Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex

[Silhouette]

Faith-haters are bigots.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

There's nothing in this article to suggest that the gay couple was threatened or even that the shop owner was rude. All it says is that the shop refused them service based on their religious convictions which is entirely within their rights. If a gay couple believes they have the right to marriage then it's only fair to allow others to either disagree or choose not to commit actions that would support it.

Discrimination laws in this country provide for disciplinary action when discrimination is committed against employees or potential employees or contractors or things of that nature. It does not, and should not, mean that shop owners and retailers shouldn't have the right to refuse service to a customer for whatever reason.

I don't like it any more than you (I am an advocate for gay rights and gay marital rights) but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Even if, hypothetically, the shop owner was rude or threatening, how does it help the LGBT community to be threatening in return? Gays regard the Christian beliefs about homosexuality to be a form of hate and abolishing the hate has been the main focus. But how does "You f***ing bigots. We're coming for you and your family" abolish hate?

You don't find it offensive that people with their "religious beliefs" refuse someone serve, I do.

Do I find it offensive? Not really. But then, I'm not easily offended because I know who I am and I am secure in my place in the world and their ignorance doesn't change that. In short, being offended is a choice.

Look, the Bible says kill adulterers.

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

This is their "religious belief", or should be, right? Do they refuse service to adulterers? No, they almost certainly do not.

It's hypocritical, it's picking and choosing parts of the Bible that they want to choose, it's basically using the Bible as an excuse to hide their prejudices.

So, it's offensive, regardless of whether you think so or not.

Of course it is hypocritical. Hey, I'm with you when it comes to the hypocrisy and bigotry of some Christians. But people need to understand that while discrimination is illegal, bigotry is not. They have every right to hate whoever they want and to refuse their business to whoever they want.

Having said that, hate begets hate. Can you honestly deny that some of these voicemails came from a place of hate? Someone has to choose to stop the cycle of hate and telling someone "We're coming for you and your family" is not it.

Maybe being offended is a choice. Maybe some people see that offence is a way of forcing society to be a little better than neanderthal culture.

Not being offended will disarm haters much better than more hate and besides, simply being offended these days doesn't mean shit anyway. Everybody is offended by everything to the point that people are tiptoeing around each other. The word "racist" gets thrown around so much these days that it has lost all meaning. I always considered myself to be non-racist but imagine my surprise when I found out my white skin made me racist. Go figure.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that more hate won't stop the hate and being offended won't stop the hate. Being triggered by someone's bigotry says as much about you as it does them.

So, discrimination is illegal and bigotry is not, and they managed to do both......

You might say they discriminated but think about this: If it had been, say, a regular clothing store and the two came in just to buy dresses or whatever, I doubt they would have been turned away. The bridal shop turned them away not so much because the couple was gay but because they felt that to do business with them and sell them bridal gowns would have seemed that, in the eyes of God, they approved of the gay marriage and were complicit in the couple's sin.

Maybe that's a minor distinction, I don't know. But what concerned me the most about this story was the naked hatred coming from the callers. In my opinion, because of these disgusting threats, I see them as no better than the shop owner.

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

 

[Silhouette]

Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Well I'm sort of a pragmatist Christian. I'll point out the CONSISTENCY of their beliefs when taken into a larger context that may be a Plan larger than the average person (nearly all of us, hence the need for guidance by a faith) can wrap their head around.

Let's take the mandates about homosexuality in the New Testament. We'll leave the old Jewish Laws out of it. In their day and age, they were also a sort of pragmatic scheme for dealing with a more brutal society back then. The scheme fits the day and age.

One example of pragmatism in Old, outdated Jewish law, but that was totally called for in the day and time: the prohibition of pork especially and Kosher law about foods. Look at all the foods and you'll see why. Pork carried many diseases and cooking fires weren't always stoked with enough fuel to cook it properly. Eating it caused illness and death. So ignorance abounded back then, as did a lack of enough cooking fuels, so the Order was "Pork is evil, avoid it". And that just to keep the denizens from killing themselves. Also I think shellfish are forbidden. Same thing, only refrigeration was the problem. The time it took the donkeys to haul the shellfish to market, sitting in the sun, hauling it home, finally cooking it (if there was enough fuel) and you're going to get sick as a dog if you eat it. Etc. etc. Times have changed in diet and so we see these things as "silly" to prohibit.

