It's to allow a defense of religious beliefs in case they deny service to a gay wedding and get sued. I guess they view a law suit as a personal attack.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CowboysFromHell
- Start date
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Is it really worth picking on semantics here.
"A book store owned by a muslim."
There.
squistion
Footballguy
It is rather ambiguous. The quote before was talking about a lawsuit and laws broken. When you say "Another one here" one could assume you were responding to that since you quoted it. And the earlier context was about "defending the bill"
Last edited by a moderator:
njherdfan
Footballguy
Well if it's not a religious institution, then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. A few years ago there were a bunch of Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota who began to refuse to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol because of their sincerely held religious beliefs and Islam's clear prohibition on the consumption of alcohol. Know what happened? They were forced to transport passengers carrying alcohol or lose their license, because the cab drivers had entered into business with the public. It's odd that there wasn't such an uproar over that.
tommyboy
Footballguy
Drivers
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
EnoughWhat policy is that?From what they stated on the TV spot they have a policy that, IMO, is discriminatory.What did they do wrong exactly?I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS
The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
I'm trying to find out what policy is it that is so bad.EnoughWhat policy is that?From what they stated on the TV spot they have a policy that, IMO, is discriminatory.What did they do wrong exactly?I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS
The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
This is where I pretty much shake my head in amazement. These are very poor examlpes of threats to "personal freedom." Personal freedoms extend to the tip of each individual's nose and no further. Once these individuals CHOOSE to go into business in the public domain their belief system stops at said tip of nose.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
OKI'm trying to find out what policy is it that is so bad.EnoughWhat policy is that?From what they stated on the TV spot they have a policy that, IMO, is discriminatory.What did they do wrong exactly?I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS
The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
See, that's the power of loving Christians right there. Want to oppress us? You can't! I'd like to see the gays gather up that much money that quickly. All they could do was throw a fit on Yelp, call in death threats, and hack a website.This is the power of Christianity.
Edit: Talk about a statement dunk for the good guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I think the more people talk about Big Gay and make light of people asked an innocent question, the less I respect them. I think that this sort of virtual mob, replete with death threats, arson threats, explicit gay penetration on their Yelp! page, etc. is disgusting and subhuman.
Sadly, and lost on many of the supporters of these actions within this very board, it actually solidifies the fears of those deeply concerned about their own religious freedom in running their business that the virtual mobs, media, and other institutions will stop at absolutely nothing to codify their agenda. In other words, the actions prove the very fear being made light of.
A couple was asked a question by a reporter. These past few days have showed us the response and the tactics used.
I think it's a joke. I have no trouble speaking out against "Big Gay." Mobs are mobs. Threats are threats. Organized thugs are organized thugs. It's sickening, disgusting, immoral, and shouldn't be given any heed in a representative democracy.
Love these responses from Glenn Reynolds.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF: The Misdirected Zeal of Same-Sex Marriage Converts: It is immoral to discriminate against gays—and irrational to make a religious freedom law in Indiana the focus of the gay-rights movement. It’s the joy of bossing other people around, and forcing them to submit. Foucault would understand.
JOURNALISM: Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing.
See, the attack on this poor small-town pizza place is what bothers me here. I’m at best lukewarm on RFRAs at both the federal and state level, and I have increasingly been of the opinion that Scalia was right in Smith, but I understand why a lot of religious folks fear that otherwise the state will reach right into their churches and ceremonies. And what’s really troubling here is the sheer meanness of the gay rights community, as shown in the aftermath to Proposition 8, the Brendan Eich affair, and now this. I was in favor of gay marriage long before those Johnny-come-latelies Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I may even have been in favor of gay marriage before **** Cheney. And nothing from the opponents of gay marriage has shaken my belief. The supporters, on the other hand. . . .
UPDATE: Matt Welch: Burn Her! She Would Act Like a Witch in a Situation That Will Never Come Up! The anti-pizzeria mob loses its mind. “There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday. A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn’t (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea. After which a local pol stood up and yelled ‘Encore!’”
Mobs enjoy mobbing. It’s fun for them. And politicians cash in.
Sadly, and lost on many of the supporters of these actions within this very board, it actually solidifies the fears of those deeply concerned about their own religious freedom in running their business that the virtual mobs, media, and other institutions will stop at absolutely nothing to codify their agenda. In other words, the actions prove the very fear being made light of.
