|
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 08:43 Introvert 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. 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.
Yeah I did read the article. People didn't burn this guys store down and I haven't heard about zealous gay rights rebellions across the US so don't act like the gay rights movement is dangerous or violent.
The question of the article is "should we boycott someone's business because he is homophobic and won't serve gay customers?"
Simple answer: Yes we should, because it's a disgrace to every country that discrimination of this kind is still so widespread.
|
On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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.
How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages?
|
On April 04 2015 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:43 Introvert wrote: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. 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. Yeah I did read the article. People didn't burn this guys store down and I haven't heard about zealous gay rights rebellions across the US so don't act like the gay rights movement is dangerous or violent. The question of the article is "should we boycott someone's business because he is homophobic and won't serve gay customers?" Simple answer: Yes we should, because it's a disgrace to every country that discrimination of this kind is still so widespread.
To be fair, they received a lot of threats through social media and email. That isn't right at all. Angry letters or objections are fine, but threats are bad and that is why they closed down.
On April 04 2015 08:52 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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. How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages?
They closed down do to threats and fear of reprisal, not due to fines or damages from litigation(since they were never ask to cater a gay wedding).
|
I'll clarify one thing before I stop.
I see no reason to think they are violent, so I don't think they are. That wasn't my claim. The use of the word "destroyed" in the title was chosen for a reason. If it meant "boycott" then that would have been the word used. Often in this type of context destroyed doesn't necessarily refer to physical destruction, but most often to the state the of the business or one's public image.
Edit: I'm not discrediting anything. Lord, do people not know how to read? Or is this more of the normal thing of reading in between the lines? Even if it's single spaced.
If you catch my drift...
|
Sure threats are bad, but I wonder how many threats gay people in the history of Indiana have heard over the years. To act like the gay rights movement is somehow systemically aggressive is hilarious, especially if you factor in the treatment gay people and other minorities had to face over several hundreds of years.
To use that as an argument to discredit equal rights movement is just dishonest. (and has by the way used repeatedly in the past to attack them)
On April 04 2015 08:54 Introvert wrote:
Edit: I'm not discrediting anything. Lord, do people not know how to read? Or is this more of the normal thing of reading in between the lines? Even if it's single spaced, if you catch my drift...
I posted this before I saw your response. But this is the whole point of the article. Poor old 'mom and pops' had to close their business because of the merciless gay-rights advocates. That's the argument the article makes.
|
On April 04 2015 08:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:52 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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. [quote] 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. How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages? They closed down do to threats and fear of reprisal, not due to fines or damages from litigation(since they were never ask to cater a gay wedding).
I'm talking about what if they were, and refused. Which is the better result?
|
On April 04 2015 09:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:52 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:52 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages? They closed down do to threats and fear of reprisal, not due to fines or damages from litigation(since they were never ask to cater a gay wedding). I'm talking about what if they were, and refused. Which is the better result?
Then they would open them-self to liability, just like if they refused to cater an interracial wedding. That's perfectly fine and the exact thing that would happen if they were not religious.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the vicious witchhunt against phantom and nonexistent homophobia.
|
On April 04 2015 09:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:07 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 08:52 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:52 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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:
[quote]
You didn't even read the article, did you?
I have no problem with boycotts.
I'll give you the final sentence
[quote] 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. How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages? They closed down do to threats and fear of reprisal, not due to fines or damages from litigation(since they were never ask to cater a gay wedding). I'm talking about what if they were, and refused. Which is the better result? Then they would open them-self to liability, just like if they refused to cater an interracial wedding. That's perfectly fine and the exact thing that would happen if they were not religious.
Except thats not the question. You get to choose:
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.
because
On April 04 2015 08:52 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:48 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 08:44 cLutZ wrote: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. How do you think they will be compelled to shut down the pizza parlor or pay the fines/damages?
|
On April 04 2015 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
the vicious witchhunt against phantom and nonexistent homophobia.
I am pretty sure refusing to cater a gay wedding is homophobia, straight up. People can gussy it up any way they want and claims it "religious objection", but its homophobia.
cLutZ: Why would I choose one of those two answers? They can't go to jail or be fined. You are claiming things are going to happen that are impossible.
|
On April 04 2015 08:54 Introvert wrote:
I'll clarify one thing before I stop.
