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.
I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I love the gluttony argument too, it's just fantastic. Bravo.
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I love the gluttony argument too, it's just fantastic. Bravo.
Apples and oranges comparison. The pizza shop never said it wouldn't serve gay people. It said it wouldn't serve a gay wedding. I would support a Muslim pizza shop's decision not to serve a Christian or atheist or Buddhist wedding. It's not the serving of someone whose conduct you disagree with that is at issue, it is being forced to participate in the conduct yourself that is at issue.
A better comparison would be the Muslim business owner's wife being forced to uncover her hair while serving the woman or women who are out and about with their hair showing.
For the Pizza thing, yeah, sure. But plenty of the arguments here have been about serving people generally, and not specific to participating in a gay wedding.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
And you have every right to be annoyed and to be against it. You don't, however, have the right to use the courts to enforce your world view on other people.
EDIT: Or at least you shouldn't. There a certain grey area, but the glenmorangie 18 has since rendered me incapable of caring about nuance for the time being.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/05 18:11:46
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
This bakery is already covered by all the people already arguing that religion should not be used to discriminate against gays. It's assinine to pretend that the anti-discrimination argument somehow doesn't cover the Muslim bakery and that they require a completely separate revised line of outrage.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
This bakery is already covered by all the people already arguing that religion should not be used to discriminate against gays. It's assinine to pretend that the anti-discrimination argument somehow doesn't cover the Muslim bakery and that they require a completely separate revised line of outrage.
But whatever makes you guys feel better.
How come we don't see any of them having the state dropping the hammer on them or getting hauled into court the way Christian bakeries are? Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/05 18:39:40
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I dont think a muslim refusing service to a woman due to her hair being uncovered, or being out without an escort is anywhere near refusing service on the grounds of homosexuality.
On the one hand, there are already laws against discriminating a woman for her hair under two instances: a, she is not Muslim and does not ascribe to that religion (so she's facing discrimination on religious grounds) and b, being a woman (gender) is one of the protected classes.
Now, if your situation was a Muslim bakery refusing to deliver a wedding cake to a wedding due to the bride and other people's heads not being covered, it may be a different story.
Not only that, but by far one of the most biased people ever. When he was on YouTube I said on his comments that you have to work with the liberals create what you want.
his response was that "I agree, we have to work, but conservative is the only right viewpoint"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand, there are already laws against discriminating a woman for her hair under two instances: a, she is not Muslim and does not ascribe to that religion (so she's facing discrimination on religious grounds) and b, being a woman (gender) is one of the protected classes.
I don't think this is really accurate. It isn't religious discrimination because you don't have to be Muslim to cover your hair, and isn't sex/gender discrimination because women who follow the rules are served without complaint. It's discrimination against a person for not following the rules of the business owner's religion, just like the anti-gay bakeries. The only reason why one would be protected and the other wouldn't is that opposition to gay marriage is part of mainstream Christianity, while requiring women to cover their hair isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: How come we don't see any of them having the state dropping the hammer on them or getting hauled into court the way Christian bakeries are? Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
They're probably in the same place as the missing outrage over all of the anti-gay Christian business owners that didn't get national attention. The most likely explanation is that it's simply a matter of statistics. Christians outnumber Muslims in the US by a huge margin, so if you pick a small random sample of anti-gay business owneres to give national attention to it's pretty likely that most of them will be Christians. The fact that a particular business owner didn't get national attention doesn't mean that everyone approves of their actions, it just means that there's a finite amount of national attention to go around and they weren't lucky enough to get it.
If you want to provide evidence of this supposed double standard then you need to provide some examples of people supporting the anti-gay Muslim business owners while simultaneously opposing the anti-gay Christian business owners, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/06 06:11:20
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
BrotherGecko wrote: Wait so people are supposed to get outraged by a video heavily edited by a proven lier?
nobody fired in rolling stone story about frat rape so why should cro dee hold to different standard? Or do we stop reading rolling stone now?
