|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 04 2015 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Didn't the supreme court already decide a few years ago that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?
They haven't answered that question yet. It is expected that such a ruling will come this summer.
|
On April 04 2015 06:04 farvacola wrote:
When the Supreme Court finds in favor gay marriage, the Republican Party will have quite the hill to climb as 2016 approaches.
Capitol Hill will be more like Capitol Mountain for them.
|
On April 04 2015 06:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 06:16 farvacola wrote:
I'll just say this. When a company like Wal-Mart is willing to speak out in tacit approval of gay rights as they have in criticizing Indiana's prior version of RFRA, it means it's time to focus on other stuff lol. The Republican Party leadership seems not to have gotten that message, and it'll hurt them more and more as the elections draws near. Why do you cite walmart? I ask because corporations in general tend to be pro-gay rights, and have been for quite awhile iirc, though not too vocal about it. I recall corporations often extending benefits to same sex partners considerably before it became law in many places. I'm unfamiliar if walmart has any particular history on gay rights issues, or how its stances more generally are on political issues.
There is a profound difference between a company "being" progressive and said company speaking out on progressive issues against a state in which it does business.
|
On April 04 2015 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide. Source
When they toss in the "ancient institution of marriage" you know it's complete bullshit.
|
On April 04 2015 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide. Source When they toss in the " ancient institution of marriage" you know it's complete bullshit.
"ancient institution of marriage" that has been ever evolving over time. Like when women couldn't own or inherit property from their husband. But whatever the GOP says about shrinking Government downs small enough to fit in my bedroom.
|
Duke Energy has agreed to a $2.5 million settlement with Virginia over a massive coal ash spill that coated 70 miles of the Dan River in gray sludge in February 2014, state environmental officials announced Friday.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) said that, as part of the settlement, Duke would fund environmental projects in communities affected by the spill. The "restoration opportunities" are still being developed, but the DEQ noted that Duke had already removed sludge and soil from the river near Danville.
The remaining $250,000 would be placed in a fund for the department to respond to environmental emergencies.
“This order is a significant step forward in Virginia’s efforts to protect our communities and natural resources following the coal ash spill,” said DEQ Director David K. Paylor. “It also ensures that Duke is held fully accountable for the impact of this incident.”
Duke Energy North Carolina President Paul Newton expressed commitment to the deal.
“Although the Dan River coal ash spill occurred in North Carolina, we recognize the number of miles that the river spans in Virginia. Duke Energy is committed to working with Virginia DEQ to expedite the benefits of this agreement and to help protect and restore natural resources in the state,” Newton said in a statement, according to the Charlotte Observer.
The spill originated in North Carolina but affected areas in Virginia, too, including 2,500 tons of toxic ash that backed up in a dam in Danville.
The settlement is still subject to approval by the State Water Control Board. And the consent order does not preclude affected Virginia localities from seeking their own settlements with Duke.
Source
|
On April 04 2015 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2015 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide. Source When they toss in the " ancient institution of marriage" you know it's complete bullshit. " ancient institution of marriage" that has been ever evolving over time. Like when women couldn't own or inherit property from their husband. But whatever the GOP says about shrinking Government downs small enough to fit in my bedroom.
My guess would be the same people who don't want to serve gay people but have no problem serving adulterers and such are the same ones that don't realize how undeniably ignorant it is to use phrases like that.
Republicans/Conservatives who don't call it out for what it is, are doing more damage than good for the country and the party.
It's sad enough when some person on a street corner blathers about the "ancient institution of marriage blah blah..." It's another level of ridiculous when it's stuff like this.
|
From The Atlantic, of all places.
What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.
Source
|
When Gov. Scott Walker took his presidential ambitions to New Hampshire, he shared a penny-pinching story that would have been right at home in bargain-hunting Wisconsin.
At the center of the story: A new sweater, a dollar and Menomonee Falls-based Kohl’s.
The department store chain is well known for its deep discounts -- ones so deep that the company has faced legal challenges over its pricing practices in Kansas, Massachusetts and California. At issue in the California case, for instance, was complaints that the retailer listed "normal" prices for products but never sold them for that price.
