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.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

How exactly? Did they go door to door asking "Will you cater a gay wedding?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 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.

I guess you could take that from it, but it's not what I meant. I apologize if that is how you saw it.

Edit: I apparently missed your edit , no harm done, I'm not the most clear in how I write.

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

Heh. "How DARE you be so intolerant? I'm going to burn your business down!"

Because you are inferior is really just the mark of privledge not racism.

 skyth wrote:
That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Let's clarify this once and for all:

Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.

Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.

 daedalus wrote:

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

"Heh. How DARE you be so intolerant? I'm going to burn your business down!"

donkey-caves, donkey-caves everywhere. I don't know how they get the idea that because they think someone is wrong, they get to threaten them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How exactly? Did they go door to door asking "Will you cater a gay wedding?"

Sort of but worse. The station sent a reporter out of the city to a tiny town. She went in and just asked whether they would cater a gay wedding. They said they wouldn't. Then thousands of "tolerant" people started harassing them.

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Let's clarify this once and for all:

Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.

Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.

Quite true. Bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Those who hate or threaten anti-gay are as much bigots as those who hat or threaten pro-gay. Simply holding a belif that gay marrige is wrong is not bigotry.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

donkey-caves, donkey-caves everywhere. I don't know how they get the idea that because they think someone is wrong, they get to threaten them.

And that's the part that blows my mind more than anything. I mean, if you don't agree with something, sure, call it wrong, maybe even throw a protest, but the crazies just come OUT OF THE WOODWORK on these things.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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.

Tell that to the families of the two murdered NY police officers.

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

donkey-caves, donkey-caves everywhere. I don't know how they get the idea that because they think someone is wrong, they get to threaten them.

And that's the part that blows my mind more than anything. I mean, if you don't agree with something, sure, call it wrong, maybe even throw a protest, but the crazies just come OUT OF THE WOODWORK on these things.

It's rather depressing. I'm a staunch believer that all people are equal and should have equal rights and protections, but sometimes I despair who are apparently on my side.

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Let's clarify this once and for all:

Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.

Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.

If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.

 skyth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Let's clarify this once and for all:

Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.

Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.

If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.

It's only really bigotry if they hate or oppress them. I have a very strict Catholic friend who believes that gay marriage is wrong, and that that being gay is a corruption of nature, but he's not a bigot. He doesn't hate gay people, or allow that fact that someone is gay to colour his opinion of them. Nor does he try and force his opinion on others.

 skyth wrote:
wrong for something they have no control over

Are you saying gay people have no control over their actions?

 skyth wrote:
And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.

But back on-topic, it is bigoted to call people bigots because they have different religious beliefs than you ... which is what you are doing -- although to be fair to you, seemingly from a position of comprehensive ignorance.

 skyth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Let's clarify this once and for all:

Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.

Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.

If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.

The cirminally insane often have no control over what they do. Yet they are viewed as wrong. does that make them bigots too?

 d-usa wrote:

 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".

Some will argue that their particular interpretation of their religion takes precedence over common decency and the literal teachings in their bible. Their argument will be that their particular religious "freedom" trumps all.

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.

@Co'tor Shas

I guess I might qualify as "a very strict Catholic" insofar as I certainly believe the whole creed and assent to all the doctrines of the Catholic tradition.

That said, I am 100% in favor of states allowing gay people to get married. Where legal, such marriages are obviously fully valid for all civil purposes. What they are not, however, is sacramental marriages considered valid or licit by orthodox Catholics.

The reason I bring this up is to show that holding a religious belief, as I do, that homosexual acts are sinful does not necessarily have anything to do with discriminating against gay people or otherwise treating people poorly because they are gay. As a Catholic, I recognize that every one of us is a sinner and we are all in it together.

If I ran a wedding photography business, I would not refuse to work for gay couples. Doing so would not trouble my conscience. But I understand that it may very well trouble the conscience of some other Catholic person or an evangelical or a Muslim or whoever. And our First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States recognizes that individual conscience is the locus of religious freedom.

 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.

but they didn't say they wouldn't serve gay people. They said they wouldn't serve a wedding.

The pizzaria people have noone to blame for this mess but themselves. The eeeeevil liberal reporter didn't hold a gun to their heads and demand they say something bigotted on camera. The people in the pizzaria could have answered in any number of ways, not the least of which is the time-honored "no comment".

Let's try it out now:

"Would your restaurant cater to a gay wedding?"
"No comment."

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.

Heck, you could even give a snarky response that doesn't answer the question. Like this:

"Would your pizza place cater a gay wedding?"
"I would hope a gay couple would have more class than to ask a hole-in-the-wall pizza joint to cater what is supposed to be one of the most important days in their lives."

See? It's pithy, and you didn't compromise your principles or out yourself as a bigot.

But if you're going to reveal your bigotry on TV, to a reporter who is clearly hoping you will do exactly that (she would'nt have tossed that grenade if she didn't want you to throw yourself on it...) you should expect some backlash.

Now, before Frazzled accuses me of equating death threats with "backlash", I want to say that bad Yelp reviews, boycotts, and mean things said about one on the internet are backlash. Death threats are illegal, and unwarranted, and should be pursued and prosecuted. While both have occurred here, only one of them (the non-death threat backlash) is acceptable and called for.

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

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

@skyth

No they don't want to cater a gay wedding.

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

How is that treating them worse? Thats just not doing business with them for a specific event.

If the reporter asks would they serve communists and they said no would that make them a bigot?
If they reporter asked and they said they don't serve weddings would that make them a bigot?

And lets assume they are bigots. Lets assume they hate gay people. Should they be forced to make pizzas for a gay wedding? What is the harm against which equitable remedy is being sought?

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!

 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!

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?

 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!

Maybe they really hate catering, not homosexuality.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

How is that treating them worse? Thats just not doing business with them for a specific event.

If the reporter asks would they serve communists and they said no would that make them a bigot?
If they reporter asked and they said they don't serve weddings would that make them a bigot?

Not doing business with someone is treating them worse. That should be self-evident. Communists are in no way comparable to homosexuals. I'm not sure wht you have this fetish with false equivalencies.

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

 whembly wrote:

 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!

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 whole turns...eh?

Well, the bizarre thing, that I think you're alluding to, is that by doing the same thing that appears to be advocated here, gay people can eat at any establishment that wouldn't serve them otherwise.

 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