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

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

None of this applies to the muslim world nor in fact to any other country since relates to to US law so why derail the thread into yet another topic on muslims? Now if you are talking about muslim wedding business' IN the US then YES they absolutely have to comply in the same way.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

However it is important to remember that 69% of Americans identify as Christian, with 1% each as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other, and 2% as Jewish. That means you are far more likely to be rejected by a Christian establishment then the others due to demographics.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Of course it is wrong. Did you see where I said if they are Muslim they need to comply the same standards? Same with Jews. Same with Hindus. Same with athiests.

Then why did you think it was relevant to bring up that I would more likely be rejected by a Christian because there are more of them?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

 

[rightwinger]

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Show me a case IN THIS COUNTRY where Muslims persecuted gays and got away with it

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

Legally, they broke no laws

There is no law against discriminating against someone who is pretending to be gay

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

Adultery breaks a commandment. There is no commandment against being gay

Yet that shop will sell to those who commit adultery

 

[flacaltenn]

Well whaddayouknow? A Libertarian American Muslim cleric explains all this..



Do muslims get sued for refusal to serve?

Sure... they do. Barbers can legally refuse WOMEN --- but not Lesbians.

Faith McGregor Sues Omar Mahrouk, Muslim Barber, For Refusing To Cut Her Hair | HuffPost

Question is --- Can gay shop owners refuse to cater fundy Baptist events? Or can I refuse to serve a neo-Nazi group?

We should NOT have laws to settle any of this. It should be done by true moral/ethical conviction. But in the presence of a LAW --- I'm gonna speak out like the Muslim cleric in the vid -- lecture them about my convictions and bake them the fucking cake anyways.. Maybe wear my religious garb to their affair when I deliver the goods and CONTINUE to lecture to them. It's ALL part of the same 1st Amendment..

 

[Coyote]

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Show me a case IN THIS COUNTRY where Muslims persecuted gays and got away with it

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

 

[Coyote]

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.

None of this applies to the muslim world nor in fact to any other country since relates to to US law so why derail the thread into yet another topic on muslims? Now if you are talking about muslim wedding business' IN the US then YES they absolutely have to comply in the same way.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

However it is important to remember that 69% of Americans identify as Christian, with 1% each as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other, and 2% as Jewish. That means you are far more likely to be rejected by a Christian establishment then the others due to demographics.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Of course it is wrong. Did you see where I said if they are Muslim they need to comply the same standards? Same with Jews. Same with Hindus. Same with athiests.

Then why did you think it was relevant to bring up that I would more likely be rejected by a Christian because there are more of them?

Simple statistics. Not Christian persecution. Why bring up Muslims?

 

[Coyote]

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But still is hardly welcoming. Perhaps they should post a sign we are a (insert religion) business and only server heterosexual (or homosexual or same race couples) but we would be happy to refer you to other places that do a top notch job.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Christians are the ones taking their right to discriminate to the Supreme Court

That is why we are talking about Christians

It doesn't change the fact that they are disproportionately criticized for what people deem to be discrimination when everyone knows that Muslims feel the same way about gays.

You are allowed to feel any way you want
But it is actions done as part of your business that draw criticism

Christians are using their religious beliefs as an excuse for violating the law

Their religious beliefs make them uncomfortable with the idea of being complicit in a gay couple's sin. I hardly think their goal is to violate the law.

Then you are placing your religion over your business and should be willing to face the consequences for your god

Your religion does not place you above the law

Maybe, maybe not. But the point is that they didn't refuse their business to the gay couple just to violate the law or as an excuse to be racist.

I don't know if you're a person of faith or not (I'm an atheist myself) but to most people of faith, their beliefs are very real to them and they don't take matters like this lightly.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Show me a case IN THIS COUNTRY where Muslims persecuted gays and got away with it

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

Legally, they broke no laws

There is no law against discriminating against someone who is pretending to be gay

I'm beginning to think you are as dense as I feared. I did not say they broke the law. The video did not say they broke the law. No one said they broke the law. But the fact remains that the bakers DID NOT KNOW that the guy was not gay. They believed he was and they refused to bake the cake for him. Jesus, why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Quite. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant, it’s either wrong for a person of any religion to deny service to gays based upon their religious convictions, or it isn’t.
But it seems the LGBTQ peeps and their supporters in this don’t see It that way, as muslims are denying service to gays and .....silence.
The Hypocrites aren’t in the least bit interested in targeting anyone who isn’t Christian, so it’s not exactly the principal that’s the thing.