Walker likes to point out that shortly after he was married, his wife, Tonette, was mortified because he didn’t know the drill at Kohl’s. In Concord, N.H., he told the crowd at a March 14, 2015 workshop about a "critical mistake" he made while shopping at a Kohl’s store.
"I went to a Kohl's department store and I bought something for the price it was marked at," Walker said, adding that he’s now been "trained well" about how to shop at Kohl’s.
So well that he pointed to the brownish-colored sweater he was wearing and declared: "We paid one dollar for it with our Kohl’s Cash."
A buck?
Now, we grant this is not the most important topic in politics today. But we decided to fact check it for two reasons.
First, we heard from readers from around the country who thought it was an unbelievable story -- as in, literally impossible to believe. Second, it goes to what has been a major theme of Walker’s visits to some of the early primary states -- that he is just an average guy.
In Wisconsin, voters have long heard about Walker’s brown bag lunches and his ham-and-cheese sandwiches have become a fixture on his Twitter account.
At the presidential level, all of this becomes a pointed contrast his far-better heeled GOP rivals, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
When we asked a spokeswoman for Walker’s exploratory campaign group, Our American Revival, about the $1 sweater, we didn’t receive a response.
So we did what any Midwesterner would do, and went bargain hunting.
Could we score a sweater just like the nifty henley that Walker donned in New Hampshire? And, more importantly, could we do it for next to nothing?
Walker indicated on Twitter that he bought the sweater while in the Granite State.
He didn’t identify the location, but there is a Kohl’s in Hooksett, about 13 miles from Concord. We called the store, and an employee in menswear said all of the store’s henley sweaters were mixed with other items on clearance racks.
Based on photos of Walker in the sweater, it appears to be a "Chaps Twisted Button Mock Sweater" in a color called "walnut twist." We couldn’t find that sweater available on the Kohl’s web site, so we visited the Kohl’s store in Glendale to paw through the clearance racks.
There we found plenty of Chaps sweaters marked between 80 and 90 percent off -- an even deeper cut than the 70% Walker cited when describing the deal. Some of the sweaters we found were originally priced at $70 and marked down to $7.
Now, that’s not $1. But Walker did say he used his "Kohl’s Cash" -- a coupon of sorts that is generated based on how much a customer purchased in an earlier visit to the store.
Thus, he could have easily gotten one for $1 out-of-pocket. We rate the claim True.
Now, just ask us how much Walker’s daily ham sandwich costs.
Source
Yes, they did just send people to factcheck the price of his sweater. Hard hitting journalism indeed.
|
On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. Show nested quote +What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source
Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought
|
On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought
You didn't even read the article, did you?
I have no problem with boycotts.
I'll give you the final sentence
The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do.
|
On April 04 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +When Gov. Scott Walker took his presidential ambitions to New Hampshire, he shared a penny-pinching story that would have been right at home in bargain-hunting Wisconsin.
At the center of the story: A new sweater, a dollar and Menomonee Falls-based Kohl’s.
The department store chain is well known for its deep discounts -- ones so deep that the company has faced legal challenges over its pricing practices in Kansas, Massachusetts and California. At issue in the California case, for instance, was complaints that the retailer listed "normal" prices for products but never sold them for that price.
Walker likes to point out that shortly after he was married, his wife, Tonette, was mortified because he didn’t know the drill at Kohl’s. In Concord, N.H., he told the crowd at a March 14, 2015 workshop about a "critical mistake" he made while shopping at a Kohl’s store.
"I went to a Kohl's department store and I bought something for the price it was marked at," Walker said, adding that he’s now been "trained well" about how to shop at Kohl’s.
So well that he pointed to the brownish-colored sweater he was wearing and declared: "We paid one dollar for it with our Kohl’s Cash."
A buck?
Now, we grant this is not the most important topic in politics today. But we decided to fact check it for two reasons.
First, we heard from readers from around the country who thought it was an unbelievable story -- as in, literally impossible to believe. Second, it goes to what has been a major theme of Walker’s visits to some of the early primary states -- that he is just an average guy.
In Wisconsin, voters have long heard about Walker’s brown bag lunches and his ham-and-cheese sandwiches have become a fixture on his Twitter account.
