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.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.
The thing is, that is exactly what is being argued with the gay cake argument. It wasn't that it was for a wedding or even a non-Religious wedding, but rather the argument was solely against the identity of who was getting married.
The service isn't withheld because of the identity of the individuals, they may purchase a cake from the fictional (or nonfictional) baker whenever they like. In the example, the service is withheld because, for the baker, participating in or assisting in a homosexual marriage ceremony is against the tenets of the bakers faith. When, in order to fullfil the request, the baker would need to perfom and act (participating in or assisting in a homosexual marriage ceremony ) which would put said baker at odds his/her faith then, and only then, is the service withheld. The justification for the refusal isn't the sexual orientation of the clients, but the identity of the ritual and how it relates to the bakers religious beliefs. While sexual orientation is a factor, the client(s) isn't(aren't) refused because of their sexual orientation(s), but rather because their request would put the baker at odds with his/her faith.
No need for mind-reading when reading is sufficient. Businesses do not just hand out $50K relocation packages because of legally unfounded employee anxieties. There needs to be a return. I guess he could have really fussy, unreasonable employees who are crucial to the success of the business. But it more likely that this is an excellent opportunity for positive media coverage.
If Indiana was really a hotbed of homophobic vitriol, there would be evidence beyond ideologically driven disinformation of the RFRA.
This takes us back to the thread title. The GenCon letters are a joke. Letter 1 rattled the saber because GenCon supports Equality(R)(TM). Letter 2, however, reassured us that nobody at GenCon has faced homophobic prejudice so keep attending GenCon Indy as long as GenCon is contractually obliged to hold the con there (and maybe beyond).
You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.
Not really, at least if you actually read and follow the teachings of Christ and the Bible considering Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or shun or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14). A requirement of Bible teachings is that we must act with kindness and respect for all people and avoid judging the moral choices others make (Matthew 22:37-40, Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 14:10-14, James 4:11-12). Jesus even tells us, point blank, in John 8:7, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." and that was in defense of a woman accused of adultery, a sin that is lumped together with homosexuality throughout the bible.
Why? Because we're all sinners. Do you think that the priest/pastor who refuses to perform the union is any less a sinner than the gay couple might be? The fact is we are all sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8), and none of us can claim to be worthy of heaven on our own merit. We all must depend on God's love, mercy and forgiveness for our salvation (Mark 10:24-27, Ephesians 2:4-8, Titus 3:3-8). There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against; sure there are actual passages about homosexual, sexual contact and "lust" but the bible is silent on all else.
In my opinion, such laws do nothing but serve the end game of the devil because they ultimately are designed to separate God's people from each other and place them at odds with one another. Who else benefits?
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
As an aside, don't we already have a third part? Team Violate? I was under the impression the librarian party was already a thing. Not a very relevant thing ( ), mind you, but still a thing.
jasper76 wrote: So concern over being discriminated against is "fussy" and "unreasonable"? Has it reached the point of being "uppity" yet?
Yeah, in the sense of being a sign of privilege. Because remember what we're talking about here is the grave injury of not being able to use the government to force someone to take pictures at your wedding in exchange for money.
Quelle horreur! Is life even worth living if I can't appropriate the state to show my contempt of other people's religion in the most petty and entitled way???
Yes really. I'll try again: A person who believes homosexual acts are sinful does not avoid participating in a public celebration of homosexual relationships in order to avoid being around sinners. In Christian terms, it is impossible to avoid sinners ... because you can't avoid yourself. No, the reason is because the participation is itself a sin. It's not that other people are sinning (by getting gay married or whatever). It's that (in their view) it is a sin to pretend that is okay and to support it. That person isn't avoiding sinners; she trying to avoid doing something that violates her own conscience, which is the most concise definition of sin.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 21:07:50
Manchu wrote: Yes really. I'll try again: A person who believes homosexual acts are sinful does not avoid participating in a public celebration of homosexual relationships in order to avoid being around sinners. In Christian terms, it is impossible to avoid sinners ... because you can't avoid yourself. No, the reason is because the participation is itself a sin. It's not that other people are sinning (by getting gay married or whatever). It's that (in their view) it is a sin to pretend that is okay and to support it. That person isn't avoiding sinners; she trying to avoid doing something that violates her own conscience, which is the most concise definition of sin.
Again, not if you follow the teachings of Christ and the bible. It would only be a sin if the pastor himself/herself were the homosexual person in question getting married. There is literally nothing in the bible that even hints that the sin of someone else may enter us, on the contrary, the bible cautions us to avoid our own sin. Does condoning the happiness of God's other children impart sin? I would argue no and it is most certainly not our place to pass judgement that what they are performing is sinful because the final JUDGEMENT therein is between the person and God, not someone on the outside.