A couple was asked a question by a reporter. These past few days have showed us the response and the tactics used.
I think it's a joke. I have no trouble speaking out against "Big Gay." Mobs are mobs. Threats are threats. Organized thugs are organized thugs. It's sickening, disgusting, immoral, and shouldn't be given any heed in a representative democracy.
Love these responses from Glenn Reynolds.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF: The Misdirected Zeal of Same-Sex Marriage Converts: It is immoral to discriminate against gays—and irrational to make a religious freedom law in Indiana the focus of the gay-rights movement. It’s the joy of bossing other people around, and forcing them to submit. Foucault would understand.
JOURNALISM: Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing.
See, the attack on this poor small-town pizza place is what bothers me here. I’m at best lukewarm on RFRAs at both the federal and state level, and I have increasingly been of the opinion that Scalia was right in Smith, but I understand why a lot of religious folks fear that otherwise the state will reach right into their churches and ceremonies. And what’s really troubling here is the sheer meanness of the gay rights community, as shown in the aftermath to Proposition 8, the Brendan Eich affair, and now this. I was in favor of gay marriage long before those Johnny-come-latelies Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I may even have been in favor of gay marriage before **** Cheney. And nothing from the opponents of gay marriage has shaken my belief. The supporters, on the other hand. . . .
UPDATE: Matt Welch: Burn Her! She Would Act Like a Witch in a Situation That Will Never Come Up! The anti-pizzeria mob loses its mind. “There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday. A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn’t (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea. After which a local pol stood up and yelled ‘Encore!’”
Mobs enjoy mobbing. It’s fun for them. And politicians cash in.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Matt Welch with a ####### outstanding point, and I'll bold it and italicize for anyone having trouble with the psychological make-up of those opposed to not only the laws, but the tactics used to "influence" those people with dissenting opinions. From a long-time gay marriage advocate.
"The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it."
"The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it."
squistion
Footballguy
Except it wasn't charitable giving, it was making a statement, like eating a chicken sandwich at Chick-Fil-A to prove a point.
rockaction
Footballguy
Great point about the psychology of the banshees and the elites by Conor Friedersdorf
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, and many other Democratic political elites echoed majority opposition to equal recognition for same-sex relationships (though their Republican opponents were generally much worse).
Now that public opinion has thankfully shifted, marriage traditionalists have thankfully been routed, gay marriage in all 50 states is thankfully inevitable, and its opponents are a waning minority incapable of imposing any cost on political opponents, elites who support gay marriage are suddenly very self-righteous and assertive. Now that those who would discriminate against gays are a powerless cultural minority that focuses its objectionable behavior in a tiny niche of the economy, elites have suddenly decided that using state power to punish them is a moral imperative. The timing suggests that this has as much to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity's love of bandwagons, and political positioning as it does with advancing gay rights, which have advanced thanks to persuasion, not coercion.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, and many other Democratic political elites echoed majority opposition to equal recognition for same-sex relationships (though their Republican opponents were generally much worse).
Now that public opinion has thankfully shifted, marriage traditionalists have thankfully been routed, gay marriage in all 50 states is thankfully inevitable, and its opponents are a waning minority incapable of imposing any cost on political opponents, elites who support gay marriage are suddenly very self-righteous and assertive. Now that those who would discriminate against gays are a powerless cultural minority that focuses its objectionable behavior in a tiny niche of the economy, elites have suddenly decided that using state power to punish them is a moral imperative. The timing suggests that this has as much to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity's love of bandwagons, and political positioning as it does with advancing gay rights, which have advanced thanks to persuasion, not coercion.
timschochet
Footballguy
It must be tough to go through life trying to tell jokes, and nobody ever laughs.
drummer
Footballguy
drummer
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Well, now that the law has been passed, yeah, let's not focus on this silly gay rights thing. Nothing to see here, people. Move along. Iran is bad! Look at Iran!squistion said:
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Because he's a minority. The problem is when someone in the majority does it, because then he gets away with it, and doesn't go out of business. Doesn't make it right. That's kind of why we have laws, to prevent the big guys from squashing the little guys. Pretty simple concept really.NREC34 said:
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Not to mention that even if it is a choice, we still shouldn't discriminate against them.squistion said:
tommyboy
Footballguy
Thats not why have laws at all. There thousands of laws that have nothing to do with that.Anyhow, tell these guys
Throughout my life I have praised the Christian God and he has given me everything that I ever wanted. 160,207 Christians raised nearly a half million dollars in opposition against the gays IN ONE DAY (24 HOURS). We have a real shot here.