The New Testament says that you love the sinner, not the sin. With regards to homosexuality, a Christian must not aide or abet the spread of homosexuality "as normal or condoned" within a society. To do so is a mortal sin, unforgivable, earning the Christian eternal damnation in the Pit of Fire. What was done to Sodom was given as an example of God's displeasure with such an enabling. So says Jude 1. For further expounding, read Romans 1 as well, midway to the end of the passage.

The pragmatic reason is in the lesson of Sodom. God's larger plan involves a test. And that test involves a human matrix that is complex, with various concrete roles in any given culture at any given time. The role of male is always dominant more or less. Travel to any enlightened country and you will see this even in very subtle forms. The role of female, less so, different. These are just examples of "different roles" mind you. The gamut is nearly endless if you think about 7 billion people. This is why I have a problem with evangelists trying to convert other societies. There's a passage in the Bible somewhere I remember about leaving other cultures alone unless they really get totally whacked out.

Enter: afterlife. Anyway, the Christian Bible does speak about an afterlife. However I think the Hindus nailed what that afterlife actually is. All that being said, it's important that people don't understand all this, that they have faith instead. Otherwise the potent lessons are diluted. Don't worry, there's nearly no chance at all that anyone would believe all this. lol.

So back to Sodom's matrix. Homosexuality was allowed such a free reign there for so long that it became as a virtue. Blending genders is synonymous with homosexual behavior. That's because the role of male and female is still always sought in the relationship, but they aren't actually there. So we have man-women or women-men becoming the norm. The roles are watered down and the lessons diluted.

Let's say a guy was a total asshole to women in his last life. Used, abused, raped, murdered etc. In his next life, after a deep cleansing in the fires of agony and torture, he might opt for a role as a woman, to further cleanse himself, or ordered to do that (I'm not entirely sure how God's roster works). If women's roles are flexible enough for him just to choose another woman to lie with, escaping any danger whatsoever of learning his lessons, his lessons will never be learned. I think you see where I'm going with this.

So instead of the Bible's wisdom being some flowery esoteric pile of nonsense, as many atheists consider it, it actually is a very pragmatic guide, that receives occasional updates to keep with the times, when a new Oracle or prophet or "Messiah" comes along. But some things are timeless, and this is why the warnings against homosexuality were plucked from the Old Testament and kept anew. Homosexuality in particular threatens the matrix quite a bit. And if the matrix is upset, the lessons are not learned. And if the lessons aren't learned, there is no reason for our existence.

So, God destroyed Sodom because in that matrix, no child would ever grow up to know that homosexuality was a direct threat to that matrix. And, if they emigrated and started touting their values in other societies, those matrices would be threatened as well. So, God blasted the crap out of Sodom and called the one dude forward, flawed as he himself was, to be saved. And that was because Lot was the only one in town who resisted the advances of homosexual males trying to beat his door down to rape the male visitors Lot had inside with him. Lot literally stood between them and the "distant matrixes" to keep the mental illness from taking root and walking out of that place to another site to begin to grow.

It's pragmatic when you back up and look at it. The lessons of the Bible are allegorical, pragmatic and part of a hidden plan to advance souls. The faithful need not fully understand this. And hence the reason for faith. It's important to understand this at your core, then forget it and rely on faith. Because a person's faith too is also an important test. Faith needs to come from the core of the soul, not intellectual reasoning.

I'm very reticent to say this here or anywhere because saying it exposes something that ought to remain hidden. However the danger of many people reading it is minimal. Even less when you consider fewer will buy it as so. It's a thing that has to be intuited through personal experience, trial and prayer. But those who have been through the ringer, all pretty much arrive at a rough approximation of the foregoing. The majority of people who read this will say "what a load of bullshit!" And to them I say, thank you. That too is part of the Plan.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Well I'm sort of a pragmatist Christian. I'll point out the CONSISTENCY of their beliefs when taken into a larger context that may be a Plan larger than the average person (nearly all of us, hence the need for guidance by a faith) can wrap their head around.

Let's take the mandates about homosexuality in the New Testament. We'll leave the old Jewish Laws out of it. In their day and age, they were also a sort of pragmatic scheme for dealing with a more brutal society back then. The scheme fits the day and age.

The New Testament says that you love the sinner, not the sin. With regards to homosexuality, a Christian must not aide or abet the spread of homosexuality "as normal or condoned" within a society. To do so is a mortal sin, unforgivable, earning the Christian eternal damnation in the Pit of Fire. What was done to Sodom was given as an example of God's displeasure with such an enabling. So says Jude 1. For further expounding, read Romans 1 as well, midway to the end of the passage.

