The Gay Thread

[deep]

that is a dangerous slope

I don't know if chosen vocation is a protected class in non-discrimination laws

and I have seen signs in small business that say

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

I think if Ted Cruz took his family out to get pizza and the owner said
I refuse to serve you, that guy would go to the 'top of the asshole list' along with a tee-shirt maker that turns down business because he wants to be on a'jihad' just as much as some wedding cake bakers.

[deep]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

This business DID NOT SAY they would not serve gays. They said they WOULD NOT cater pizza for a same-sex marriage celebration. If we are becoming a society that destroys people for not participating in activities that go against their religious convictions, we may soon be living under "mob rule" and tyranny.

thanks for posting this

here is the article for those of you that can't get the link

Indiana’s ‘No Gay Wedding’ Pizzeria Has Closed
Kevin McSpadden @KevinMcspadden 5:00 AM ET

"We’re in hiding basically," says co-owner Crystal O’Connor

An Indiana pizzeria remained closed on Wednesday, embroiled in a national debate after its owners said they would not cater gay weddings because of their religious beliefs.

“I don’t know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it’s safe to reopen,” co-owner Crystal O’Connor told TheBlaze TV. “We’re in hiding basically, staying in the house.”

The Walkerton, Ind., pizza parlor is the first business since Indiana passed the highly controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act to publicly cite religious beliefs as justification to refuse a service to the LGBT community.

The owners said they would serve anybody who came into the restaurant regardless of sexual orientation, but drew the line at weddings. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no. We are a Christian establishment,” O’Connor told local news outlet WBND-TV Tuesday evening.

The comments sparked social-media uproar, and the company’s Yelp page has been flooded with angry comments. Someone went so far as to buy the domain name Repeal RFRA to post a message against discrimination.

At the same time, people who support the owners’ stance have started a GoFundMe campaign aiming to “relieve the financial loss endured by the proprietors’ stand for faith.” The campaign has raised nearly $50,000 so far.

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a law prohibiting the government from infringing on the religious beliefs of a business, organization or person. Critics of the bill say it can be used to justify discrimination against the LGBT community.

this is the system at work

everybody has the right to open a business in America -

and the market place will decide if what they are offering is what the public wants

if the public wanted this business to remain open they would have loads of people lining up to keep them open.

American capitalism working efficiently, they got more publicity in one day then all the rest of the time they were open.

Thinking about this just a little more. I heard they got over $100,000 in contributions from people supporting them. I wonder if like a lot of small business they were barely hanging on, and taking the money and closing may be the most money they will ever see. Also, they could play this up like that murderer oops, killer George Zimmerman and really run the donations up.



http://www.thewrap.com/indiana-pizze...-gay-comments/

[deep]

ok, there it is

Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe


they are cheap (or smart) gay bashing exploiters

probably the same gene pool of people that funded the killer George Zimmerman

$214,913 of $200k

7,559 DONATIONS RECENT

$11
Anonymous
1 min ago

$25
Anonymous
2 mins ago

$25
Paul Rounds
3 mins ago

Happy to be part of those fighting back!
$5
Anonymous
4 mins ago

$100
Anonymous
5 mins ago

$5
Jeff Parks
6 mins ago

$5
Anonymous
6 mins ago

$10
Anonymous
6 mins ago
$45

Carol Lindrose
6 mins ago
If we lived near you, we would support your business (Just like when we supported Chick-Fil-A). Hope this shows how you are supported! We are praying for you!
$25

J Wilson
6 mins ago
Don't become what you claim to detest.

[deep]

this is a modern day miracle, like when David slew Goliath

the righteous will prevail,
and surely one day, Sodom and Gomorrah will fall, again

God Bless America!

[Hewson]

They are averaging $10K an hour, crazy.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

You know I stand on your side with this, right? The reasons above are what make the law a horrible piece of legislated hate, but I feel boycotting based on the catering was the wrong battle.

Their reasoning is wrong, but I feel any company should have the right to deny services that might be considered endorsing someone or something they disagree with. I wouldn't print t-shirts for Ted Cruz, NRA, or anything else I didn't want to look like I was endorsing. They shouldn't be able to deny pizza to anyone who is gay, but I support their right to deny catering.

oh i know what side you are on -- the point i was making is that it is entirely legal for them to refuse service. they could do it before this law, and they can do it after this law.

"considered endorsing" is really vague, and that's where i think the issue really is. is baking a cake "endorsing" something, or is it merely providing a product? that, i think, is where people can disagree in good faith.

however, in states with protected status for LGBT people, like NM, photography or cakes are part of business, and if you are open to the public you are open to all the public, whether a KKK rally or a gay wedding. it is, legally, discrimination to provide a cake for a straight wedding but not a gay one.

on a personal level, i would never do this. i would bring my business elsewhere. but the law is on the side of the plaintiffs in the NM, CO, and WA cases.

[deep]

listening to my Tune-In radio app the last couple of days I have been hitting conservative talkers a bit. Mark Levin is my favorite, Limbaugh is ok, Savage not so good, Hannity has been interesting. Glenn Beck the least.
Anyways for the most part there have been lamentations and wailing, with some viscous out burst. Now, with this they (along with Fox News) will have a 24/7 story to tell about how brutal the PC crowd has been to ruin a family's dream of owning a small business and creating jobs. But how America truly is 'exceptional' because we take care of our own.


Joan of Arc - 2015

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

oh i know what side you are on -- the point i was making is that it is entirely legal for them to refuse service. they could do it before this law, and they can do it after this law.



"considered endorsing" is really vague, and that's where i think the issue really is. is baking a cake "endorsing" something, or is it merely providing a product? that, i think, is where people can disagree in good faith.