Jesus himself associated with tax collectors and sinners of all stripes and even went about with them during their daily lives. Are you saying that he did ill? I would think that a pastor who believes strongly that a couple is sinning would try all the harder to bring them closer to God rather than turn them away from the house of God.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
WTH does this have to do with pastors? To save time -- nothing.
Jesus hung out with sinners yet told people (including sinners) not to sin. See how there is a difference there? Again, to save time: avoiding sinners and avoiding sin are different things.
Now whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them, some folks sincerely believe as a matter of their Christian faith that participating in rituals of acceptance and support of homosexual relationships is sinful. The (supposed) sin of attending a gay marriage is separate from the (supposed) sin of getting gay married. Nobody's sin is transfering to anyone else here, or whatever you were on about.
I get that you might find this outlook preposterous. That's fine. In the USA. Thanks to the First Amendment.
But also thanks to the First Amendment, the government doesn't get to tell people that law trumps their religion, even if many or most of us find their religion preposterous, unless the government MUST get something pretty important done and there is no better way of doing it.
Hordini wrote: I thought Red and Blue were already the CEO parties.
I guess I can hardly be surprised that controlling both major parties is not enough for CEOs.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 21:39:11
jasper76 wrote: So concern over being discriminated against is "fussy" and "unreasonable"? Has it reached the point of being "uppity" yet?
Yeah, in the sense of being a sign of privilege. Because remember what we're talking about here is the grave injury of not being able to use the government to force someone to take pictures at your wedding in exchange for money.
Quelle horreur! Is life even worth living if I can't appropriate the state to show my contempt of other people's religion in the most petty and entitled way???
You are trivializing the possible ramifications of this law. Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services, rather than wedding cakes and flower arrangements. Especially given the political context of the bill, it is neither "unreasonable" or "fussy" for a homosexual to decide, "Indiana is no longer for me, maybe I'll ask my boss for a transfer."
Try to empathize, and imagine that you are a homosexual. Or if not possible, that wave after wave of constitutional amendments and legislation is sweeping through the nation, aimed to make sure that Christian marriages are no real marriages, and giving people vaguely-written legal avenues to discriminate against Christians. And then that wave hits your state. What do you do? Some Christians may stay and fight the good fight, others may decide to move to more friendly territory. I wouldn't dream of sayinjg that the movers were "unreasonable" or "fussy", but rather, the word "wise" comes to mind.
jasper76 wrote: You are trivializing the possible ramifications of this law.
The possible ramifications are already trivial; they don't require trivialization.
Again, take the GenCon letters:
Letter 1 = Tsk tsk, GenCon is deeply troubled by the possibility of homophobic discrimination.
Letter 2 = Whoops, we actually talked to vendors and attendees and found no evidence of homophobic discrimination so please don't let our deep concerns expressed in Letter 1 convince you not to come to GenCon Indy!
jasper76 wrote: Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services
The real question is, what has convinced you that the law could or will be used to allow discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to accessing critical services?
Or is the burden on those who say the sky is not falling?
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 21:51:19
jasper76 wrote: Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services
The real question is, what has convinced you that the law could or will be used to allow discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to accessing critical services?
The law in no way differentiates between critical services and luxuries. In fact, one possible solution I proposed many pages ago to this dilemma is that the law be updated to make this very differentiation, so that a purveyor of services deemed critical could not withhold such services, even if it contradicts his/her religious beliefs.
Landlords and tenants are the prime example. PJ has argued again and again that homosexuals aren't a protected category when it comes to housing, so this scenario is a non-starter, but homosexuals are in fact a protected class in some localities, and this law now gives the landlord a loophole around those local protections, assuming that state law trumps local law, which I honestly don't know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 21:52:02
Manchu wrote: You have consistently failed to make any case where non-discrimination laws in housing could be trumped by the First Amendment.
If a landlord is a conservative Christian, and a qualified homosexual couple in a "gays protected" zone of Indiana comes in, the landlord could hypothetically turn them down on the basis of their sexual orientation, claiming that housing homosexuals violates his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. The gay couple really liked that apartment, so they decide to sue using local protection laws as their justification. And our landlord gets it to a state court, and runs down the RFRA checklist. Religion? Check. Sincere? Lets say the judge says so. Substantial burden? You betcha, God will make him burn for it, he thinks. Least restrictive means? Alternatives are available, so stop being "fussy" and "unreasonable", and go get a place somewhere else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:05:40
What burden does renting to a homosexual (as opposed to non-homosexuals) place on the landlord's religious liberty?
