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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.

I think people offend too easily nowadays.

"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.

Sounds like a problem with you.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Under stand how that will offend people?

How about "I won't serve neo-Nazis."

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe

Hard to believe that disapproval and non participation doesn't instantly mean malice and offense?

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

 Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.

Sounds like a problem with you. Deal with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Under stand how that will offend people?

How about "I won't serve neo-Nazis."

That you don't understand is a problem with you. Deal with it.

And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.

 Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.

Sounds like a problem with you.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Under stand how that will offend people?

How about "I won't serve neo-Nazis."

Not quite as much bad PR (not very many people like neo-nazis), but they will still get some. Not sure what that actually has to do with anything though...

 Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Under stand how that will offend people?

How about "I won't serve neo-Nazis."

Hate groups are not a protected class. Arguably, neither is sexual orientation; however, there is already standing case law and federal policies in several areas that supports sexual orientation as a protected class (i.e. workforce under Title VII and in public schools by the Office of Civil Rights).

 Manchu wrote:
That's one of the dumber arguments you've made d-usa. The First Amendment does not protect harassment.

If you want to point me to where I defended any breaking of the law please feel free to do so. Death threats are against the law and should be prosecuted, vandalism is against the law and should be prosecuted, harassment is against the law and should be prosecuted.

Calling the business owners out online and sharing your opinion of them and their arguments isn't harassment. News papers writing stories about how they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding isn't harassment.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.

To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Co'tor Shas, once again Ima call your post out as effed up. There is a difference between not partonizing a business on the one hand and harrassing, threatening, and vandalizing a business on the other hand.

Or is this kind of antisocial behavior okay because it suits some widely agreed upon ideology of "tolerance"?

As I have said multiple times, there is no excuse for death threats, but when on purposely offend people, you are going to get bad PR. .

Death threats is your version of bad pr? Man, and I thought I was hard core. Whats a strongly worded statement in your world - a ten ton bunkerbuster?

 Frazzled wrote:


Death threats is your version of bad pr? Man, and I thought I was hard core. Whats a strongly worded statement in your world - a ten ton bunkerbuster?

Hate speech would probably be an extinction level, hide your weiner dogs, level event.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.

To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.

It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."

This thread needs to die.

41 pages of polarized fighting that no one is going to win.

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Death threats is your version of bad pr? Man, and I thought I was hard core. Whats a strongly worded statement in your world - a ten ton bunkerbuster?

Hate speech would probably be an extinction level, hide your weiner dogs, level event.

 skyth wrote:
That you don't understand is a problem with you.

How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend you?

 skyth wrote:
And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.

A+

Now the harder concept: I was comparing the people who refuse to serve them. But as we have exhaustively explained, the RFRA is not a license to refuse service to neo-Nazis or gay people or whoever. What RFRAs actually do is bind court's to apply the strict scrutiny test to Free Exercise challenges of laws.

But I know a lot of you are happier pretending you are standing up for ... something or other.

 adamsouza wrote:
This thread needs to die.

There are lots of threads on Dakka. Go find one to post in that interests you.

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?

If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.

To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.

It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."

More like "we do not approve of your life choices and want nothing to do with you"

Kinda reaching for the white man superiority complex.

 d-usa wrote:
Calling the business owners out online and sharing your opinion of them and their arguments isn't harassment. News papers writing stories about how they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding isn't harassment.

I didn't realize you just arrived from the 90s. Welcome to 2015. We have a lot more internet these days. I mean, seriously, you will be shocked. There's this thing called "social media" and people use it to work themselves and each other into honest-to-goodness-frothing-at-the-mouth fits of rage that can and do ruin people's lives. And it's not even illegal. I understand if you want me to re-freeze you so they can wake you up again when social media is used responsibly. Just know that you may never wake up.

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.

To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.

It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."

More like "we do not approve of your life choices and want nothing to do with you"

Kinda reaching for the white man superiority complex.

Huh?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?

If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.

Again, you state death threats are bad pr.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?

If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.

The Chic-fil-a situation seems to show otherwise. The president or vp or whoever's comments were personal, and the statement of the company was something along the lines of "we will totally offer service to those of all creeds, races, and sexual orientations", and that still exploded.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Huh?

if you are confused about the superiority complex line

its concerning the tacked on "because you are inferior" line

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?

If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.

Again, you state death threats are bad pr.

The bad PR is them stating they won't treat gay people the same as straight people, death threats are donkey-caves on the internet. I don't think anyone is actually going to not go there because of that. I certainly wouldn't be concerned.

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That you don't understand is a problem with you.

How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend

See...that's what we call a straw man. That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

I love how this whole story goes...

Christian says something bigoted

People go 'Hey, that's not cool'

Christian goes 'Help help! I'm being opressed!'

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Huh?

if you are confused about the superiority complex line

its concerning the tacked on "because you are inferior" line

I'm not sure what you actually mean by superiority complex.

 skyth wrote:

And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.

Doing my job includes taking care of neo-nazis, skinheads, racists, and any other version of bigoted person that happens to lay in one of our hospital beds.

When they are dirty I give them a bed-bath and wash the filth of their swastika covered skin, I treat the sores next to their SS and White Power tattoos, and I put lotion on their backs beneath their "F*ck N***ers" tattoo. I teach them how to take care of their disease so that they can live another decade during which they will probably continue to declare their hate and discriminate others due to the color of their skin. I medicate the terminally ill cancer patient that last week "fired" my gay coworker from taking care of him because "he doesn't want an a**hole fa**** taking care of me" and I make sure that he is not suffering from pain and able to spend his remaining life as comfortable as possible. I cut up the food and feed the paralyzed man who fired my black coworker yesterday because "no N***** is going to put their damn hands on me". I do that because it's my job even though I don't agree with their lifestyles and I think they are intolerant donkey-caves.

So I have zero sympathy for someone that can't manage to bake a fething cake or pizza for a gay wedding because "they don't agree with it".

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/01/high-school-coach-suspended-after-threatening-to-burn-down-christian-owned-pizzeria/

 skyth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That you don't understand is a problem with you.

How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend

See...that's what we call a straw man. That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

I love how this whole story goes...

Christian says something bigoted

People go 'Hey, that's not cool'

Christian goes 'Help help! I'm being opressed!'

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I find it very hard to believe

Hard to believe that disapproval and non participation doesn't instantly mean malice and offense?

They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.

No... they did NOT go out of their way... a reporter went hunting for some news, to fan the flame.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Huh?

if you are confused about the superiority complex line

its concerning the tacked on "because you are inferior" line

I'm not sure what you actually mean by superiority complex.

Im saying you are trying to color them as "racist" when that isnt what they said at all. edit: WOH OWH OWH WOH sorry i just noticed that chain of posts was for an example. my bad.