DON'T LIE DOWN.
We can bury the opposition. No matter what Hollywood tries to promote, we know this isn't right. Why? Because we were born this way. We were born and we were repulsed by homosexual behavior male or female and $500,000 doesn't lie. Don't let your kids or your family become a victim of Hollywood. Support Indiana, support Arkansas and we can destroy big Gay. Don't let them tell you what you know what is right.
You know it's right. Thousands of years ago, your ancestors knew it was right. It's an illness that effects 2 - 3 percent of the population. This is our chance to squash this and send them back where they came from. Don't stop fighting.
DON'T LIE DOWN.
We can bury the opposition. No matter what Hollywood tries to promote, we know this isn't right. Why? Because we were born this way. We were born and we were repulsed by homosexual behavior male or female and $500,000 doesn't lie. Don't let your kids or your family become a victim of Hollywood. Support Indiana, support Arkansas and we can destroy big Gay. Don't let them tell you what you know what is right.
You know it's right. Thousands of years ago, your ancestors knew it was right. It's an illness that effects 2 - 3 percent of the population. This is our chance to squash this and send them back where they came from. Don't stop fighting.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
If it wasn't charitable giving, then the very point in making the comparison is lost. After all, it would be a non sequitur to say "Conservatives - we won't help the poor, but we'll eat Chik-Fil-A sandwiches." In any event, the premise of not helping the poor is BS regardless, as was my original observation.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Judging from the comments over at reason, I'd just like to let the left know that their tacit support of these tactics, mixed with complete disrespect for freedom of association, has turned a very influential magazine and its commenters completely against you. The intellectual firepower of any claims to liberty are now gone; every one of us that realized that gay marriage was a trojan horse and a mob laying in wait for state sanctions against "discrimination" and an attempt at an EP protected class has so far, in the scheme of everything, been proved right. I would urge people to go over and read the comments, which two years ago, were heavily in favor of gay marriage.
Gay marriage acolytes and those that support reporters going in to a restaurant, asking a question, and then completely ruining people's lives? You're so last year, and a ton of us warned against it. Some great quotes from the commentariat at reason.
Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.2.15 @ 11:03AM|#
I also don't think I'm on the winning side of the gay marriage debate anymore. If I were on the winning side, I imagine the gay rights movement would look a bit more like a bunch of loving people coming together in matrimony and a bit less like an angry lynch mob thirsting for blood.
R C Dean|4.2.15 @ 11:39AM|#
I've learned that it's still an irrational argument to claim we shouldn't allow gay rights because gays might behave badly if we do.
My objection has never been to gay marriage. My objection has been that gay marriage was obviously being used by hate-filled activists as a stalking horse for precisely what we are seeing now. They were never seeking equal rights, is the problem. They were seeking special, government-enforced privileges.
When you see a camel's nose, you can usually be pretty sure there's an entire, stinking camel not far behind. It was pretty obvious to anumber of us that gay marriage was the camel's nose. Welp, here's the rest of the camel.
The issue wasn't "gays might behave badly". It was that "these activists will, no question, behave badly" (emphasis mine), because (a) that's who they are and (b) the track they took for gay marriage was obviously the first step toward where we are now. Gay marriage via the courts (me: and its implicit support by libertarians) was obviously an attempt to expand the scope of that problem statute.
Sorry, but if you supported the courts imposing gay marriage licensing and recognition via the EP, instead of opposing this route and telling the pro-gay marriage folks to do it, what's the word, "democratically", then you enabled the problem.
Because you mistakenly believed "gay marriage" and "special privileges" could be disentangled. Theoretically, they could. As being pushed in real life, they can't.
You were suckered.
(me) This exchange was priceless:
Gay marriage acolytes and those that support reporters going in to a restaurant, asking a question, and then completely ruining people's lives? You're so last year, and a ton of us warned against it. Some great quotes from the commentariat at reason.
Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.2.15 @ 11:03AM|#
I also don't think I'm on the winning side of the gay marriage debate anymore. If I were on the winning side, I imagine the gay rights movement would look a bit more like a bunch of loving people coming together in matrimony and a bit less like an angry lynch mob thirsting for blood.