Now -- allow me a turn advising you to try being empathetic. Try, hard though it may be, to imagine the POV of someone with actual, sincere religious beliefs rather than ones (which would not even qualify as sincerely held) merely invented to justify a priori homophobic bias.
I don't believe you have accounted for compelling government interest or least restrictive means, either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:12:40
Manchu wrote: Your analysis is (at least) incomplete.
What burden does renting to a homosexual (as opposed to non-homosexuals) place on the landlord's religious liberty?
Now -- allow me a turn advising you to try being empathetic. Try, hard though it may be, to imagine the POV of someone with actual, sincere religious beliefs rather than ones (which would not even qualify as sincerely held) merely invented to justify a priori homophobic bias.
Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation. Some forms of Christianity say that homosexuality is a sin, and furthermore that if you contribute to a sin, you are guilty of the sin yourself.
I don't have to empathize too hard. Non-supernatural religious beliefs are just personal moral beliefs adopted by the adherent, and I have those, too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:21:58
Manchu wrote: You have consistently failed to make any case showing how non-discrimination laws in housing could be trumped by the First Amendment.
Where is the line exactly then between what laws do trump an individuals religious comfort and which ones don't?
Obviously the line is somewhere before "My dark lord Krozdoth, demands I smash the skull of every baby with a ballpeen hammer"
many in this thread certainly seem fine with it being drawn after "Jesus will be angry at me if I make a cake for a gay wedding", but it's all so sticky and subjective. How do we decide which religious beliefs allow people to ignore the laws the rest of the population is bound to, and which ones do not.
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from paying taxes, should I be exempt from them?
If I can prove my religious beliefs dicates all things from under the earth are communal property that I'm free to take at any time from anywhere, should I be able to steal gasoline consequence free?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from keeping my dog on a leash, should I be exempt from leash laws?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from paying parking tickets should I be exempt from them?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from allowing my children to receive any form education not explicitly found in my religious text, should I be allowed to home-school without meeting the general standards?
If I can prove my religious beliefs command me to beat my wife, should I be able to beat her?
Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy. In the end it really just seems like it boils down to judges selecting for and endorsing the religions they most approve of.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:16:06
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Or in other words ... the sky still isn't falling.
Chongara wrote: Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy.
It is nowhere near as fuzzy as you seem to believe.
So you gave this example of human sacrifice. Well, does the law against murder impose on the hypothetical demon-worshiper's First Amendment rights? Absolutely. But that is NOT unconstitutional because the government has a compelling interest in murder being illegal and there is no less intrusive means of pursuing that interest than, you guessed it, making murder illegal.
A lot of the anxiety around this issue frankly comes down to (1) prejudice, (2) ignorance, and (3) lack of reflection to mitigate (1) and (2).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:34:34
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Or in other words ... the sky still isn't falling.
Chongara wrote: Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy.
It is nowhere near as fuzzy as you seem to believe.
So you gave this example of human sacrifice. Well, does the law against murder impose on the hypothetical demon-worshiper's First Amendment rights? Absolutely. But that is NOT unconstitutional because the government has a compelling interest in murder being illegal and there is no less intrusive means of pursuing that interest than, you guessed, it making murder illegal.
A lot of the anxiety around this issue frankly comes down to (1) prejudice, (2) ignorance, and (3) lack of reflection to mitigate (1) and (2).
First off, Krozdoth is not a demon OK? Krozdoth is a living vortex of psychic energy, formed from soul's of the the most wicked members of the hyper-intelligent reptilian precursor race that ruled the earth before humans. Also they're not sacrifices his worshipers don't give or offer them to him, Krozdoth just hates babies and therefore has mandated they be smashed. Yeesh.
Secondly, I gave that as an example of something that is clearly absurd. Something everyone would agree is well over the line, such beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with even a basically functioning society. It's a lot less clear you can can say anything like the above about making sure everyone has equal access to housing, or has to obey parking laws, or educations of specific individuals.
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Correct. Let me revise. Two qualified people come into an office, and tell the landlord they are a gay couple, and this takes place in a locality where homosexuals are a protected class. The landlord in my scenario feels that renting to them would violate his religious beliefs, because gay sex, and when sued, uses the new Indiana law in his defense. All I have is your say-so that his defense would be invalidated by a judge. Nothing in the law seems to indicate that this is so, but then again, I am no lawyer.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 22:59:20
Krozdoth. Oh sorry, I misread that as Krazdorth -- the demonic prince who demands innocent blood. My bad.