The pragmatic reason is in the lesson of Sodom. God's larger plan involves a test. And that test involves a human matrix that is complex, with various concrete roles in any given culture at any given time. The role of male is always dominant more or less. Travel to any enlightened country and you will see this even in very subtle forms. The role of female, less so, different. These are just examples of "different roles" mind you. The gamut is nearly endless if you think about 7 billion people.

Enter: afterlife. Anyway, the Christian Bible does speak about an afterlife. However I think the Hindus nailed what that afterlife actually is. All that being said, it's important that people don't understand all this, that they have faith instead. Otherwise the potent lessons are diluted. Don't worry, there's nearly no chance at all that anyone would believe all this. lol.

So back to Sodom's matrix. Homosexuality was allowed such a free reign there for so long that it became as a virtue. Blending genders is synonymous with homosexual behavior. That's because the role of male and female is still always sought in the relationship, but they aren't actually there. So we have man-women or women-men becoming the norm. The roles are watered down and the lessons diluted.

Let's say a guy was a total asshole to women in his last life. Used, abused, raped, murdered etc. In his next life, after a deep cleansing in the fires of agony and torture, he might opt for a role as a woman, to further cleanse himself, or ordered to do that (I'm not entirely sure how God's roster works). If women's roles are flexible enough for him just to choose another woman to lie with, escaping any danger whatsoever of learning his lessons, his lessons will never be learned. I think you see where I'm going with this.

So instead of the Bible's wisdom being some flowery esoteric pile of nonsense, as many atheists consider it, it actually is a very pragmatic guide, that receives occasional updates to keep with the times, when a new Oracle or prophet or "Messiah" comes along. But some things are timeless, and this is why the warnings against homosexuality were plucked from the Old Testament and kept anew. Homosexuality in particular threatens the matrix quite a bit. And if the matrix is upset, the lessons are not learned. And if the lessons aren't learned, there is no reason for our existence.

So, God destroyed Sodom because in that matrix, no child would ever grow up to know that homosexuality was a direct threat to that matrix. And, if they emigrated and started touting their values in other societies, those matrices would be threatened as well. So, God blasted the crap out of Sodom and called the one dude forward, flawed as he himself was, to be saved. And that was because Lot was the only one in town who resisted the advances of homosexual males trying to beat his door down to rape the male visitors Lot had inside with him. Lot literally stood between them and the "distant matrixes" to keep the mental illness from taking root and walking out of that place to another site to begin to grow.

It's pragmatic when you back up and look at it. The lessons of the Bible are allegorical, pragmatic and part of a hidden plan to advance souls. The faithful need not fully understand this. And hence the reason for faith. It's important to understand this at your core, then forget it and rely on faith. Because a person's faith too is also an important test. Faith needs to come from the core of the soul, not intellectual reasoning.

Here's the problem: if I have faith, it may be wrong or misplaced. Every person of faith has their own ideas as to what to have faith in and no one can prove their claims. So as far as I know, some small band of Amazon indians may have the right faith and everybody else is wrong.

But not to get caught up in a debate about faith, let me just say that, though there are aspects of religion I find unsavory, I understand that most people of faith (and without faith) do so because it makes the universe and everything in it make sense to them.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the problem: if I have faith, it may be wrong or misplaced. Every person of faith has their own ideas as to what to have faith in and no one can prove their claims. So as far as I know, some small band of Amazon indians may have the right faith and everybody else is wrong.

But not to get caught up in a debate about faith, let me just say that, though there are aspects of religion I find unsavory, I understand that most people of faith (and without faith) do so because it makes the universe and everything in it make sense to them.

Some band of Amazon indians may have some elements of the right faith or Divine Scheme. You may recall my comments on evangelizing in my last post? That's not to say that the points I made about allegorical truths being revealed via faith and various matrices aren't true. Being an atheist as opposed to an agnostic means that you have given up on the idea of a Larger Plan directing the show. A Plan you and others may not have intuited the abstract core of. An agnostic just doesn't rigidly adhere to any one faith; while still believing that he is not the Alpha and Omega of Wisdom (with a capital W). I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And keeping with the topic, I'm only bringing this up to demonstrate how important it is that we not allow one religion (cult of LGBT) to force another (Christianity) to its knees; subjugating all that good wisdom to the role of slave to the other. Free will among many other things is a paramount ingredient of the Lessons. What LGBTs are after is forcing Christians to not be able to exercise free will to accept or reject another faith's dogma. This is the real evil of the Pennsylvania bridal shop issue. That and being forced to enable or promote a forbidden practice in direct defiance of the Christian's Divine Decree with respect to homosexuality taking over cultures.