R C Dean|4.2.15 @ 11:39AM|#
I've learned that it's still an irrational argument to claim we shouldn't allow gay rights because gays might behave badly if we do.
My objection has never been to gay marriage. My objection has been that gay marriage was obviously being used by hate-filled activists as a stalking horse for precisely what we are seeing now. They were never seeking equal rights, is the problem. They were seeking special, government-enforced privileges.
When you see a camel's nose, you can usually be pretty sure there's an entire, stinking camel not far behind. It was pretty obvious to anumber of us that gay marriage was the camel's nose. Welp, here's the rest of the camel.
The issue wasn't "gays might behave badly". It was that "these activists will, no question, behave badly" (emphasis mine), because (a) that's who they are and (b) the track they took for gay marriage was obviously the first step toward where we are now. Gay marriage via the courts (me: and its implicit support by libertarians) was obviously an attempt to expand the scope of that problem statute.
Sorry, but if you supported the courts imposing gay marriage licensing and recognition via the EP, instead of opposing this route and telling the pro-gay marriage folks to do it, what's the word, "democratically", then you enabled the problem.
Because you mistakenly believed "gay marriage" and "special privileges" could be disentangled. Theoretically, they could. As being pushed in real life, they can't.
You were suckered.
(me) This exchange was priceless:
- Illocust|4.2.15 @ 10:37AM|#
Eh, its not surprising. One only has to look at college campuses to know what progs think of the rights of those who disagree with them. Anyone who didn't see this coming is an idiot.
reply to this - mad libertarian guy|4.2.15 @ 10:40AM|#
That the "we just want to get married" sentiment has turned in to the "we NEED to force you to approve of our lifestyle" decree is both unfortunate and completely predictable.
It's sick, and I'm gtg with people marrying whoever they want.
reply to this - Notorious G.K.C.|4.2.15 @ 10:54AM|#
It seems like only yesterday when they were saying "how does *my* marriage affect *you*?"
reply to this - Pablo_|4.2.15 @ 12:14PM|#
Remember when they just wanted to be left alone to live in peace?
ant1sthenes|4.2.15 @ 12:26PM|#
Hey, if you don't like gay weddings, don't go to one. Though, if you do avoid going to one, you might have to lose everything you own and be cast out from society. So...
reply to this - JWatts|4.2.15 @ 4:13PM|#
Oh, don't be silly you don't have to actually go. You just have to publicly declare your allegiance to the correct thoughts and not say or do anything contradictory to that public perception. That's enough.
Enjoy Every Sandwich|4.2.15 @ 10:41AM|#
I can remember years ago when opponents of gay marriage brought up scenarios wherein people who disagree with said marriage would be forced to participate. The Left mocked this as fear-mongering. "We would never do that! We just want tolerance!" Uh-huh.
sarcasmic|4.2.15 @ 10:54AM|#
Ten or so years ago in my state they pushed a referendum that would add homosexuals to the list of protected classes, the whole time mocking those who said it was a ruse to redefine marriage. Before the ink was dry the very same people who were mocking those who said it was a ploy to redefine marriage initiated a lawsuit challenging the definition of marriage saying it discriminated against a protected class.
Leftists are liars. Plain and simple. The end justifies the means, and if the means means lying, then lying is what they do.
Homple|4.2.15 @ 10:50AM|#
When a group of people acquire the means to push people around, members of that group will push people around.
We should remember this when we decide to whoop for special treatment of folks who squawk about being oppressed.
Notorious G.K.C.|4.2.15 @ 10:51AM|#
"for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate"
Oh, boy, those libertarians who think they and the gay activists form an "us" are in for a rude shock.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Love this exchange:
- LynchPin1477|4.2.15 @ 10:51AM|#
Just remember, we are on the backwards ones clinging to outdated and brutish social norms, while the progressive left flies past us on the road toward a more enlightened, advanced, and ultimately kinder way of living, with true human decency for all.
reply to this - Scruffy Nerfherder|4.2.15 @ 11:00AM|#
Utopia can be achieved by force, or did you forget that lesson?
reply to this - ManocentricMaleocracy|4.2.15 @ 11:46AM|#
They are immanentizing the #### out of the eschaton, and you BETTER not get in the way hetero-cis-####head-clinger.
OldMexican|4.2.15 @ 10:52AM|#
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners[...]