On-topic, the purpose of a non-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation is obviously to prevent/discourage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the government has a compelling interest in preventing/discouraging such discrimination, is there a less intrusive means of doing so other than disallowing landlords to turn down applicants based solely on their sexual orientation?
If so -- what is it?
If not, then the non-discrimination law does not unconstitutionally impose on the landlord's religious liberty.
And that's being generous, sidestepping the problem the landlord would have arguing that not being allowed to discriminate solely on the basis of applicant sexual orientation does in fact impose on his First Amendment rights.
@jasper76
I think my response to Chongara covers your post as well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 23:03:22
If the government has a compelling interest in preventing/discouraging such discrimination, is there a less intrusive means of doing so other than disallowing landlords to turn down applicants based solely on their sexual orientation?
If so -- what is it?
Yes, the government could provide housing directly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 23:11:03
WTH does this have to do with pastors? To save time -- nothing.
Jesus hung out with sinners yet told people (including sinners) not to sin. See how there is a difference there? Again, to save time: avoiding sinners and avoiding sin are different things.
Now whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them, some folks sincerely believe as a matter of their Christian faith that participating in rituals of acceptance and support of homosexual relationships is sinful. The (supposed) sin of attending a gay marriage is separate from the (supposed) sin of getting gay married. Nobody's sin is transfering to anyone else here, or whatever you were on about.
I get that you might find this outlook preposterous. That's fine. In the USA. Thanks to the First Amendment.
But also thanks to the First Amendment, the government doesn't get to tell people that law trumps their religion, even if many or most of us find their religion preposterous, unless the government MUST get something pretty important done and there is no better way of doing it.
I'll give you a hint. Pastors are supposed to be men, and women, of God, first and foremost; they aren't supposed to have the luxury of personal convictions or comfort levels, not if they're following a faith anyway. The bible itself has some pretty clear directions that I already quoted and you've ignored; love thy neighbor, treat others as yourself, everyone is a sinner and a child of God. One of my points, which you failed to grasp, is that by closing the doors of the house of God to people, fellow sinners, the pastor is not doing their job. You keep saying that a wedding is a ritual of acceptance and it is but it's not the pastor/priest that's doing the accepting, it's a contract between the couple and their God. It doesn't matter if the pastor thinks their relationship is sinful; hell, he/she probably sinned three times from breakfast to the time they entered the pulpit for their Sunday morning service. By your definition, no one should attend church because they are tacitly approving their pastor's sins by even listening to him or celebrating each others' birthdays (which used to be frowned on by the church by the way).
What makes me sad is that people justify and hide their bigotry behind a veneer of faith and then create ignorant laws that further the stupidity. It truly is a shame in our country that we have such silliness and feel the need to pass laws that supposedly "protect" religion but just serve to further the ends of a selfish few.
The only good thing is that, at the end of the day, these laws are just flash. A way for noisy people to bang their chests and appease a minority of fringe voters while accomplishing little because the gay community is well aware of which churches they can go to for service and which not.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
jasper76 wrote: Yes, the government could provide housing directly.
Pithy, I admit, but not pertinent. The Supreme Court dicta to this effect in HobbyLobby assumes the context of the ACA. As of yet, there is no federal mandate that all persons in the US be housed.
@agnosto
I am mostly skipping all your stuff about pastors because it is totally irrelevant except this unavoidable line (in which the part about pastors remains mostly irrelevant):
agnosto wrote: You keep saying that a wedding is a ritual of acceptance and it is but it's not the pastor/priest that's doing the accepting, it's a contract between the couple and their God.
I'm sure the theological understanding varies by denomination. In Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament conferred by each spouse to the other. I don't want to get too far into it (because it's just an example) but it is important that a priest witness this on behalf of the Catholic Church, which indicates the marriage is licit so far as the Church is concerned. Similarly, the ancient practice of celebrating weddings is premised on connecting communities in mutual support. This is why, for example, weddings were often the occasion of political alliances. So yes of course weddings, even when the spouses are not religious, implicate social acceptance and support. This is why gay people want to be able to be married, after all.
TBH your religious convictions or mine are actually irrelevant. The only religious convictions in question are those of the person who claims a law unconstitutionally violates their First Amendment rights. And the only question courts get to ask of those religious convictions is whether they are sincerely held.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/04/02 23:36:46
Or in reaction to real laws being proposed or passed that actively demonize them. In my state, a proposed law to support Gay Conversion Therapy or the forced brainwashing of a professed gay person to think that they are not gay...and others.
