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

[Coyote]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

 

[rightwinger]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

“End Time Headlines”. A radical right wing religious site. No bias or bigotry there!

Where’s the police report. No evidence that this even happened.

Do a Google search for "bloomsburg bridal shop gay couple" and you'll get hits from Huffington Post, New York Daily News and a local TV station as well as a number of LGBT and Christian sites.

 

[Rustic]

I consider myself on the right track if I’m offending progressives...

 

[MaryL]

Gays need a little more gaiety and less animosity . In a free and open world , nobody is obliged to like anyone, and that's what freedom is about. And best left at that. Acceptance is what it is...

 

[rightwinger]

Gays need a little more gaiety and less animosity . In a free and open world , nobody is obliged to like anyone, and that's what freedom is about. And best left at that. Acceptance is what it is...

Christians need to be more Christian and ask what Jesus would do

Persecuting gays is not Christian

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

I remember reading an article years ago (National Geographic I believe) about the adoption of Sharia law in a certain sector or area in Indonesia. There were officers that patrolled the streets and made sure Sharia law was followed and that everyone dressed and behaved properly. One of the Muslims they talked to said it would not apply to non-Muslims. At the time I read the article I knew it would just be a matter of time. Well, Lo and behold, a news story comes up about two Christians being publicly caned for playing a children's game that was banned for violating Sharia law.

If you ever get the silly notion that Muslims don't force their religion on others, just remember this story.

 

[Coyote]

To hear the messages, click on this link
Local Pennsylvania Bridal Shop Harassed and Threatened By LGBT Activists After Turning Away Same Sex Couple

Should be arrested for their threats to the owners and their families and employees.

It's funny when NFL players kneel, the right wingers get in a huff. When it happens the other way around, all of a sudden it's those protesting that are bad.

The people who left the voicemails were not protesting, they were being verbally abusive and issuing threats.

Sure, they're doing something that isn't very ethical.

But then again the bridal shop is also doing something that is unethical.

Some believe in fighting fire with fire, don't they?

You turn around and not only threaten, but actually act on those threats, of kicking people out of your shop, what do you expect to happen back?

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?

They don't "believe" they have the right to marriage. They HAVE the right to marriage according to the law. If the bridal shop "believes" otherwise then they need to address the law nor refuse service.

 

[MaryL]

Gays need a little more gaiety and less animosity . In a free and open world , nobody is obliged to like anyone, and that's what freedom is about. And best left at that. Acceptance is what it is...

Christians need to be more Christian and ask what Jesus would do

Persecuting gays is not Christian

I am not a Christian.. so who thinks using discretion and picking and choosing your customers, and not baking them a silly cake, is THAT persecution? This is just silly.

 

[Coyote]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

I remember reading an article years ago (National Geographic I believe) about the adoption of Sharia law in a certain sector or area in Indonesia. There were officers that patrolled the streets and made sure Sharia law was followed and that everyone dressed and behaved properly. One of the Muslims they talked to said it would not apply to non-Muslims. At the time I read the article I knew it would just be a matter of time. Well, Lo and behold, a news story comes up about two Christians being publicly caned for playing a children's game that was banned for violating Sharia law.

If you ever get the silly notion that Muslims don't force their religion on others, just remember this story.

What does that have to do with the topic?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 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?

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

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.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

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.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

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.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

What should society "be held hostage to" then?

To people who can't leave people alone and let them make their own decisions?

To people who want guns?

Isn't the US about people having individual freedoms? To make their own decisions and not have the govt tell them what they are, who they are etc?

What you're talking about with the Walmart thing is different. One thing is about people being able to live in society as an equal member, another is about people being opportunistic and using a culture of going to court over anything and everything.

I doubt that woman was actually offended, she was being opportunistic.

That exists because the government makes the laws and makes them beneficial for the lawyers (because how many politicians are lawyers?)

The US has a higher prison population, a higher murder rate, a higher rate of lawyers and the like. It's clearly not working to make things better.

The US wastes so much money on healthcare (insurance companies profits, hospital profits, pharma company profits, corruption, unnecessary companies, all leeching off that system) lawyers and the like, it's ridiculous.


As for critical thinking skills, the US is better than the far east, but not much. The political system is one where politicians advertise to death, and people with critical thinking are less easy to advertise to. It's not in their interests to have a better education system. The rich like it too, they can control govt more easily with their money.

It favors too many people to change.

Actually, when you sign up as a business you sign up to a whole host of laws that aren't applicable to normal citizens.
Most places have laws that prevent you from treating people differently based on how they were born.

For example, race. You can't have a colored section of your restaurant or bus.