Show me a case IN THIS COUNTRY where Muslims persecuted gays and got away with it

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

Adultery breaks a commandment. There is no commandment against being gay

Yet that shop will sell to those who commit adultery

Hey, I'm with you on this. I spent a lot of time on other discussion forums debating with Christians so I know all about the cherrypicking. However, if there's cherrypicking being done in the Christian community then there's also cherrypicking by those who criticize them. All I'm doing here is trying to get you guys to pan that spotlight you have on the Christians to the left just a little bit to see the bigger picture.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

None of this applies to the muslim world nor in fact to any other country since relates to to US law so why derail the thread into yet another topic on muslims? Now if you are talking about muslim wedding business' IN the US then YES they absolutely have to comply in the same way.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

However it is important to remember that 69% of Americans identify as Christian, with 1% each as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other, and 2% as Jewish. That means you are far more likely to be rejected by a Christian establishment then the others due to demographics.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Of course it is wrong. Did you see where I said if they are Muslim they need to comply the same standards? Same with Jews. Same with Hindus. Same with athiests.

Then why did you think it was relevant to bring up that I would more likely be rejected by a Christian because there are more of them?

Simple statistics. Not Christian persecution.

Statistics are not going to matter if a gay couple is denied by a Muslim baker so they are irrelevant here.

Why bring up Muslims?

Because they believe homosexuality is a sin too and as we saw in the video, are just as capable of denying service for the same reason as any Christian business.

 

[Coyote]

Show me a case IN THIS COUNTRY where Muslims persecuted gays and got away with it

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).

Stupidly done, for example - acting like a extremely flaming gay as opposed to a normal same sex couple planning a wedding? Asking for outrageous things to be written on the cake?

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

 

[Coyote]

None of this applies to the muslim world nor in fact to any other country since relates to to US law so why derail the thread into yet another topic on muslims? Now if you are talking about muslim wedding business' IN the US then YES they absolutely have to comply in the same way.

And we've seen where they won't. And I'm not derailing the thread. I bring up Muslims to use as a comparison to show how Christians are disproportionately criticized for this sort of thing.

However it is important to remember that 69% of Americans identify as Christian, with 1% each as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other, and 2% as Jewish. That means you are far more likely to be rejected by a Christian establishment then the others due to demographics.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Demographics and who is more likely to reject my business are irrelevant.

Of course it is wrong. Did you see where I said if they are Muslim they need to comply the same standards? Same with Jews. Same with Hindus. Same with athiests.

Then why did you think it was relevant to bring up that I would more likely be rejected by a Christian because there are more of them?

Simple statistics. Not Christian persecution.

Statistics are not going to matter if a gay couple is denied by a Muslim baker so they are irrelevant here.

Why bring up Muslims?

Because they believe homosexuality is a sin too and as we saw in the video, are just as capable of denying service for the same reason as any Christian business.

Of course they are. As do Jews. The Abrahamic faiths (and for that matter, many athiests as well) are not very tolerant.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

I'm just putting things in perspective. My point was to illustrate how Christians are vilified in this country for things like this whereas Muslims get a free pass. If we look at this objectively and pull back to look at the big picture, what the bridal shop owners did seems trivial by comparison.

Well, that depends on how you feel like looking at it.

I see it from the point of view that people should be able to live in their own country as an equal, and not have a caste system imposed.

Again, you're blowing this way out of proportion. I don't get the impression that they want to relegate gays to some lower social standard. At least not in this particular case. All they did was refuse to make a wedding cake for them.

I don't see Muslims get a free pass, I see people manipulating the media and readers who pick and choose what they see and don't see.

Steven Crowder has a show on crtv.com, a conservative website, called Louder With Crowder. He posted a video of him and a friend going to various Muslim bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and requesting a gay wedding cake. He doesn't say how many shops he went to but he did say that "a lot of them" agreed to do it but at the same time, "a lot of them" would not. The video shows at least three different Muslim bakeries refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

So I would say that yes, Muslims get a free pass on this one. I don't know of any cases where Muslim businesses actually refused service to gay couples but at least we know now there are some who won't.

Blowing it out of proportion for WHO exactly?

For the people who wouldn't suffer because they're not gay, or the people who are looking at a country which is 69% Christian. Imagine if the 69% Christian population was allowed to not serve gay people.

Life would become impossible in their own country. They're be third class citizens in their own country, just like black people were in certain places. That's be taking the country back to before the 1950s.

Is that blowing things out of proportion? I don't think so. I think it's putting it into the right proportion.

So Muslim bakeries don't do it either. Hardly surprising.

Probably why they get a "free pass" is because there are only 1% Muslims in the US. Being stopped from going to 1% of bakeries which are probably in specific areas isn't going to impact a person very much. Being stopped from going into 69% of bakeries and other such places will have a massive impact on their life.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

So, if I think it's immoral to be black, I can discriminate then?

I'm just reminding you of the facts. We don't know anything one way or the other about the bridal shop owner's views on gay marriage rights. The question is whether or not the shop had the right to deny business to the gay couple.

And did they?

