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.
They were just the first to publicly act on it, and yeah it's a bad example. It's a shitty law, but I agree with IH that a dime a dozen service like pizza should be able to be selective in who they CATER to.
http://time.com/3768536/indiana-pizza-no-gay-wedding/
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.
and they can be! in Indiana, LGBT people can be fired, denied employment, denied housing, all on the basis of simply being LGBT! in Indiana, you get to hurt gay people if you want to! freedom!
but these people are not free from the consequences of their free speech. i imagine the same thing would happen if they came out and said they would not CATER an interracial marriage because God wants the races to remain separate, and please think of the poor biracial children.
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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
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.
I'm afraid this will give them a ray of hope
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.