I see no reason to think they are violent, so I don't think they are. That wasn't my claim. The use of the word "destroyed" in the title was chosen for a reason. If it meant "boycott" then that would have been the word used. Often in this type of context destroyed doesn't necessarily refer to physical destruction, but most often to the state the of the business or one's public image.
Edit: I'm not discrediting anything. Lord, do people not know how to read? Or is this more of the normal thing of reading in between the lines? Even if it's single spaced.
If you catch my drift...
I think the point is the threats and stuff are not uncommon for gay people either from the same type of people on the social right. I mean you have national Televangelists claiming things like 9/11 and Hurricanes are God punishing those Christians and non for allowing gay rights. So while they aren't advocating destroying businesses outright, they are claiming their God will destroy the businesses and lives of people who support gay rights.
Beyond being outright crazy, it's the same rhetoric that helps get people to do crazy shit in the name of God. So other than the threats there's nothing wrong with the reaction or asking them in the first place, and even with the threats they aren't any worse than the people that oppose them.
|
On April 04 2015 09:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
the vicious witchhunt against phantom and nonexistent homophobia. I am pretty sure refusing to cater a gay wedding is homophobia, straight up. People can gussy it up any way they want and claims it "religious objection", but its homophobia. cLutZ: Why would I choose one of those two answers? They can't go to jail or be fined. You are claiming things are going to happen that are impossible.
No I'm not. Assume they lose the case. They will either have an injunction placed on them (make the pizza or close), or they will be compelled to pay damages. Assume they refuse. How will they be made to pay or shut down?
|
On April 04 2015 09:28 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:24 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
the vicious witchhunt against phantom and nonexistent homophobia. I am pretty sure refusing to cater a gay wedding is homophobia, straight up. People can gussy it up any way they want and claims it "religious objection", but its homophobia. cLutZ: Why would I choose one of those two answers? They can't go to jail or be fined. You are claiming things are going to happen that are impossible. No I'm not. Assume they lose the case. They will either have an injunction placed on them (make the pizza or close), or they will be compelled to pay damages. Assume they refuse. How will they be made to pay or shut down?
Yes, that is how liability works if you discriminate. And yes, I think it would be nice if all homophobic businesses got shut down or were forced to pay money to the people they discriminate against. Sounds great.
|
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you.
|
On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you.
No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong.
|
Anyways, I would like to bring up the ongoing issue of Yemen.
The Romans had a name for Yemen.
They called it Arabia Felix - Happy Arabia - because of its lush, rain-fed mountain scenery.
Today that epithet sounds tragically inappropriate.
Already the poorest country in the Middle East, wracked by soaring unemployment, dwindling oil and water reserves and home to the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda, now Yemen is being torn apart by war of many sides.
The Saudi-led air strikes began last month, raining down precision-guided missiles on a rebel group called the Houthis who swept down from their mountain stronghold in the far north six months ago, taking town after town, and pushing out the UN-recognised President Hadi.
That alarmed the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab states, especially as they suspect the hand of Iran as being behind the Houthis' spectacular blitzkrieg.
How else, Saudis keep saying to me, could an impoverished group of tribesmen get the training, the weapons and the money to take over half the country?
There's a sectarian angle here too. The Houthi rebels are Zaidi Shias, representing about a third of the population. The Saudi rulers are suspicious of Shias, many of whom look to Iran for spiritual leadership.
Saudi Arabia is a predominately Sunni Muslim country and the Saudis are starting to think they're getting encircled by proxies of Iran wherever they look: in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen.
Enough, they said, drawing a line in the sand. At a secret summit in a Saudi palace last month they threw together a 10-nation coalition in a belated and possibly doomed Gulf Arab attempt to turn back the Houthi takeover of Yemen and restore their ally to power.
Change of presidents
But in fact the Houthis largely owe their military success to someone much closer to home. They've formed an alliance of convenience, a sort of pact with the devil, with the very man who tried to bomb them out of existence five years ago.
Ali Abdullah Saleh ruled first North Yemen, then a unified Yemen, for 35 years, until he was forced out of power by the Arab Spring protests.