This is the background and the heart of the 1st Amendment issue with respect to bakers, bridal shops, caterers and other businesses owned by otherwise flawed people of faith. That's why the cult of LGBT's moans and cries about "Christians are flawed people too, so they're not truly faithful, so they have no standing to resist!" is a red herring. Lot was a flawed muthafucka too. But he had enough of an understanding of God's Law to find favor and forgiveness of his other sins. All Christians are sinners. That can't be a reason to disqualify them from striving to uphold the Faith.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Here's the problem: if I have faith, it may be wrong or misplaced. Every person of faith has their own ideas as to what to have faith in and no one can prove their claims. So as far as I know, some small band of Amazon indians may have the right faith and everybody else is wrong.

But not to get caught up in a debate about faith, let me just say that, though there are aspects of religion I find unsavory, I understand that most people of faith (and without faith) do so because it makes the universe and everything in it make sense to them.

Some band of Amazon indians may have some elements of the right faith or Divine Scheme. You may recall my comments on evangelizing in my last post? That's not to say that the points I made about allegorical truths being revealed via faith and various matrices aren't true. Being an atheist as opposed to an agnostic means that you have given up on the idea of a Larger Plan directing the show. A Plan you and others may not have intuited the abstract core of. An agnostic just doesn't rigidly adhere to any one faith; while still believing that he is not the Alpha and Omega of Wisdom (with a capital W). I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And keeping with the topic, I'm only bringing this up to demonstrate how important it is that we not allow one religion (cult of LGBT) to force another (Christianity) to its knees; subjugating all that good wisdom to the role of slave to the other. Free will among many other things is a paramount ingredient of the Lessons. What LGBTs are after is forcing Christians to not be able to exercise free will to accept or reject another faith's dogma. This is the real evil of the Pennsylvania bridal shop issue. That and being forced to enable or promote a forbidden practice in direct defiance of the Christian's Divine Decree with respect to homosexuality taking over cultures.

This is the background and the heart of the 1st Amendment issue with respect to bakers, bridal shops, caterers and other businesses owned by otherwise flawed people of faith. That's why the cult of LGBT's moans and cries about "Christians are flawed people too, so they're not truly faithful, so they have no standing to resist!" is a red herring. Lot was a flawed muthafucka too. But he had enough of an understanding of God's Law to find favor and forgiveness of his other sins. All Christians are sinners. That can't be a reason to disqualify them from striving to uphold the Faith.

Tell you what, let's take this to the Religions forum. I will copy your last post here and paste it over there under the title "To Silhouette..."

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't find it offensive that people with their "religious beliefs" refuse someone serve, I do.

Do I find it offensive? Not really. But then, I'm not easily offended because I know who I am and I am secure in my place in the world and their ignorance doesn't change that. In short, being offended is a choice.

Look, the Bible says kill adulterers.

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

This is their "religious belief", or should be, right? Do they refuse service to adulterers? No, they almost certainly do not.

It's hypocritical, it's picking and choosing parts of the Bible that they want to choose, it's basically using the Bible as an excuse to hide their prejudices.

So, it's offensive, regardless of whether you think so or not.

Of course it is hypocritical. Hey, I'm with you when it comes to the hypocrisy and bigotry of some Christians. But people need to understand that while discrimination is illegal, bigotry is not. They have every right to hate whoever they want and to refuse their business to whoever they want.

Having said that, hate begets hate. Can you honestly deny that some of these voicemails came from a place of hate? Someone has to choose to stop the cycle of hate and telling someone "We're coming for you and your family" is not it.

Maybe being offended is a choice. Maybe some people see that offence is a way of forcing society to be a little better than neanderthal culture.

Not being offended will disarm haters much better than more hate and besides, simply being offended these days doesn't mean shit anyway. Everybody is offended by everything to the point that people are tiptoeing around each other. The word "racist" gets thrown around so much these days that it has lost all meaning. I always considered myself to be non-racist but imagine my surprise when I found out my white skin made me racist. Go figure.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that more hate won't stop the hate and being offended won't stop the hate. Being triggered by someone's bigotry says as much about you as it does them.

So, discrimination is illegal and bigotry is not, and they managed to do both......

You might say they discriminated but think about this: If it had been, say, a regular clothing store and the two came in just to buy dresses or whatever, I doubt they would have been turned away. The bridal shop turned them away not so much because the couple was gay but because they felt that to do business with them and sell them bridal gowns would have seemed that, in the eyes of God, they approved of the gay marriage and were complicit in the couple's sin.