Sure? I don't read magazines and never an issue of rolling stone but if they write BS instead of whatever their focus is, then yes I would recommend people stop reading it.
Or should we just buy things because reasons? Or have no standards because of that one thing?
For better or worse, Rolling Stone articles get attention. People take note when they publish an incendiary piece, like the one about UVA. I don't think Rolling Stone published that article in bad faith but there was a major fact-checking break down and no transparency on the part of the magazine in terms of explaining why except to blame the source.
The issue is -- news is for-profit, which means there is always a conflict of interest: what happens when the facts are too boring to sell? In the case of Memories Pizza, a local news channel went trawling for scandal. The resulting manufactured scandal was relayed and magnified by editorial commentary incredibly quickly thanks to the internet.
The former story started at the top (major national magazine) while the latter story starter at the bottom (local news station) -- but both stories became national talking points nearly instantly. And if a famous magazine like Rolling Stone does little to nothing in response to a major breach of journalistic integrity (and even tries to cover one breach with another) then what can be expected of the local news channel? Or the multitudinous blog-like "news" outlets (e.g., HuffPo) that spread and warp the signal?Any ethical duty to objectively report, if it was ever practiced by professional journalists, is certainly no more in this era of digitally-diluted responsibility.
What makes something "news"? How many people click.
What makes something "true"? Whether you want to believe it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/06 16:13:58
What makes something "true"? Whether you want to believe it.
Deep. We define our own reality.
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
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
Let's say then, a bakery run by Christians.
Find me a Kosher Bakery who refuses to sell me bread because I plan to make a ham sandwich with it and you might have a valid comparison.
Preparing the food in a way which is kosher to meet some customer's requirements isn't the same as requiring all customers to use the prepared food for kosher-only ways. What if a store refused to sell Kosher food to non-Jews, or only to people who kept the food kosher till consumption. What if they believed how their product was used post-sale was 'practicing their beliefs' and taking a kosher product and using it in a non-kosher way forced the bakers to break their religion?
That is why you don't see Halal and Kosher bakeries swept up into this. They make a product which meets specific preparation guidelines for those who follow those traditions and they make it available to *EVERYONE* regardless how the customer plans to use it. They realize that how the customer uses the product doesn't impact how the creator practices their religion.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
Hold up -- let's get back to the actual example: (presumably) Muslim bakery owners/operators were asked to make wedding cake for gay marriage (not to cater a gay wedding) and they refused.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/06 16:50:32
Manchu wrote: Hold up -- let's get back to the actual example: (presumably) Muslim bakery owners/operators were asked to make wedding cake for gay marriage (not to cater a gay wedding) and they refused.
That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
I might be wrong, but I don't think that anyone in this thread made the claim that Christians had the monopoly on bigotry in the US,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/06 16:55:28
PhantomViper wrote: That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
My point is, there is no reason to talk about halal or kosher anything. Relapse's point was, if I understood him correctly, that a lot of news sources gives Christians gak for discrimination against gays while Muslims apparently get a pass. I think this was at least partly in response to Da Boss's point:
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
which I took to mean, people defending the O'Connors ITT would not defend Muslims. So, Relapse might ask: defend them from what? the absence of a media gak storm?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/06 17:02:46
PhantomViper wrote: That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
My point is, there is no reason to talk about halal or kosher anything. Relapse's point was, if I understood him correctly, that a lot of news sources gives Christians gak for discrimination against gays while Muslims apparently get a pass. I think this was at least partly in response to Da Boss's point:
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
which I took to mean, people defending the O'Connors ITT would not defend Muslims. So, Relapse might ask: defend them from what? the absence of a media gak storm?
Except that that example wasn't what Da Boss pointed out.
In this case both Christian and Muslim bigots are united in their mutual hatred for the gays.
In the hypothetical scenario that Da Boss mentioned, the Muslim bigots would be discriminating against something that the Christian bigots wouldn't be opposed to as well, and thus they wouldn't be united in this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fashion.
As for Relapse, he should ask those news outlets why they aren't generating the same type of gakstorm over that.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
