate, I disagree. I once got told by someone of the opposite sex that there were many different ways of communicating, because apparently I spoke to much. I stuck my middle finger up and said "like this?"

There are different ways of berating. Scolding can be done through hot water or through words. Therefore it can also be done in other ways. To tell someone "you're not welcome in shops in this country" is as scolding as throwing hot water over them.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.