Maybe that's a minor distinction, I don't know. But what concerned me the most about this story was the naked hatred coming from the callers. In my opinion, because of these disgusting threats, I see them as no better than the shop owner.

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

Well, in my post I pointed to what being offended does for society. It makes people aware of what others think is right and wrong.

So it does achieve something.

Most people who are secure in who they are, are people who use their brains. They know right from wrong, they're able to make sensible judgments about things. But that's a minority of people.

The majority work on a system of dealing with each situation as it comes along. Their judgment is based on what they've heard, what they've experienced. So if they've heard people talking about something, being judgmental about something, they'll use this as a basis for deciding how to make decisions.

So, people being offended is a very important part of how society works.

No, they didn't threaten, but they were abusive.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Do I find it offensive? Not really. But then, I'm not easily offended because I know who I am and I am secure in my place in the world and their ignorance doesn't change that. In short, being offended is a choice.

Of course it is hypocritical. Hey, I'm with you when it comes to the hypocrisy and bigotry of some Christians. But people need to understand that while discrimination is illegal, bigotry is not. They have every right to hate whoever they want and to refuse their business to whoever they want.

Having said that, hate begets hate. Can you honestly deny that some of these voicemails came from a place of hate? Someone has to choose to stop the cycle of hate and telling someone "We're coming for you and your family" is not it.

Maybe being offended is a choice. Maybe some people see that offence is a way of forcing society to be a little better than neanderthal culture.

Not being offended will disarm haters much better than more hate and besides, simply being offended these days doesn't mean shit anyway. Everybody is offended by everything to the point that people are tiptoeing around each other. The word "racist" gets thrown around so much these days that it has lost all meaning. I always considered myself to be non-racist but imagine my surprise when I found out my white skin made me racist. Go figure.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that more hate won't stop the hate and being offended won't stop the hate. Being triggered by someone's bigotry says as much about you as it does them.

So, discrimination is illegal and bigotry is not, and they managed to do both......

You might say they discriminated but think about this: If it had been, say, a regular clothing store and the two came in just to buy dresses or whatever, I doubt they would have been turned away. The bridal shop turned them away not so much because the couple was gay but because they felt that to do business with them and sell them bridal gowns would have seemed that, in the eyes of God, they approved of the gay marriage and were complicit in the couple's sin.

Maybe that's a minor distinction, I don't know. But what concerned me the most about this story was the naked hatred coming from the callers. In my opinion, because of these disgusting threats, I see them as no better than the shop owner.

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

Well, in my post I pointed to what being offended does for society. It makes people aware of what others think is right and wrong.

So it does achieve something.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're offended about. Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days. Everybody's offended by everything and most often for no other reason than because it's what everybody's doing. Besides, if we give being offended the due consideration you think we should, then we also have to consider that the shop owners are offended by homosexuality and the idea of gay marriage. Had you even thought about that? If the gays do not give equal consideration to the shop owners for their being offended then the gays' righteous chest beating doesn't mean shit.

No, they didn't threaten, but they were abusive.

No, they were not. Being abusive, by definition, is berating the other person and insulting them. All they did was refuse their business to the couple.

According to the article at Huffpost, the shop owner was quoted as saying to the couple: "I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re Christian and we don’t believe in that; our faith doesn’t let us believe in that." After that, the gay couple simply left the shop and nothing else was said between them.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like abusiveness to me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe being offended is a choice. Maybe some people see that offence is a way of forcing society to be a little better than neanderthal culture.

Not being offended will disarm haters much better than more hate and besides, simply being offended these days doesn't mean shit anyway. Everybody is offended by everything to the point that people are tiptoeing around each other. The word "racist" gets thrown around so much these days that it has lost all meaning. I always considered myself to be non-racist but imagine my surprise when I found out my white skin made me racist. Go figure.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that more hate won't stop the hate and being offended won't stop the hate. Being triggered by someone's bigotry says as much about you as it does them.

So, discrimination is illegal and bigotry is not, and they managed to do both......

You might say they discriminated but think about this: If it had been, say, a regular clothing store and the two came in just to buy dresses or whatever, I doubt they would have been turned away. The bridal shop turned them away not so much because the couple was gay but because they felt that to do business with them and sell them bridal gowns would have seemed that, in the eyes of God, they approved of the gay marriage and were complicit in the couple's sin.

Maybe that's a minor distinction, I don't know. But what concerned me the most about this story was the naked hatred coming from the callers. In my opinion, because of these disgusting threats, I see them as no better than the shop owner.