The case of the wedding dress is the same as sticking blacks at the back of the bus, or separating them in restaurants. The US dealt with that in the 1950s, that it should still be an issue in the US in 2018 shows just how backwards parts of the US are.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

To hear the messages, click on this link
Local Pennsylvania Bridal Shop Harassed and Threatened By LGBT Activists After Turning Away Same Sex Couple

Should be arrested for their threats to the owners and their families and employees.

It's funny when NFL players kneel, the right wingers get in a huff. When it happens the other way around, all of a sudden it's those protesting that are bad.

The people who left the voicemails were not protesting, they were being verbally abusive and issuing threats.

Sure, they're doing something that isn't very ethical.

But then again the bridal shop is also doing something that is unethical.

Some believe in fighting fire with fire, don't they?

You turn around and not only threaten, but actually act on those threats, of kicking people out of your shop, what do you expect to happen back?

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?

They don't "believe" they have the right to marriage. They HAVE the right to marriage according to the law. If the bridal shop "believes" otherwise then they need to address the law nor refuse service.

We don't know that the bridal shop owner believes gays don't have the right (by law) to get married. The only thing we know for sure is that they believe it is immoral.

 

[Tilly]

It's funny when NFL players kneel, the right wingers get in a huff. When it happens the other way around, all of a sudden it's those protesting that are bad.

The people who left the voicemails were not protesting, they were being verbally abusive and issuing threats.

Sure, they're doing something that isn't very ethical.

But then again the bridal shop is also doing something that is unethical.

Some believe in fighting fire with fire, don't they?

You turn around and not only threaten, but actually act on those threats, of kicking people out of your shop, what do you expect to happen back?

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?

They don't "believe" they have the right to marriage. They HAVE the right to marriage according to the law. If the bridal shop "believes" otherwise then they need to address the law nor refuse service.

We don't know that the bridal shop owner believes gays don't have the right (by law) to get married. The only thing we know for sure is that they believe it is immoral.

Yep. And that they want no part of it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

I remember reading an article years ago (National Geographic I believe) about the adoption of Sharia law in a certain sector or area in Indonesia. There were officers that patrolled the streets and made sure Sharia law was followed and that everyone dressed and behaved properly. One of the Muslims they talked to said it would not apply to non-Muslims. At the time I read the article I knew it would just be a matter of time. Well, Lo and behold, a news story comes up about two Christians being publicly caned for playing a children's game that was banned for violating Sharia law.

If you ever get the silly notion that Muslims don't force their religion on others, just remember this story.

What does that have to do with the topic?

Wasn't it you that mentioned religious freedom? My point is that the Christian bridal shop owners are being criticized harshly for exercising their religious freedom whereas no one has anything to say about things like this that go on in the Muslim world.

 

[Tilly]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

I remember reading an article years ago (National Geographic I believe) about the adoption of Sharia law in a certain sector or area in Indonesia. There were officers that patrolled the streets and made sure Sharia law was followed and that everyone dressed and behaved properly. One of the Muslims they talked to said it would not apply to non-Muslims. At the time I read the article I knew it would just be a matter of time. Well, Lo and behold, a news story comes up about two Christians being publicly caned for playing a children's game that was banned for violating Sharia law.

If you ever get the silly notion that Muslims don't force their religion on others, just remember this story.

What does that have to do with the topic?

Wasn't it you that mentioned religious freedom? My point is that the Christian bridal shop owners are being criticized harshly for exercising their religious freedom whereas no one has anything to say about things like this that go on in the Muslim world.

It’s not only in the muslim world, muslims in America have refused service to gays and to women, but not a peep from those who are apoplectic when Christians do it. The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[Tilly]

And you expose your Christianophobia and hypocrisy by singling out Christians and ignoring muslims, for example.
Thanks for illustrating my point

I don’t see Muslims forcing their doctrine on this country
I see Christians

Yes, it’s obvious you see what you want to see, but the fact is Muslims also refuse to bake the cakes, cut the hair etc. It’s the same, but you lefties and the alphabet militants are skeeered of Islam and have declared war on Christians. It’s clearly not about the principle, your hypocrisy illustrates that. Thank you again.

The poster above is simply a lying dotard.

Muslims and Liberals.....joined at the hip.

Schools' 'anti-bullying' agenda teams w/'Muslim mafia'
The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) if partnering with the terrorist-tied CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) in an effort to fight bullying and “Islamophobia” at schools – a secretive, informal alliance over which five families are suing the district.

Parents disclosed evidence in the lawsuit that SDUSD did not cancel its CAIR “anti-Islamophobia” program as it claimed – exposing information that school officials are continuing their relationship with the Muslim group that has already been exposed for its ties and involvement in Islamic terrorism.