Which is not the case with SB101, the law this thread is discussing
Manchu wrote: You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Her tweet read: “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?”
whembly wrote: Here one summary on how this Pizza Joint evolved into a "thing"
Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First
Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings
Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?
Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.
Eh…no.
Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.
ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”
What we have here is — as we called in journalism school jargon — “no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen.
If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”
In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.
Next: ABC-57 anchor Brian Dorman leads the evening newscast dramatically with this:
Only on ABC-57 News tonight. We went into small towns looking for reaction to the Religious Freedom Act. We found one business, just 20 miles away from a welcoming South Bend…with a very different view.
Notice that his city of South Bend is “welcoming,” but that small-town business is not. It’s very different. That’s why ABC-57 “went into small towns,” as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.
Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station’s Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.
“Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night,” said Woods.
At this point, even my old Leftist journalism professors would be grinding their teeth and rending their garments.
You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.
Memories Pizza didn’t “publicly vow to reject gay weddings” as HuffPo says it. The O’Connors were just, quite literally, minding their own business.
Back in the ABC-57 studio, Rosie Woods read three negative social media comments attacking the pizza shop owners, and then said, “And that’s just one side of this debate that’s heating up as more people and business owners speak up about the law.”
She then quotes one (1) person, the owner of another business, who agreed with the O’Connors. Seems that “just one side of this debate” deserves more attention than the other.
The unnamed ABC-57 editor then sends another reporter door-to-door on Walkerton’s rather depressed-looking main drag, trying to get reactions from other business people about the pizza shop owners. And the story inexorably snowballs onward, with only man’s yearning for truth to propel it.
All of the blog traffic and social media activity led to about 36,000 Facebook shares at ABC57.com on the original Alyssa Marino story less than 24 hours after it aired.
BuzzFeed posted its own inaccurate headline, with the kicker: ”The Internet has unleashed its wrath.”
All of those eyeballs benefit the TV station, which sells advertising on its website. It also helps several young, minor-market reporters who hustled and stumbled their way into the national spotlight. But don’t blame them. Blame the editor.
Meanwhile, over at Yelp.com, more than a thousand “reviews” of Memories Pizza rapidly accumulated, quickly overwhelming the positive comments from actual customers who like the pizza, the hospitality and the small-town charm. Folks who never heard of Walkerton attacked Crystal O’Connor’s business, her morality and her Lord. Many of the remarks included racially charged descriptions of genitalia and sex acts. “Reviewers” also posted pictures of naked men, of Adolf Hitler shouting “Ich habe ein pizza” (I have a pizza), and of Jesus gesturing with his middle finger. Over on Facebook, the restaurant’s 5-star average rating rapidly plunged to one star, as non-customers slammed away at Crystal’s little business.
In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manifesto of political power, Rule No. 12 says, in part:
Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
he Left doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as they get what they want. They’re willing — no, they’re eager — to sacrifice a small-town business, and it’s owners.
Lest you think I’m being too dramatic. Late Wednesday, word comes that Jess Dooley, a female coach at Concord High School 45 minutes away in Elkhart, has been suspended after tweeting:
Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?
Wo... gofundme for that pizza joint is now at $210k. o.O
I think that if anything else was needed to be said that article says it pretty well; the reporter was sent past many larger population centers (South Bend, Mishawaka, La Porte, and Goshen) to find fuel to keep the story going. Lest we forget the pizzeria said that they would not refuse service to gay customers, only that they would not want to provide their product for a gay wedding - something that they have not been asked to do before. And in the event that they are asked to cater a gay wedding it has to be shown that to do so is a "substantial burden".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?
According to GenCon on March 26:
Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.
And again on March 30:
Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.
And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:
[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety
This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/03 00:16:06
It is hard to believe people are still talking about this while Netflix is threatening everyone with a new Full House. Comparatively this seems insignificant to another season of John Stamos, Dave Coulier, and Bob Saget.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?
According to GenCon on March 26:
Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.
And again on March 30:
Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.
And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:
[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety
This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.
To be fair, the last part reads as though they have had people contact them expressing concerns about safety and traveling to Indiana not simply playing the role of fearmonger.
), mind you, but still a thing.
and sinners of all stripes and even went about with them during their daily lives. Are you saying that he did ill? I would think that a pastor who believes strongly that a couple is sinning would try all the harder to bring them closer to God rather than turn them away from the house of God.