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

Well, in my post I pointed to what being offended does for society. It makes people aware of what others think is right and wrong.

So it does achieve something.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're offended about. Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days. Everybody's offended by everything and most often for no other reason than because it's what everybody's doing. Besides, if we give being offended the due consideration you think we should, then we also have to consider that the shop owners are offended by homosexuality and the idea of gay marriage. Had you even thought about that? If the gays do not give equal consideration to the shop owners for their being offended then the gays' righteous chest beating doesn't mean shit.

No, they didn't threaten, but they were abusive.

No, they were not. Being abusive, by definition, is berating the other person and insulting them. All they did was refuse their business to the couple.

According to the article at Huffpost, the shop owner was quoted as saying to the couple: "I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re Christian and we don’t believe in that; our faith doesn’t let us believe in that." After that, the gay couple simply left the shop and nothing else was said between them.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like abusiveness to me.

The problem with your sentence "Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days." is you're being offended that people are being offended. Ironic, huh?

Yes, some people are offended simply for the sake of being offended, and yes, it's kind of annoying.

Other people are offended, or feign offence, because they want the society they live in to be a BETTER PLACE.

I'd much rather live in a society where everyone gets along, rather than a society where everyone is going around treating each other badly and getting away with it with bullshit excuses like "this is what I believe".

Usually when someone says "believe", you know it's bullshit.

Yes, the shop owners might be offended by the gay people. That's fine. However they have chosen to be shop owners. They could have chosen not be shop owners.

They signed up to a deal that says they cannot discriminate. They can be as offended as they like, but they have to hide this because they have set up business in a society that has decided that tolerance is more important than what someone believes.


Well, refusing to serve someone because of how they were born is berating them. How would you like it if you kept getting refused in loads of shops because of how you were born?

Imagine a country where disabled people were considered to have committed sins in their previous life (this crap actually exists within Christianity and other religions) and that all religious shop owners were allowed to refuse all disabled people service.

However mental illness is also considered a sin, but people with mental illness don't get refused service because the shop owners can't see that they are mentally ill.

How would you feel? Would you want to live in such a society?

I wouldn't.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not being offended will disarm haters much better than more hate and besides, simply being offended these days doesn't mean shit anyway. Everybody is offended by everything to the point that people are tiptoeing around each other. The word "racist" gets thrown around so much these days that it has lost all meaning. I always considered myself to be non-racist but imagine my surprise when I found out my white skin made me racist. Go figure.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that more hate won't stop the hate and being offended won't stop the hate. Being triggered by someone's bigotry says as much about you as it does them.

You might say they discriminated but think about this: If it had been, say, a regular clothing store and the two came in just to buy dresses or whatever, I doubt they would have been turned away. The bridal shop turned them away not so much because the couple was gay but because they felt that to do business with them and sell them bridal gowns would have seemed that, in the eyes of God, they approved of the gay marriage and were complicit in the couple's sin.

Maybe that's a minor distinction, I don't know. But what concerned me the most about this story was the naked hatred coming from the callers. In my opinion, because of these disgusting threats, I see them as no better than the shop owner.

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

Well, in my post I pointed to what being offended does for society. It makes people aware of what others think is right and wrong.

So it does achieve something.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're offended about. Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days. Everybody's offended by everything and most often for no other reason than because it's what everybody's doing. Besides, if we give being offended the due consideration you think we should, then we also have to consider that the shop owners are offended by homosexuality and the idea of gay marriage. Had you even thought about that? If the gays do not give equal consideration to the shop owners for their being offended then the gays' righteous chest beating doesn't mean shit.

No, they didn't threaten, but they were abusive.

No, they were not. Being abusive, by definition, is berating the other person and insulting them. All they did was refuse their business to the couple.

According to the article at Huffpost, the shop owner was quoted as saying to the couple: "I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re Christian and we don’t believe in that; our faith doesn’t let us believe in that." After that, the gay couple simply left the shop and nothing else was said between them.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like abusiveness to me.

The problem with your sentence "Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days." is you're being offended that people are being offended. Ironic, huh?

There's a difference between being irritated and being offended. Don't confuse the two. I'm not offended by all this, I just think it's stupid.

Yes, some people are offended simply for the sake of being offended, and yes, it's kind of annoying.

Other people are offended, or feign offence, because they want the society they live in to be a BETTER PLACE.

Then again, some people just want society to change to suit their special needs. "I'm twenty five years old and still don't know what gender I am so I am offended that I can't use the ladies' room today and the mens' room tomorrow."