....exposing the SDUSD’s controversial teachings that many angry parents contended were intended to portray Islam and its jihadist teachings in a biased and deceptively favorable light."
Schools' 'anti-bullying' agenda teams w/'Muslim mafia'

Thank you, PoliticalChick.
From your link.
Waiting for leftie outrage


...
After reviewing the materials and teachings, it was discovered that the anti-Islamophobia curriculum adopted and implemented by San Diego public schools was more about giving special privileges to Muslim students and indoctrinating students to view Islam with a pro-Muslim perspective – without giving a realistic take on jihad and the truth behind Islamic terrorism.

“The program – the families argued – singled out Muslim students for special accommodations and called for changes to school curricula to make it more favorable to Islam,” Moore noted. “It also allowed CAIR officials into classrooms to teach students about Islam and ‘how to be allies’ to Muslim students.”

It was also divulged that taxpayer money was used to pay the Islamic group for school supplies from CAIR, which is often referred to as the “Muslim mafia.”

“The district [also] purchased thousands of dollars of CAIR’s recommended teaching materials, which were then distributed to the schools,” Moore added...

Schools' 'anti-bullying' agenda teams w/'Muslim mafia'

Special accommodations for Muslims was allowing them to pray

If you can’t even be bothered to read the article, you probably shouldn't bother posting idiotic drivel.

 

[Witchit]

I'm starting to think that expecting one's civil rights to be upheld means one is an activist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What does this topic have to do with Muslims anyway? It's about a bridal shop talking about "religious rights" to not serve a gay couple.

What I wonder ... in situations like this ... are "religious rights" being stretched to the point of being meaningless? You might not personally approve of same sex marriage...but there is nothing in doctrine specifically denouncing it.

Here is one side of the problem. A wonderful friend of mine, in fact - the woman who got my dog Cowboy back on his feet and walking - is a lesbian. She and her long term partner were finally able to be married when their state's laws changed. They did and invited me. It was a lovely ceremony but I noted that there was a very last minute change of venue...and a few other last minute changes. And the reason was...you guessed.

So...what does a couple do when confronted by discrimination disguised as religious freedom? It's not like they can go into a bridal shop and know ahead of time it won't serve same sex couples. No. Instead they face the humiliation of being told - nicely - we don't serve your kind.

I'll add that I don't approve of gay couples DELIBRATEY trying to create a situation by going somewhere they KNOW won't serve them and setting them up. That isn't right either.

But my friend when through a lot of small and big hurts for her wedding - the greatest day of her life with the love of her life. She shouldn't have had to.

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

After years of fighting, the religious right lost on same sex marriage
Not being able to stop the marriage, the next available option is to harass same sex couples. No wedding venue, photographs, cakes, honeymoon suites ........all in the name of religious freedom

I remember reading an article years ago (National Geographic I believe) about the adoption of Sharia law in a certain sector or area in Indonesia. There were officers that patrolled the streets and made sure Sharia law was followed and that everyone dressed and behaved properly. One of the Muslims they talked to said it would not apply to non-Muslims. At the time I read the article I knew it would just be a matter of time. Well, Lo and behold, a news story comes up about two Christians being publicly caned for playing a children's game that was banned for violating Sharia law.

If you ever get the silly notion that Muslims don't force their religion on others, just remember this story.

What does that have to do with the topic?

Wasn't it you that mentioned religious freedom? My point is that the Christian bridal shop owners are being criticized harshly for exercising their religious freedom whereas no one has anything to say about things like this that go on in the Muslim world.

I think people know this goes on in the Muslim world, but this is about the US and the US Constitution. So why would you bring up the Muslim world?

 

[Coyote]

Muslims are not the topic here, let’s not derail the thread.

 

[Coyote]

It's funny when NFL players kneel, the right wingers get in a huff. When it happens the other way around, all of a sudden it's those protesting that are bad.

The people who left the voicemails were not protesting, they were being verbally abusive and issuing threats.

Sure, they're doing something that isn't very ethical.

But then again the bridal shop is also doing something that is unethical.

Some believe in fighting fire with fire, don't they?

You turn around and not only threaten, but actually act on those threats, of kicking people out of your shop, what do you expect to happen back?

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?

They don't "believe" they have the right to marriage. They HAVE the right to marriage according to the law. If the bridal shop "believes" otherwise then they need to address the law nor refuse service.

We don't know that the bridal shop owner believes gays don't have the right (by law) to get married. The only thing we know for sure is that they believe it is immoral.

And that means they should be allowed to discriminate?

What about other “immoral” or “sinful” behavior?