You're being too kind. People like Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold and the rest of the bullies are acting exactly like those communist revolutionaries that took over governments on the aftermath of World War 2, taking on dissenters and whoever they perceived as enemies of the revolution. It is not only concerning, it is frightening. It has to be the most illiberal thing you can witness today.
Right now this expression of hatred has limited itself to ugly threats and pranks, but how long before people are made to submit through violent acts? Wasn't that supposed to be the very thing gays and lesbians fought against?
If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool's would have been like any other day for them.
And I guess that is what all of this comes to: shutting up, not speaking, keeping your thoughts to yourself. Otherwise, it is Kristalnacht for you. How can this be defended?
MarkLastname|4.2.15 @ 6:19PM|#
Victim groups are always morally pure; they are like God's right had: brutal, perhaps at times, but when they are brutal, we can surely assume that the receiver of the brutality thoroughly deserved it.
How long before gay rights activists start angrily quoting scripture: ""Truly I tell you, not one stone of this pizza parlor here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
SugarFree|4.2.15 @ 11:09AM|#
The parallels to this and gamergate are hilarious and depressing. Sending death threats is the worstest thing evar, unless the left is doing it.
HazelMeade|4.2.15 @ 11:14AM|#
Thank you for this article.
As I posted yesterday, I feel like libertarians are like the lone voice of reason at a lynch mob. Maybe the mob was aroused by a just cause, but now that they have taken over, they are howling for someone to lynch. And we're standing here, in the middle of mob that we initially helped get started (for perfectly good reasons), trying to stop them from getting out of control.
I have been in this situation before, not a literal lynch mob, but a situation where I got a bunch of people together to work out a situation, and in the end, they couldn't stop at just resolving the immediate issue, it had to result in banning and exiling people.
Why? A) Because most of the people with the lynch-mob mentality were newcomers to the cause who felt some sort of perverse need to show everyone they were on the right side by being extra-zealous about it. B) Because they were afraid that not banning and exiling everyone on the "wrong" side would result in more "conflict".
The point is, it takes tremendous courage to be on the right side of a winning issue and then NOT go overboard and take revenge on the losing side. Which is what is happening right now. We have this insane mob mentality where a few Christian conservatives who merely don't want to participate in a marriage ceremony they don't support are being viciously attacked by a howling mob. And that mob is not merely boycotting them, but demanding that laws be passed to exile them from commerce.
Somalian Road Corporation|4.2.15 @ 11:46AM|#
Tangential to what I noted below: Clinton Foundation receiving donations from foreign governments who uphold laws where being gay is punishable by death? Totally cool, #### you for even bringing it up, fake scandal. Apple having a business HQ in the same circumstances? That's fine too.
Pizzeria that'll serve gay customers without issue but won't cater a gay wedding? UNACCEPTABLE BIGOTRY!
reply to this - Crusty Juggler|4.2.15 @ 11:49AM|#
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Some of those foreign governments are run by scary brown men who are pretty damn violent. I would much rather bully some middle-class white people who won't murder my family in response to my tactics. Good grief!
reply to this - Certified Public Asskicker|4.2.15 @ 12:42PM|#
Just checked, they are closing in on $150k.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Anyway, I just want to let the leftist Democratic establishment and the moderates that come around here and support media organizations like Gawker media and its subdivisions know that they've pissed off gay marriage's original supporters and most hardcore allies, and they're -- the libertarians, that is (and believe me, the cosmo libertarian guys that hollered "bigot" against those of us that opposed gay marriage for precisely this very reason have been awfully quiet the past year) are probably pretty much done with the whole shebang, unless they live in and depend on Hollywood.
I mean, if drummer can monopolize a whole page with personal insults, I figure people might want to know what the most stalwart supporters of gay marriage and free association since the early '70s think about it. Not positive. Not a good look. The lefties on this board and others are politically predictable. But people might want to know where the up-for-grab intellectuals and their commenters are. Hope it's not too much of a bother.
Kthanksbai
I mean, if drummer can monopolize a whole page with personal insults, I figure people might want to know what the most stalwart supporters of gay marriage and free association since the early '70s think about it. Not positive. Not a good look. The lefties on this board and others are politically predictable. But people might want to know where the up-for-grab intellectuals and their commenters are. Hope it's not too much of a bother.
Kthanksbai
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