He refused to believe that Yemen was better off without him. So he set about wrecking the peaceful political transition of power that Yemen's friends had worked so hard to engineer.
Whole units of the Republican Guard remained loyal to him, bombs went off and towns were fought over.
President Hadi who replaced him, an elderly, genial southerner, has been no match for Saleh's machinations. He must be rueing the day he agreed to let his predecessor stay on in Yemen.
I interviewed Saleh once, in his fortified palace in the capital, Sanaa. It did not go well.
Speaking in Arabic without a translator, I asked him what he wanted his legacy to be.
The unification of North and South Yemen, of course, he replied, this was his crowning achievement. I thought I would soften him up by asking what benefits this had brought, but the way I said it in Arabic came out as 'well what was the point of that?'
What? he barked, glaring at me furiously, summoning his official translator, and looking pointedly at his watch.
Effective fighters
As president, Saleh fought six short wars against the Houthis until it ended in an uneasy truce. Now he's cynically using them to destroy those who he sees as usurping his power.
The Houthis are fierce, effective fighters, used to living on little in the black, volcanic mountains that straddle the Saudi-Yemeni border.
When I visited them in their stronghold city of Saada my girlfriend and I were woken on our first morning by a burst of heavy machinegun fire from a pickup truck outside in the street.
"It is celebration," said the man on reception, unfazed. Later we met a pair of brothers who took us out to the mountains to show off their skills with a Kalashnikov.
Chewing the narcotic qat leaf and racing across the desert in a beaten-up old car, they thought it was the biggest joke to swap places behind the wheel while driving at 60 miles an hour.
Their shooting was every bit as wild as their driving and before long a farmer emerged, shouting and cursing. "What the hell are you doing?" he said. "Bullets are coming down all around my sheep!"
Sunni fanatics
I have no idea what dizzy heights those two rose to after that in Yemen's tribal hierarchy, but the Houthis and their allies are now in control of most of the important parts of Yemen, despite more than a week of airstrikes.
If those fail to dislodge them then the Saudis have not ruled out a ground invasion, but everyone knows that carries enormous risks of getting bogged down into a vulnerable army of occupation.
Instead, the Houthis face a more dangerous foe - the jihadists of al-Qaeda. The jihadists are Sunni fanatics and they hate all Shias, including the Houthis.
In Yemen, al-Qaeda seems to be the only force capable of confronting the rebels on the ground.
On Thursday, their ranks were swollen by a jailbreak of dozens of convicted al-Qaeda fighters. Soon they will be rallying the Sunni tribes to join forces and fight the Houthis from the North.
And all the while, the Americans look on from afar, in despair.
Until just a few weeks ago they thought they had a reliable partner in President Hadi. President Obama even held up Yemen as a shining example of a counter-terrorism partnership.
Now that partnership has crumbled to dust, and so too have Yemen's immediate hopes of emerging from this intractable nightmare.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32178058
Fighting in Yemen is intensifying.
|
On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong.
You still haven't explained the method of retrieving the money or shutting down the pizzeria that doesn't involve guns.
|
On April 04 2015 09:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. You still haven't explained the method of retrieving the money or shutting down the pizzeria that doesn't involve guns.
You really don't understand how law works, so I am going to stop responding to your increasingly foolish comments.
|
On April 04 2015 09:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. You still haven't explained the method of retrieving the money or shutting down the pizzeria that doesn't involve guns. You really don't understand how law works, so I am going to stop responding to your increasingly foolish comments.
No, YOU don't understand how the law works. Every law is enforced, in the end, by the threat of imprisonment carried out by a police force. Thus, you should understand that you are deciding between that and the other social evil you are outlawing.
In civil law, for instance, a contract is you consenting to have the courts adjudicate disputes between the two parties in this manner, or in tort law we have determined that this is a better result than allowing people to go around injuring people without making financial remissions.
|
I've mentioned it before, the only reason indiana is getting so much flak is because of it's retarded framing of the entire law.
If they made it about businesses rights instead of religious rights, this would go down so much easier.
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.
What they refuse the right to cater a gay wedding because they don't feel comfortable catering a gay wedding?
Just like most people wouldn't want to do pizza deliveries at 11pm in Compton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