I'd much rather live in a society where everyone gets along, rather than a society where everyone is going around treating each other badly and getting away with it with bullshit excuses like "this is what I believe".

Usually when someone says "believe", you know it's bullshit.

You may be right about that but the thing is, people of faith are not the only ones who say "I believe...".

Yes, the shop owners might be offended by the gay people. That's fine. However they have chosen to be shop owners. They could have chosen not be shop owners.

That's true. But in their eyes, the gay couple could have chosen not to be gay. I don't agree with that myself but it's what they honestly believe.

Well, refusing to serve someone because of how they were born is berating them.

No, it's not. Webster's defines "Berate" as: "To scold and condemn vehemently and at length". So no, the shop owner did not berate them.

 

[rightwinger]

In July of 2017, a local bridal shop in Pennsylvania received threatening voicemails from LGBT activists, after a same-sex couple was denied service because it violated the shop owners moral obligation to uphold Christian values. Similar organizations have fallen victim to the viciousness of the LGBT supposedly tolerant community. Posted on the Bridal shop’s Facebook page were two voicemails

Local Pennsylvania Bridal Shop Harassed and Threatened By LGBT Activists After Turning Away Same Sex Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CREATING hate where there was none isn't it grand. wait until it all falls down around their superior attitudes and they're all knocked back down on their asses.

They should close their doors if they refuse to follow the law

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is society?

In the beginning society was a small group of people who worked together as a unit to be stronger than as the individual.
If you broke the rules of the society, you'd be kicked out of that society, or you'd serve some sort of punishment.

Basically if you thought you were better as an individual, you could go and prove, or not, that this was the case.

If you preferred having the protection of society and the benefits of society, then you followed and obeyed the rules of that society.

Now you're saying it's the other way around. That the individual is the most important in society and that individuals should be able to rub other individuals up the wrong way, and not suffer any consequences of those actions.

I disagree that this is the case.

Yes, individuals have more freedom now than they've ever had. Both due to economic factors but also because society is more willing to accept that than ever before.

However this doesn't mean that society should totally break down and that people shouldn't be offended by things, as they have done for the whole of humanity.

Being offended by things tells others what is acceptable as part of society, and what isn't.

You don't like that, go find your own piece of land and keep away from others.


I understand what these people's EXCUSE is. I just don't buy it. It's people using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and they think they can get away with it because there are a large number of Christians in the country with the same disgustingly bigoted views.

However it's a society that IS NOT a Christian society. This has been firmly written into the Constitution.

So, these people should not get their way because that is not what the country is about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never suggested that people should not be offended, I'm merely saying that, in and of itself, being offended doesn't really accomplish anything and only serves to further one's angst. To me, being offended suggests that, deep down, the offended party is not secure in who and what they are and they allow others' opinions to trigger them. Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.

As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Also, I never excused the behavior of the shop owner, I only pointed out that just shouting "bigot" does not tell the whole story. There's a difference between just hating gays and viewing homosexuality as immoral behavior.

But in an effort to keep the discussion from going further off the rails, if you remember, in my first post I only pointed out that the shop owner did not threaten nor were they abusive. Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't feel that being refused service justifies threatening a person and their family. I also find it hilariously ironic that people who preach tolerance and acceptance hypocritically threaten violence and then call the shop owner a hypocrite. The only thing the callers accomplished was keeping the cycle of hate rolling.

One last thing: being offended doesn't mean you are right. Don't you think a lot of Christians were offended when Joy Behr said that Mike Pence might have a mental problem and that he hears voices because he said he talks to God? It was offensive and an insult to his beliefs, misguided as they might be.

Well, in my post I pointed to what being offended does for society. It makes people aware of what others think is right and wrong.

So it does achieve something.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're offended about. Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days. Everybody's offended by everything and most often for no other reason than because it's what everybody's doing. Besides, if we give being offended the due consideration you think we should, then we also have to consider that the shop owners are offended by homosexuality and the idea of gay marriage. Had you even thought about that? If the gays do not give equal consideration to the shop owners for their being offended then the gays' righteous chest beating doesn't mean shit.

No, they didn't threaten, but they were abusive.

No, they were not. Being abusive, by definition, is berating the other person and insulting them. All they did was refuse their business to the couple.

According to the article at Huffpost, the shop owner was quoted as saying to the couple: "I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re Christian and we don’t believe in that; our faith doesn’t let us believe in that." After that, the gay couple simply left the shop and nothing else was said between them.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like abusiveness to me.

