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

[BS Filter]

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

 

[Silhouette]

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

The problem is that LGBT are behaviors, not inborn. So the legal premise was fucked up from day one. And hence all the problems. You cannot force people to condone or participate in sacred ceremonies that include blasphemy to their religion by the behaviors going on. There will never be a time when women laying with women or men laying with men is "marriage" to a Christian, or to a Muslim.

So the bad premise that ignored LGBT as behaviors is to blame, not the Christians saying "we cannot participate in what you call a "gay wedding".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

 

[BS Filter]

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

If religion is not a valid excuse to turn away a gay couple then hurt feelings and anger are not a valid excuse to threaten someone.

And, (you're gonna love this) the callers broke the law when they threatened the shop owner. Pennsylvania has a law against harassment that defines harassment, among other things, as :

(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

I think you're confusing "condone" with "condemn". But anyway, that's still no excuse.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

If religion is not a valid excuse to turn away a gay couple then hurt feelings and anger are not a valid excuse to threaten someone.

And, (you're gonna love this) the callers broke the law when they threatened the shop owner. Pennsylvania has a law against harassment that defines harassment, among other things, as :

(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

I think you're confusing "condone" with "condemn". But anyway, that's still no excuse.

No, they're not. There should be no excuse for threatening people, nor for committing acts of violence, which is why these are banned.

But nor should there be any place in society for those who wish to marginalize others.

So, neither side did right. The law isn't on the side of either. However there are those who might try and disagree.

Haha, I didn't get condone confused with condemn, I actually wrote it right, and then changed the "No, I don't" to "sure" because I'm constantly doing two or three things at once and don't pay attention.

 

[BS Filter]

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

69% of the US is Christian. 1% is Muslim.

Which do you think would be worse for gay people to be rejected by?

Also, does it matter? If they make the law work for them with one case, then it'll apply to the Muslims too.

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

 

[BS Filter]

First of all, percentage of who is muslim and who is Christian isn't a point regarding the law. Second, Christians are targeted because they aren't a protected class. Muslims are a protected class just like queers are.

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it's not. And we're not talking about the law here.

We're talking about how gay people would suffer the most.

Which is worse? If you wouldn't be served by 69% of stores, or if you wouldn't be served by 1% of stores?

Often what happens is these people go in and make a point so they can change the law. They choose a bakery they think will break the law and they go in and try it out. They did this and the bakery and bridal shop both broke the law.

So then the case goes to the courts. If they win, then ALL stores will have to comply with this.

Muslim and Christian.

The chances that they're going to target a Christian bakery or bridal store is probably about 69 to 1. So your whinging and moaning isn't going to get you anywhere.

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

 

[BS Filter]

No, we're not talking about how queers would suffer the most. We're talking about queers targeting Christians and denying Christians their Constitutional rights.

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

I made my point. What's your point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Cut it with the insults, then maybe I'll talk.

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

I made my point. What's your point?

My point is I don't talk with people if they make childish insults.

So you can either deal with it, or not. That's your choice.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm not making any insults. Make your point.

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

I made my point. What's your point?

My point is I don't talk with people if they make childish insults.

So you can either deal with it, or not. That's your choice.

And I told you "queers" isn't an insult. So make your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"queers" is an insult.

Try writing what you want to say without insults.

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

I made my point. What's your point?

My point is I don't talk with people if they make childish insults.

So you can either deal with it, or not. That's your choice.

And I told you "queers" isn't an insult. So make your point.

I'm not interested. Bye.

 

[BS Filter]

No, "queers" is not an insult. Homos call themselves "queers". They use LGBTQ often in the media. Now get on with it and make your point.

Whatever.... you want to get your point across.....

I made my point. What's your point?

My point is I don't talk with people if they make childish insults.

So you can either deal with it, or not. That's your choice.

And I told you "queers" isn't an insult. So make your point.

I'm not interested. Bye.

Bye.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

Some Muslim bakers won't make a cake for queer weddings either. Why do we never hear about the queer mafia targeting them?

That video was highly edited and proven to be fake years ago

 

[Fang]

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.

I stand by the shop owners right to hold that religious belief, but I don't agree they should not sell to same sex. If you own a shop that's open to the public, then it's open to everybody. Period. This couple is getting legally married with or without that shop's dresses. The shop isn't contributing to something they don't believe. Just sell the dresses and move on. God won't think any less of you.