Personally if I was a cake maker and asked to make a racist wish in icing it would go beyond just providing a product. If they bought a "stock" cake, then have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

Personally if I was a cake maker and asked to make a racist wish in icing it would go beyond just providing a product. If they bought a "stock" cake, then have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

here's the thing: if it were me, i'd be all like, "oh, darn, too many weddings that weekend, we can't fit you in." how hard is that?

something tells me that these bakers and florists were making as much of a point as the people who sued them. everyone is being a big old drama queen.

everyone should get over their damn selves, imho.

[deep]

providing a service or a product is not the same thing as going to a meeting on your off time or making a voluntary donation, if you don't bake a cake will the event be canceled? or will you just give them a talking point about how bigoted you are and give them victim status.

making these arguments is agreeing it is ok to discriminate against LGBT people.

I would rather make the statement that even people I disagree with have a right to services and products as long as the are law-abiding, tax paying citizens, (or illegals that pick my food for slave wages)

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

Now, with this they (along with Fox News) will have a 24/7 story to tell about how brutal the PC crowd has been to ruin a family's dream of owning a small business and creating jobs.

exactly. it's a race to victimhood. remember when the Left supposedly did that?

[deep]

i'm off public radio, Pacifica, and the BBC for now
the other side (show) is much more entertaining.

before this they were in a circular firing squad and almost conceding the election to Hillary "Rotten" Clinton

I'm afraid this will give them a ray of hope

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

I'm afraid this will give them a ray of hope

really? the denouncement of the law and Pence seems pretty unanimous, or maybe i'm too deep in my bubble of no discrimination and full lega. equality -- though i do read a lot of right wing blogs. i guess Tom Cotton is right -- i should be grateful that i don't live in Iran, because they hang gays there, so his not killing me is awfully Christian of him.

i would think that this is exciting insofar as it comes to rallying the base for the primaries, but if they were to look at the national landscape, gay rights is a vote winner in 2016, the total opposite of 2004 when a bunch of churches in southeastern Ohio tilted the election for W.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

here's the thing: if it were me, i'd be all like, "oh, darn, too many weddings that weekend, we can't fit you in." how hard is that?



something tells me that these bakers and florists were making as much of a point as the people who sued them. everyone is being a big old drama queen.



everyone should get over their damn selves, imho.

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i would think that this is exciting insofar as it comes to rallying the base for the primaries, but if they were to look at the national landscape, gay rights is a vote winner in 2016, the total opposite of 2004 when a bunch of churches in southeastern Ohio tilted the election for W.

Every time the Republicans pull this kind of shit, it makes me smile just a bit. They do this and expect to win nationally?

Keep it coming, boys. Dig yourselves deeper into that base-pandering bullshit.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by BVS

You know I stand on your side with this, right? The reasons above are what make the law a horrible piece of legislated hate, but I feel boycotting based on the catering was the wrong battle.

Their reasoning is wrong, but I feel any company should have the right to deny services that might be considered endorsing someone or something they disagree with. I wouldn't print t-shirts for Ted Cruz, NRA, or anything else I didn't want to look like I was endorsing. They shouldn't be able to deny pizza to anyone who is gay, but I support their right to deny catering.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.

The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.



To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.

I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.

The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.

Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?


A bit of history of the bill:

The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.



The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.







To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.



I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.



The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.



Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?





A bit of history of the bill:



The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.

This law is different than those, you should read the link I posted earlier. This law goes above and beyond those examples.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

This is the way Indiana and Ark should have approached this if they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

Utah — yes, Utah — passes landmark LGBT rights bill - The Washington Post


IronHorse, please think just for a moment, in your example you substitute Nazis for just regular law-abiding, tax paying Americans,

Maybe you should have said a Jewish couple that wanted a Star of David on their cake. Should you have a right to say your faith prevents you from serving them because you find their chosen life style offensive?

Matthew 27:25 New American Standard Bible
And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

Acts 18:6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.



The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.







To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.



I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.



The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.



Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?





A bit of history of the bill:



The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.

1. This bill is different from the 1993 law in many important and intended ways.

2. Denying people service on the basis of sexual orientation is not free speech. In a state which has given protected status to LGBT members, it is discrimination. Legally. It is. There's no getting around it.

3. Being a member of the Nazi Party is not, anywhere, a legally protected status. You have the right to be a Nazi, but there are no laws that protect your legal status as a Nazi in the ways that there are regarding race, gender, or sexual orientation (in some states). People are free to discriminate against you on that basis. So your analogy is bunk. The appropriate analogy would be if someone asked you to make a cake for an interracial wedding and you refused because your religion forbids you to condone race mixing. With this law, it could now be legal to do this in Indiana. It could also be legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to seve your wife unless she is wearing a burka.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

1. This bill is different from the 1993 law in many important and intended ways.

2. Denying people service on the basis of sexual orientation is not free speech. In a state which has given protected status to LGBT members, it is discrimination. Legally. It is. There's no getting around it.

3. Being a member of the Nazi Party is not, anywhere, a legally protected status. You have the right to be a Nazi, but there are no laws that protect your legal status as a Nazi in the ways that there are regarding race, gender, or sexual orientation (in some states). People are free to discriminate against you on that basis. So your analogy is bunk. The appropriate analogy would be if someone asked you to make a cake for an interracial wedding and you refused because your religion forbids you to condone race mixing. With this law, it could now be legal to do this in Indiana. It could also be legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to seve your wife unless she is wearing a burka.

This law does is not about discrimination. Discrimination is against the law.

This law is about giving a person their chance in court to show why they have refused to participate in an activity because of their religious beliefs.

What religion forbids interracial marriage?

A Muslim refusing to serve my wife, based on her appearance, would be discrimination. My wife requesting the Muslim baker to bake a cake embellished with a degrading image of Mohammed would be forcing the Muslim to go against his religious convictions.

That is what the law is about.