Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!

Welcome to our new Open & Tolerant Society. Better hope you fit in!

Tolerance does not require being tolerant of intolerance...But then again, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it's the truth.

 daedalus wrote:

squidhills wrote:
See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.

So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!

People do it everyday. It's like your coworker asking you what you think about a female colleague; you might be thinking, "She's got a great rack" which would be sexist and make you sound like a tool but what comes out of your mouth is, "She's a great person and I enjoy working with her."

 Desubot wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So they want to treat someone worse than someone else simply because they are homosexual. That makes them a bigot.

You keep using that word

i dont think you know what that word means

No, it's a perfectly valid use of that word.

 skyth wrote:
Tolerance does not require being tolerant of intolerance...But then again, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it's the truth.

That's, uh, not exactly a strong argument. Can you elaborate?

 skyth wrote:

Not serving weddings is fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Then what are you arguing about?

 Frazzled wrote:
Would you mandate that, under color of law, they be forced to make pizzas for a wedding?

It depends. What color is the gay couples' money? Is it green? Because if it's green, then yes. They are American citizens, and the pizza place is only refusing to cater their wedding because it is a gay one. You can't refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin (something they have no control over), so there is no reason you should be able to refuse service to someone because of whom they find attractive (something they have no control over), apart from the fact that the CRA hasn't caught up to the gays yet (but it will, so folks should start acclimating themselves to it now). If they refused to cater a gay wedding because they couldn't supply enough pizzas to both serve the wedding and supply their normal daily customers, and not because they think their god told them not to, then they would not be obligated to provide the service. But if the only reason the service is being refused is bigotry... well, guess they better start tossing that dough.

If someone really, really, really doesn't want to cater gay weddings, they are going to have to learn how to lie to people, so people don't know they are being refused because of bigotry. Here are some examples:

"Will you cater my gay wedding?"
"We're booked solid that weekend, sorry. Have you tried Wild Dog Pizza down the street?"
or-
"We don't have enough staff to provide you pizzas and meet the needs of our typical daily customers. Have you tried Wild Dog Pizza down the street? They are a bit bigger than we are."

See? No obvious telling signs that someone is being refused service for being gay, so they gay couple can't be all butt hurt about it! And the pizza place doesn't have to worry about boycotts and internet outrage.

That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.

 skyth wrote:
Tolerance does not require being tolerant of intolerance...

But doesn't tolerance require intolerance of intolerant tolerance advocates? I'd find that tolerable.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Not serving weddings is fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Then what are you arguing about?

At this point I must assume you are being purposefully ignorant.

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!

Welcome to our new Open & Tolerant Society. Better hope you fit in!

Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."

All societies partake in a form of social contract; by virtue of being a member, you are expected to behave a certain way. Expectations change over time as does the unwritten social contract and some people have a more difficult time adjusting than others. Some people apparently long for days of yor when they could spit on whomever you dislike. Personally, I just wish pistols at dawn was still a thing so people would watch their freaking mouths and actually attempt to get along.

 agnosto wrote:
People do it everyday.

People with manners do it everyday. People with no manners (or morals) go out of their way to confront and humiliate people about, for example, their religion or sexual orientation.

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
People do it everyday.

People with manners do it everyday. People with no manners (or morals) go out of their way to confront and humiliate people about, for example, their religion or sexual orientation.

Very true which leads me back to my pithy statement about duels.

"Will you cater our gay wedding?"
"f*!@# you!"
"You have insulted me sirrah, I shall meet you on the field of honor."

 agnosto wrote:
Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."

At one time, not even long ago, that saying was be applied somewhat literally to gay people -- remember when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death? Now, we have harrasment and violence against people who express their religious belief. Looks like it's the same gakky mob who have been sicked on new targets, under a new rainbow-emblazoned banner.

 skyth wrote:
Gay people have no control over who they are atteacted to. And obviously I was referring to activities that don't harm someone else.

And again...If your religion requires you to be a bigot, that doesn't make you not a bigot. And again, it is not bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.

Being attracted to someone of the sex isn't a sin, don't bypass the languuge filter like this. Reds8n someone of same sex is, or so says some faiths. I couldn't help but be attracted to fine young lady I met in the bar last week, but I could help bumping uglies with said fine young lady, which would be a sin, as last time I saw her we were not married. The feeling isn't a sin, the action is. It's the whole 'hate the sin, not the sinner' thing.

At no point does not wanting to participate in a gay wedding make someone a bigot. Calling someone a big got because you disagree with their stance on a particular activity might be, though.

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe they really hate catering, not homosexuality.

I know I would.

NO COKE PEPSI! YOU GO TO BACK OF LINE!

 skyth wrote:
That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.

So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.

It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.

 whembly wrote:


Is that where the argument lies now?

That religious people need start shutting their traps and closeting themselves? Thus, compromising their faith?

Strange how the world turns...eh?

No, the argument is to not be a fething idiot when a news reporter shoves a mic in your face and asks you an obviously loaded question, hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted. It's not compromising your faith; it's being smart enough not to stick your head in a lion's mouth while someone stomps on it's tail.

 skyth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Not serving weddings is fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Then what are you arguing about?

At this point I must assume you are being purposefully ignorant.

Did I pull it out of context?

Here it is again:

skyth wrote:
Not serving weddings is fine. I don't have a problem with that.

That's the basis of the current outrage.

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."

At one time, not even long ago, that saying was be applied somewhat literally to gay people -- remember when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death? Now, we have harrasment and violence against people who express their religious belief. Looks like it's the same gakky mob who have been sicked on new targets.

Don't delude yourself and think that somehow all of the "mob" violence in the country has just refocused onto people "expressing their religious beliefs"; gay people are still beaten or killed on a daily basis (happened to a family friend and neighbor when I was in high school, great man who was killed for being gay, his killer even stated such in court) as are black people, white people and any other group that you care to mention. Christians being targeted for hate crimes doesn't make them special, it makes them normal.

 skyth wrote:
It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.

But, according to you, its the act of expressing said beliefs that makes them bigots. I seem to be missing the distinction.

 daedalus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.

So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.

That's not what is really going on. It's more the intoleramt people are throwing a temper tantrum for being called on their behavior...

Not doing business with someone is treating them worse. That should be self-evident.

How? Everyone has a fundamental right to contract. This includes the right NOT to contract.

 skyth wrote:
It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.

So it's not intolerant to not tolerate 'bigots'?

squidhills wrote:
hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted

Or rather hoping you'll be dumb enough to freely disclose your religious values because the national audience is certainly dumb enough to conflate that with bigotry.

 skyth wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.

So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.

That's not what is really going on. It's more the intoleramt people are throwing a temper tantrum for being called on their behavior...

If you think that's a temper tantrum...

Throw one for me.

That pizza joint is doing really well now:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1260/641449.page#7723424
At over $730,000 now. o.O

 Manchu wrote:

squidhills wrote:
hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted

Or rather hoping you'll be dumb enough to freely disclose your religious values because the national audience is certainly dumb enough to conflate that with bigotry.

That's a whole lot of inference there Tex considering about 80% of the country professes to be Christian.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.

Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.

The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.

Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.

 skyth wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.

Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.

The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.

Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.

The argument is that the 1st amendment allows you to hold and maintain and practice bigoted beliefs as long as you truly believe your religion teaches/professes those beliefs.

 skyth wrote:
Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.

What would you call someone who hates people for their beliefs?