At the presidential level, all of this becomes a pointed contrast his far-better heeled GOP rivals, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
When we asked a spokeswoman for Walker’s exploratory campaign group, Our American Revival, about the $1 sweater, we didn’t receive a response.
So we did what any Midwesterner would do, and went bargain hunting.
Could we score a sweater just like the nifty henley that Walker donned in New Hampshire? And, more importantly, could we do it for next to nothing?
Walker indicated on Twitter that he bought the sweater while in the Granite State.
He didn’t identify the location, but there is a Kohl’s in Hooksett, about 13 miles from Concord. We called the store, and an employee in menswear said all of the store’s henley sweaters were mixed with other items on clearance racks.
Based on photos of Walker in the sweater, it appears to be a "Chaps Twisted Button Mock Sweater" in a color called "walnut twist." We couldn’t find that sweater available on the Kohl’s web site, so we visited the Kohl’s store in Glendale to paw through the clearance racks.
There we found plenty of Chaps sweaters marked between 80 and 90 percent off -- an even deeper cut than the 70% Walker cited when describing the deal. Some of the sweaters we found were originally priced at $70 and marked down to $7.
Now, that’s not $1. But Walker did say he used his "Kohl’s Cash" -- a coupon of sorts that is generated based on how much a customer purchased in an earlier visit to the store.
Thus, he could have easily gotten one for $1 out-of-pocket. We rate the claim True.
Now, just ask us how much Walker’s daily ham sandwich costs. SourceYes, they did just send people to factcheck the price of his sweater. Hard hitting journalism indeed.
What else do you expect from Politifact? Althought to be fair, the article did end with
Now, just ask us how much Walker’s daily ham sandwich costs.
|
On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought
Well people shouldn't be talking about burning the store down, but yeah that's more free market at work than anything. There should be a slew of people sick of eating chick fil-A anyway, now they can go get some pizza and flowers.
Or people could realize that by and large their 'sincerely held religious belief' is actually just stubborn ignorance and silly hypocrisy. Of course if some Amish person was claiming it that's different than some schmuck that says they're fine with working some adulterer's next marriage, but a gay ceremony (yeah one said they wouldn't do a ceremony, which isn't even a wedding...) would be too much.
|
Two school districts in Kansas announced this week that the academic year would end early because they lack sufficient funding to keep the schools open.
Concordia Unified School District will finish up six days early, on May 15, and Twin Valley Unified School District will let students out 12 days early, on May 8, the Associated Press reports.
In March, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a school funding overhaul, which resulted in the state's schools losing a combined $51 million meant to help them finish out the current academic year. Members of the Twin Valley school board cited “the present mid-year, unplanned financial cuts recently signed into law" as a reason for the early shutdown.
The school closures are just the latest in a series of drastic measures that Kansas public services have been forced to take in recent years, as Brownback's radical tax cuts have drained state coffers of much needed revenue. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Kansas cut per-pupil spending by $950 from 2008 to 2014, more than all but two other states. In May 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that school funding levels were unconstitutionally inequitable and ordered the immediate reversal of certain spending cuts.
Source
|
On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence Show nested quote +The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do.
Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV.
Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move.
|
On April 04 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do. Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV. Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move.
What's with all the people here who don't read what they comment on?
A random reporter asks them a question and they answer it. They didn't hang giant Neon signs from the windows saying "no gays allowed!" She said (paraphrase) "we won't serve for the wedding, but we will still serve gays and any anyone else who wants a pizza."
The point is, these vicious witch hunts people go on need to stop. You are right (she did say it), but the fact that they weren't asked to cater a wedding is one thing that makes this all so absurd.
|
On April 04 2015 08:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do. Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV. Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move. What's with all the people here who don't read what they comment on? A random reporter asks them a question and they answer it. They didn't hang giant Neon signs from the windows saying "no gays allowed!" She said (paraphrase) "we won't serve for the wedding, but we will still serve gays and any anyone else who wants a pizza." The point is, these vicious witch hunts people go on need to stop. You are right, but the fact that they weren't asked to cater a wedding is what makes this all so absurd.
