There's no mob quite as nasty as the pro-gay mob

[OohPooPahDoo]

"... they’re in the face of some pizzeria owner from a small town, who’ll almost certainly never be asked to cater a gay wedding — except maybe now as a pretext to coax her formal refusal and trigger a lawsuit — and who, like every other Christian business owner who’s run up against antidiscrimination laws thus far, isn’t refusing service to gays as a rule. She’s refusing compulsory participation in a wedding ceremony that violates what her religion tells her is permissible."

"...Just got off the phone with #MemoriesPizza; they’re considering never opening again. Receiving a lot of death threats."

"Only when it costs them nothing, like in the absurd hypothetical of a great wave of Indiana businesses kicking gays out, do they pound the table. They’re beneath contempt."

Crisis in Indiana Random small-town pizzeria says it won t cater gay weddings Update Might not re-open Hot Air

Certainly myself and others are free to not patronize establishments operated by bigotbigots, regardless of whether or not they exercise their bigotry in their business.

 

[Iceweasel]

Someone will have to show me the part in the Bible that says don't do business with gays.

Apparently, someone needs to show you what the issue is all about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are the gays (LGBT) boycott in sympathy all establishments that display: "No shirts, no shoes no service"?

Would displaying such sign not be "discrimination" against the homeless, brainless, idiotic and ill-mannered towards whom gays (LGBT) ought to feel familiarity and fellowship?

Homeless people have shirts. Your post makes no sense.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Someone will have to show me the part in the Bible that says don't do business with gays.

Apparently, someone needs to show you what the issue is all about.

We just wanna know where in the Bible it says not to sell stuff to gays.

 

[mdk]

Are the gays (LGBT) boycott in sympathy all establishments that display: "No shirts, no shoes no service"?

Would displaying such sign not be "discrimination" against the homeless, brainless, idiotic and ill-mannered towards whom gays (LGBT) ought to feel familiarity and fellowship?

You are confusing public health laws with public accomadation laws which makes your point moot.

 

[mdk]

Are the gays (LGBT) boycott in sympathy all establishments that display: "No shirts, no shoes no service"?

Would displaying such sign not be "discrimination" against the homeless, brainless, idiotic and ill-mannered towards whom gays (LGBT) ought to feel familiarity and fellowship?

Homeless people have shirts. Your post makes no sense.

It also displays a clear lack of understanding between public health laws and public accomadation laws.

 

[FJO]

Are the gays (LGBT) boycott in sympathy all establishments that display: "No shirts, no shoes no service"?

Would displaying such sign not be "discrimination" against the homeless, brainless, idiotic and ill-mannered towards whom gays (LGBT) ought to feel familiarity and fellowship?

You are confusing public health laws with public accomadation laws which makes your point moot.

Gays invented HIV/AIDS, and you are talking about health issues? Sticking your pole into someone's crap is no health issue?

 

[mdk]

Are the gays (LGBT) boycott in sympathy all establishments that display: "No shirts, no shoes no service"?

Would displaying such sign not be "discrimination" against the homeless, brainless, idiotic and ill-mannered towards whom gays (LGBT) ought to feel familiarity and fellowship?

You are confusing public health laws with public accomadation laws which makes your point moot.

Gays invented HIV/AIDS, and you are talking about health issues? Sticking your pole into someone's crap is no health issue?

You do realize you can't AIDS by simply sitting in the same restaurant with someone with AIDS, right?

None of this change the fact you are confusing public accomadation laws with public health laws. You can wish to remain as obtuse as you wish but we are under no obligation to join you.

 

[FJO]

Back in the day Irish people had to cope with signs "No Irish need apply" and you know what? They applied and got a job at another establishment. Know why? Because they were normal people not like the rabble rousing trash we see today in Indiana and elsewhere, waving their phony multicolored flag.

The world is a big place. Some people will like you some will not. It is their right because it is their money invested in their business.

And it is your right to be normal and go somewhere else.

If you have any brains and any self-respect you don't try to impose yourself upon people who don't like you for whatever reason.

 

[FJO]

All Christian shop owners should state their intent not to serve queer fake weddings and watch their revenue grow by leaps and bounds when the homos announce their intent to gaycott.

If they believe the weddings are fake, why do they care?

They don't care if they take place.

They don't want to participate.

Would you care if I required you to come to my church..and if you refused, I removed your income?

Christians may not attend, but this Christian baker will certainly bake a wedding cake for dogs. Of course, he still refused to bake one for gays.
This Homophobic Bakery will Cater Dog Weddings but Not Gay Civil Unions - The Wire

Completely stupid, illogical, and hypocritical of them

Now explain to me why you believe the government ought be able to tell a business owner that they can't be stupid, illogical, or hypocritical.

My post was in response to a statement about Christian attitudes about dog weddings.
Business owners, and people for that matter, will always be able to do stupid, illogical, and hypocritical things. I don't see any way for that to ever be prevented. The best we can do is demand equal treatment for everyone as they deal with all the stupid, illogical, and hypocritical things that everyone inevitably has to deal with.

Actually a "wedding" of dogs is about as credible and valid as a "wedding" between homosexuals.

And, of course, dogs will not try to defame you, call you names and shut your business down if you don't provide flowers, cakes and dog biscuits for their "wedding".

And now that the topic of dogs and gay weddings came up, can the lawfully sanctioned "wedding" of a dog and a gay be far behind?

 

[FJO]

No empathy for bigots

no one is saying have empathy for bigots. We're saying the GOVERNMENT does not have the authority to tell people they can't be bigots.

And they don't. All laws which do so are unconstitutional.

I understand the distinction.

Im of the mind that the businesses should be able to turn away whoever they want to legally....... and hopefully they get shunned and buried as a business for doing so.

But i also understand that the 1st amendment wasnt designed to be a blanket cover when commerce comes into play, and so i can see both sides of the particular issue in that regard.

At the end of the day, the sick bigotry is fading as generations pass. Polls show it, laws reflect it, entertainment and media reflect it and even the military reflects it.

I just wish the bigot minded ***** would hurry up and die of old age, or shut the **** up with the brainless curmudgeon routine.

And therein lies the difference between a liberal such as yourself and normal people.

 

[BULLDOG]

If they believe the weddings are fake, why do they care?

They don't care if they take place.

They don't want to participate.

Would you care if I required you to come to my church..and if you refused, I removed your income?

Christians may not attend, but this Christian baker will certainly bake a wedding cake for dogs. Of course, he still refused to bake one for gays.
This Homophobic Bakery will Cater Dog Weddings but Not Gay Civil Unions - The Wire

Completely stupid, illogical, and hypocritical of them

Now explain to me why you believe the government ought be able to tell a business owner that they can't be stupid, illogical, or hypocritical.

My post was in response to a statement about Christian attitudes about dog weddings.
Business owners, and people for that matter, will always be able to do stupid, illogical, and hypocritical things. I don't see any way for that to ever be prevented. The best we can do is demand equal treatment for everyone as they deal with all the stupid, illogical, and hypocritical things that everyone inevitably has to deal with.

Actually a "wedding" of dogs is about as credible and valid as a "wedding" between homosexuals.

And, of course, dogs will not try to defame you, call you names and shut your business down if you don't provide flowers, cakes and dog biscuits for their "wedding".

And now that the topic of dogs and gay weddings came up, can the lawfully sanctioned "wedding" of a dog and a gay be far behind?

Perfect right wing logic