No, they did not.

So.... guilty as charged.

That has yet to be determined.

Well, sure. In the US people don't always get prosecuted for the crimes they do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The links are already in this thread and you chose to ignore them. Go look for them if you’re actually genuinely interested in honest debate (highly doubtful indeed).

They were phony video setups that were never prosecuted

Show me a real one

Is denying gays your business only wrong if you are prosecuted for it? That's like saying that murder is okay unless you're charged with the crime.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse but let me explain it anyway in case you're as dense as I fear: The Muslims in the video did not know it was a setup, i.e., they thought he was a legitimate customer asking for a gay wedding cake. And they refused him. How many different ways can you tapdance around that fact?

I think you are mixing issues here. In my personal opinion, it is wrong regardless, just like refusing to serve mixed race couples. But you cannot claim unfairness in prosecution if there is no law.

I claimed nothing other than that Muslims would refuse (or have refused) to bake a gay wedding cake. The video proved that.

I do think that conservative Muslims, like conservative Christians would often not be willing cater to same sex weddings. However - that video proved nothing if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Is it the one referenced in this article? Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

I saw that article. He mentions that the only shop to answer negatively was a shop called Hallab or something and that the shop doesn't even sell wedding cakes. But that's not the guy told him in the video. He said: "I don't want it."

The other thing that rings of something off is this...why did the videographer choose a Muslim? Why not a Jew? A Hindu? If it is the video I am thinking of, they went all over Dearborn trying to trap a Muslim baker and the baker they finally got didn’t do wedding cakes at all.

He chose a Muslim shop because any idiot knows that Muslims think homosexuality is a sin as well. Hindus and Jews are not known for this. He was trying to point out that Christians are not the only ones who think homosexuality is a sin. Also, there were three different Muslim bakeries in the video. Two of them told him to go to other bakeries and one flat out told him "No, I don't want it."

Conservative Jews are known for it. Same holy texts reference same sex acts as abominations.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it comes basically from the same text and I've no doubt there are a few Jews who see homosexuality as immoral. What I said is that Jews are not known for this. Probably because they're not as vocal about it.

I have no doubt the Muslim community here is any more tolerant on average then the Christian community, but why such a pathetic set up?

Are you upset that it was a setup or that the Muslim baker refused him?

Neither. It was just so stupidly done in an attempt to redirect the conversation - oh look at those horrible Muslims they do it too (logical fallacy).[/QUOTE]

Let me get something straight, I'm not a Christian and I do not condone what the bridal shop owner did. I'm not suggesting that they did or did not have the right to do what they did but I don't condone it either. The only, and I mean the only reason I brought up Muslims was to have everyone look at the issue from a wider perspective and illustrate how Christians are criticized more harshly and more often. Even as a non-Christian I can see that. Christianity gets all the licks because everyone's shit scared to criticize Islam or Muslims. And if you do, you're labeled as racist or islamaphobic.

In my opinion, if you serve the public as a wedding supplier of some item or service - you serve the public. That means if it's different-sex or same-sex, you serve them in the same way. That doesn't mean if you normally bake pies and cookies, they can demand you make a wedding cake since you don't normally do that. That also doesn't mean you can demand a cake with lewd or erotic or offensive phrases unless that is what you would normally so for an opposite-sex couple.

It doesn't matter what religion you are unless you are seeking to demonize a religion rather than fight for equal rights to service.

First of all, what lewd and erotic phrases did he ask for? I've watched the entire video about three times now and I haven't seen or heard anything remotely lewd or erotic. Secondly, Crowder said himself towards the end of the video that he feels that both the Christian baker and the Muslim baker should have the right to deny service if they feel that it will engage them in an activity they don't agree with. So it wasn't his aim to point a finger at Muslims. His aim was to show that, as I've said, that Christians are disproportionately criticized more than other groups.

 

[flacaltenn]

Coffee shop in Oakland Ca just posted this..

Hasta Muerte Coffee on Instagram: “Last Friday February 16th a police (OPD) entered our shop and was told by one of our worker-owners that “we have a policy of asking police…”

Seems like EVERYBODY has the right to refuse service to ANYONE except protected classes. And IN THIS case, the officer that was refused was Latino. But that does not protect him from being excluded. Does it??

So I suppose it would be just dandy to refuse service to gays once you find something POLITICALLY objectionable about them.. After all, the masses have the right to political boycott of businesses. Why not the owners of the business doing a bit of pre-emptive boycott of certain political connections. Already HUNDREDS of businesses with "No Trump Supporters" signs.

Under those scenarios --- we should reconsider the entire practice of suing for service. Because it's SO DAMN easy to defeat by just advertising to people's political class rather than any protected status.

You should live in fear that other folks will figure out this "game cheat" because that's the trigger to total disintegration of our country thru political unrest.