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

[frigidweirdo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that means they should be allowed to discriminate?

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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.

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

The poster above is simply a lying dotard.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Special accommodations for Muslims was allowing them to pray

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

The article was a racist propaganda piece I got what needed to be derived from it.

 

[rightwinger]

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

What does that have to do with the topic?

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

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

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.

What a joke

Christians run this country. They have the president in their pocket
Muslims live in the shadows afraid to offend the radical right

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that means they should be allowed to discriminate?

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

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.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

Okay, I checked the Constitution and it says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So what are we arguing about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

What does that have to do with the topic?

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

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

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.

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.

Like when the Paris attacks happened and there were people on the right saying "why don't Muslims condemn these attacks?" and I went and looked and found hundreds of prominent Muslims who had done just that. It was just that some people didn't see this because they chose not to see it.

 

[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.

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.

What a joke

Christians run this country. They have the president in their pocket
Muslims live in the shadows afraid to offend the radical right

Oh I doubt that. Besides, Trump's only been in office for a little over a year.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that means they should be allowed to discriminate?

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

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.

 

[Tilly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

[MindWars]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's all indoctrination if the truth is scorned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should society "be held hostage to" then?

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

To people who want guns?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

It favors too many people to change.

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

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

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

Bet if your stupid ass was getting raped you'd wish you had a gun in that moment., or would you be like one of those idiots in Europe who excuse an illegal " just cause he didn't know any better" poor baby.

OMG you idiots and these guns please begin to realize how gawd dam stupid you loons are.

Oh and lets guess you would instantly kill if you had something to do it with esp. if it came to your kid.

HYPOCRITE

 

[Tilly]

Seems not only are they within their constitutional right to practise their religion freely, but a law to force them to participate in alphabet weddings is also not in existence in the area from which they work.

Despite this - and getting back to the title of the thread which is actually about the threats and harassment from LGBTQ activists - they were on the receiving end of the tolerance so typically shown by the alphabet militants - ‘we are coming for you and your family’ we will destroy your property ...etc etc etc.

The lesbians wishing to use the shop were locals and admit they were aware of a similar ‘event’ occurring earlier, but claim they didn’t know it involved that shop. They were also apparently unaware that there is no law in this area forcing shop owners to act against their deeply held religious beliefs

Anyway, since we are about 9 pages in, maybe some of the lefties (who seem keen to push the idea that it is only Christians who deny service to the alphabet people ) would care to address the topic of the thread which is the threats of violence against the shop owners from the LGBTQxyz?
Thanks.


Christian-Owned Bridal Shop In Pennsylvania Closes Its Doors to Public After Receiving Death Threats for Denying Lesbian Couple a Wedding Dress

A Christian-owned bridal shop in Pennsylvania has temporarily closed its doors to the public and is now only accepting appointments after its owner received threats because the shop refused to serve a lesbian couple looking for a wedding dress, a source close to the situation told The Christian Post.

...”The owners of W.W. Bridal Boutique reserve the rights afforded to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution to live out our lives according to our faith. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ We will continue to serve our customers based on the tenets of our faith.”

...Pennsylvania continues to lack a statewide LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination law; more than 40 municipalities have adopted their own nondiscrimination measures, though Bloomsburg is not among them. After the 2014 incident at W.W. Bridal, members of the Bloomsburg Town Council proposed asking the town solicitor to draft an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance, but after a community meeting that drew both support and opposition, voted 4-3 against moving forward with such a measure. The council did send a letter to the state legislature urging it to adopt statewide LGBT protections....

...Some LGBT supporters did not respond too kindly to the news of W.W. Bridal’s refusal of service to Samanas and Kennedy....

...“You stupid f****** bigots. We are coming for you and your family,” a man declared in the voicemail. “We are going to tear your shop a part and make you feel as bad as you have made people feel. You f****** bigot scum. You are going down and so is all your employees and their families. You’re done!”


Christian-Owned Bridal Shop In Pennsylvania Closes Its Doors to Public After Receiving Death Threats for Denying Lesbian Couple a Wedding Dress | BCNN1 - Black Christian News Network

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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.

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

Okay, I checked the Constitution and it says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So what are we arguing about?

You don’t read well do you?

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

What does that have to do with the topic?

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.

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.

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

Okay, I checked the Constitution and it says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So what are we arguing about?

Public accommodation laws.

Anti discrimination laws.

No right os completely unrestricted.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

And that means they should be allowed to discriminate?

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

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.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is the hidden purpose of these claims

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

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

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

Indonesia is not the US

Read the constitution and get back to me

Okay, I checked the Constitution and it says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So what are we arguing about?

Public accommodation laws.

Anti discrimination laws.

No right os completely unrestricted.

No, no right is completely unrestricted but the Constitution is clear in this case. Obviously they are not comfortable with selling a dress to a gay couple for religious reasons and I'm not sure the government should force them to.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

The difference is that gays were discriminated against and sued under existing laws and won

Crowder did not sue and would lose anyway because he is not gay and was running a scam

 

[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.

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.

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.

The difference is that gays were discriminated against and sued under existing laws and won

Crowder did not sue and would lose anyway because he is not gay and was running a scam

Oh for Christ's sake. There are Muslim bakeries that would refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay couples. That was his point and there's no getting around that.