The problem with your sentence "Being offended seems to be the butthurt du jour these days." is you're being offended that people are being offended. Ironic, huh?

There's a difference between being irritated and being offended. Don't confuse the two. I'm not offended by all this, I just think it's stupid.

Yes, some people are offended simply for the sake of being offended, and yes, it's kind of annoying.

Other people are offended, or feign offence, because they want the society they live in to be a BETTER PLACE.

Then again, some people just want society to change to suit their special needs. "I'm twenty five years old and still don't know what gender I am so I am offended that I can't use the ladies' room today and the mens' room tomorrow."

I'd much rather live in a society where everyone gets along, rather than a society where everyone is going around treating each other badly and getting away with it with bullshit excuses like "this is what I believe".

Usually when someone says "believe", you know it's bullshit.

You may be right about that but the thing is, people of faith are not the only ones who say "I believe...".

Yes, the shop owners might be offended by the gay people. That's fine. However they have chosen to be shop owners. They could have chosen not be shop owners.

That's true. But in their eyes, the gay couple could have chosen not to be gay. I don't agree with that myself but it's what they honestly believe.

Well, refusing to serve someone because of how they were born is berating them.

No, it's not. Webster's defines "Berate" as: "To scold and condemn vehemently and at length". So no, the shop owner did not berate them.

Who wouldn't want society to suit their needs? Isn't that what voting is for?

No, they're not. Religious people are brought up to believe, rather than think. Other people just do it because society is trained towards this, rather than towards thinking.

Look at those on the right who see education as "indoctrination". In part education has to be indoctrination, you have to learn stuff, and when science is competing with made up religious stuff, then what?

It's all indoctrination if the truth is scorned.

Well, whether the people in the bridal shop believe something or not is neither here nor there really. What they should KNOW is that there are laws. They don't have to like the laws, they don't even have to follow them, but they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

As for berate, I disagree. I once got told by someone of the opposite sex that there were many different ways of communicating, because apparently I spoke to much. I stuck my middle finger up and said "like this?"

There are different ways of berating. Scolding can be done through hot water or through words. Therefore it can also be done in other ways. To tell someone "you're not welcome in shops in this country" is as scolding as throwing hot water over them.

 

[Lysistrata]

I wish that people like these shop owners would stop suggesting that they represent all people of the Christian faith. Their own group? Yes. Everyone? No.

I am opposed to threats of any sort. But I listened to the messages and find that they are no different from those received by LGBTs, Jews, Muslims, women's clinics, and pro-choice women, to name a few. Why are the people who run this shop so special?

 

[Moonglow]

In July of 2017, a local bridal shop in Pennsylvania received threatening voicemails from LGBT activists, after a same-sex couple was denied service because it violated the shop owners moral obligation to uphold Christian values. Similar organizations have fallen victim to the viciousness of the LGBT supposedly tolerant community. Posted on the Bridal shop’s Facebook page were two voicemails

Local Pennsylvania Bridal Shop Harassed and Threatened By LGBT Activists After Turning Away Same Sex Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CREATING hate where there was none isn't it grand. wait until it all falls down around their superior attitudes and they're all knocked back down on their asses.

The hate existed in the bridal shop since the owners were indoctrinated to hate gay people, whether they be male or female...The Bible doesn't say that women are not suppose to lay with women, just the men on men action.......

 

[OldLady]

In July of 2017, a local bridal shop in Pennsylvania received threatening voicemails from LGBT activists, after a same-sex couple was denied service because it violated the shop owners moral obligation to uphold Christian values. Similar organizations have fallen victim to the viciousness of the LGBT supposedly tolerant community. Posted on the Bridal shop’s Facebook page were two voicemails

Local Pennsylvania Bridal Shop Harassed and Threatened By LGBT Activists After Turning Away Same Sex Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CREATING hate where there was none isn't it grand. wait until it all falls down around their superior attitudes and they're all knocked back down on their asses.

Sounds to me like both sides are guilty of "superior attitudes." "Moral obligation to uphold Christian values?" Nothing superior in that, oh no.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Are gays normal people, or special people?

 

[rightwinger]

Are gays normal people, or special people?

Just people

 

[mdk]

I am quite special, but that has nothing to do with me being a poof. Being uncommonly awesome just comes naturally to me.

 

[rightwinger]

Bigots and racists should not be allowed to marry

Bridal shops should refuse them service

 

[Aba Incieni]

Are gays normal people, or special people?

Just people

Then why are other people forced to sell them things not offered to anyone who isn't gay.