I see no difference between that and saying they would not cater an interracial wedding due to religious objections. I don't endorse all the threats and call out culture sucks, but it is also an insane thing as on camera. Being homophobic is not ok.
And yes, saying you refuse to cater a gay wedding because you religiously object to their right to get married is homophobic. Just like they would be racist if they refused to cater a interracial couples wedding.
|
On April 04 2015 08:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:32 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do. Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV. Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move. What's with all the people here who don't read what they comment on? A random reporter asks them a question and they answer it. They didn't hang giant Neon signs from the windows saying "no gays allowed!" She said (paraphrase) "we won't serve for the wedding, but we will still serve gays and any anyone else who wants a pizza." The point is, these vicious witch hunts people go on need to stop. You are right, but the fact that they weren't asked to cater a wedding is what makes this all so absurd. I see no difference between that and saying they would not cater an interracial wedding due to religious objections. I don't endorse all the threats and call out culture sucks, but it is also an insane thing as on camera. Being homophobic is not ok. And yes, saying you refuse to cater a gay wedding because you religiously object to their right to get married is homophobic. Just like they would be racist if they refused to cater a interracial couples wedding.
That doesn't really address anything in the article, but ok.
Can we at least agree to not threaten people? Boycotting is the "free market," this type of angry rhetoric is not.
We can be passionate, yet calm and reasonable when it comes to making our points.
|
On April 04 2015 08:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:32 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do. Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV. Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move. What's with all the people here who don't read what they comment on? A random reporter asks them a question and they answer it. They didn't hang giant Neon signs from the windows saying "no gays allowed!" She said (paraphrase) "we won't serve for the wedding, but we will still serve gays and any anyone else who wants a pizza." The point is, these vicious witch hunts people go on need to stop. You are right, but the fact that they weren't asked to cater a wedding is what makes this all so absurd. I see no difference between that and saying they would not cater an interracial wedding due to religious objections. I don't endorse all the threats and call out culture sucks, but it is also an insane thing as on camera. Being homophobic is not ok. And yes, saying you refuse to cater a gay wedding because you religiously object to their right to get married is homophobic. Just like they would be racist if they refused to cater a interracial couples wedding.
It's really just a question of which you think is worse:
1. The existence of a racist/homophobic pizza parlor; or
2. Jailing racist/homophobic pizza makers.
|
On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:38 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:32 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:04 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2015 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:On April 04 2015 07:46 Introvert wrote:From The Atlantic, of all places. What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief. Source Freedom of opinion goes both ways. If they want to boycott gay weddings everybody with an ounce of decency will boycott their business. What are these people upset about? Being a bigot hurts your business, who would have thought You didn't even read the article, did you? I have no problem with boycotts. I'll give you the final sentence The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do. Yeah, but lets be clear, the pizza place was never asked to cater a gay wedding. The announced to the world they wouldn't cater them. She didn't say to the interviewer "we will see" or "we don't really cater weddings" or "we would serve them food, but I don't think I would attend myself, but they should have food if they want it". She said "no, we don't cater weddings for gay people" on TV. Telling 100,000 people that you are going to discriminate against gays is not really a smart business move. What's with all the people here who don't read what they comment on? A random reporter asks them a question and they answer it. They didn't hang giant Neon signs from the windows saying "no gays allowed!" She said (paraphrase) "we won't serve for the wedding, but we will still serve gays and any anyone else who wants a pizza." The point is, these vicious witch hunts people go on need to stop. You are right, but the fact that they weren't asked to cater a wedding is what makes this all so absurd. I see no difference between that and saying they would not cater an interracial wedding due to religious objections. I don't endorse all the threats and call out culture sucks, but it is also an insane thing as on camera. Being homophobic is not ok. And yes, saying you refuse to cater a gay wedding because you religiously object to their right to get married is homophobic. Just like they would be racist if they refused to cater a interracial couples wedding. It's really just a question of which you think is worse: 1. The existence of a racist/homophobic pizza parlor; or 2. Jailing racist/homophobic pizza makers.
Except that being racist is not a crime. It is just something that can expose you to liability if you a business owner. If they refuse to cater a gay wedding, no one is going to arrest them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
