Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.

Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.

There is no way in hell a gay wedding is going to be choose a pizza joint as their caterer.

what kind of redneck weddings do they "cater" pizza to.

I enjoyed that aspect of it too.

Also looking forward to the backlash to the backlash, when a bunch of idiots line up around the block Chik-Fil-A style to support their fellow idiots, and then the idiots declare victory. And then of course the epilogue, when they close in a couple months because the idiots forget about them after their one day show of support and nobody else wants to go to a place with a one star yelp review where you have to risk being ridiculed and called a bigot for pizza. The system works!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

this "pro-gay" movement.

Forget the gays. This is about maximizing equality for all citizens.

 

[FlapJacks]

And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.

Now look wh

Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.

There is no way in hell a gay wedding is going to be choose a pizza joint as their caterer.

what kind of redneck weddings do they "cater" pizza to.

And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.

Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity

There is no way in hell a gay wedding is going to be choose a pizza joint as their caterer.

what kind of redneck weddings do they "cater" pizza to.

Now look at who is stereotyping

Take your bigotry out of here

 

[Scoresman]

I'm picturing the wedding invitations.

Jim-Bob and Carl invite you to share their wedding day at Memories Pizza.

Please circle one

- Pepperoni

- Extra Cheese

- Stuffed Crust

 

[CowboysFromHell]

DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the analysis from our "media"?

If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"

Thanks!

So I read this thing....several times because, well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't see the big deal. It appears rather "toothless". The big difference I see is that "for profit" entities are extended the same benefit as not for profit. The opponents of this thing say that one shouldn't be able to use "religion" as a reason not to serve a person in their establishment. Why?

First, I struggle to see how an issue filling these criteria would ever make it to court. It seems to me, the only way this makes it to this level of the judicial system is if the customer is adamant about being served by the establishment even though they are fully aware the establishment has no desire to work with them. Why would the customer insist on a partnership like that? The last person I want to work with is one that doesn't want to work with me.

Second, let's say we can justify a rational reason that it makes it to court. Is "religion" as an excuse really bad for the plaintiff in this case? Personally, I'd welcome it...especially in a jury trial. It'd be an avenue to shine a light on blanket bigotry and would go a long way in helping draw the "line" folks are asking about above. FWIW, I agree with the line mentioned above. Bakery? Can't deny a birthday cake to people. Want a cake in the shape of a big dong for a bachelorette party? Sorry, not doing it.

What if there is only one baker in town? What if we're talking about the only gas station for miles?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the analysis from our "media"?

If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"

Thanks!

So I read this thing....several times because, well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't see the big deal. It appears rather "toothless". The big difference I see is that "for profit" entities are extended the same benefit as not for profit. The opponents of this thing say that one shouldn't be able to use "religion" as a reason not to serve a person in their establishment. Why?

First, I struggle to see how an issue filling these criteria would ever make it to court. It seems to me, the only way this makes it to this level of the judicial system is if the customer is adamant about being served by the establishment even though they are fully aware the establishment has no desire to work with them. Why would the customer insist on a partnership like that? The last person I want to work with is one that doesn't want to work with me.

Second, let's say we can justify a rational reason that it makes it to court. Is "religion" as an excuse really bad for the plaintiff in this case? Personally, I'd welcome it...especially in a jury trial. It'd be an avenue to shine a light on blanket bigotry and would go a long way in helping draw the "line" folks are asking about above. FWIW, I agree with the line mentioned above. Bakery? Can't deny a birthday cake to people. Want a cake in the shape of a big dong for a bachelorette party? Sorry, not doing it.

What if there is only one baker in town? What if we're talking about the only gas station for miles?

Or the only Urgent Care open for miles.

 

[squistion]

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.

One of the comments from the Yelp page

I'm ANGRY and will never order pizza from these people again because they're simply not discriminatory enough! I mean, just "gays"? What about anyone who works on Sundays (Leviticus 23:3)? People who wear makeup (Jeremiah 4:30)? Hungry people (Proverbs 23:2)? Men without beards (Leviticus 19:27)? Tattooed people (Leviticus 19:28)? People who eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)? People with messy hair (Leviticus 10:6)? New mothers (Leviticus 12:4-5)? Psychics or mediums (Leviticus 20:27)?

Also, I hope there's absolutely NO FAT in your food! (Leviticus 3:17) Because that would surely be sinful!!

And, lastly, you'd better not eat your own pizza, because if you've read the Bible, you certainly understand that in 1 Peter 2:1, God specifically instructed you to "rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." (That means you're supposed to lay aside ALL malice or ill will, like denying certain people service, you morons.)

 

[The Commish]

And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.

Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.

Shocking!

 

[The Commish]

DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the analysis from our "media"?

If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"

Thanks!

So I read this thing....several times because, well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't see the big deal. It appears rather "toothless". The big difference I see is that "for profit" entities are extended the same benefit as not for profit. The opponents of this thing say that one shouldn't be able to use "religion" as a reason not to serve a person in their establishment. Why?

First, I struggle to see how an issue filling these criteria would ever make it to court. It seems to me, the only way this makes it to this level of the judicial system is if the customer is adamant about being served by the establishment even though they are fully aware the establishment has no desire to work with them. Why would the customer insist on a partnership like that? The last person I want to work with is one that doesn't want to work with me.

Second, let's say we can justify a rational reason that it makes it to court. Is "religion" as an excuse really bad for the plaintiff in this case? Personally, I'd welcome it...especially in a jury trial. It'd be an avenue to shine a light on blanket bigotry and would go a long way in helping draw the "line" folks are asking about above. FWIW, I agree with the line mentioned above. Bakery? Can't deny a birthday cake to people. Want a cake in the shape of a big dong for a bachelorette party? Sorry, not doing it.

What if there is only one baker in town? What if we're talking about the only gas station for miles?

Go to another town for the baker and I'd like to hear how "pumping gas for gays" is against religious belief. I said in this very post you quote that a simple denial of service (gasoline) is on the other side of the line

 

[The Commish]

DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the analysis from our "media"?

If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"

Thanks!

So I read this thing....several times because, well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't see the big deal. It appears rather "toothless". The big difference I see is that "for profit" entities are extended the same benefit as not for profit. The opponents of this thing say that one shouldn't be able to use "religion" as a reason not to serve a person in their establishment. Why?

First, I struggle to see how an issue filling these criteria would ever make it to court. It seems to me, the only way this makes it to this level of the judicial system is if the customer is adamant about being served by the establishment even though they are fully aware the establishment has no desire to work with them. Why would the customer insist on a partnership like that? The last person I want to work with is one that doesn't want to work with me.

Second, let's say we can justify a rational reason that it makes it to court. Is "religion" as an excuse really bad for the plaintiff in this case? Personally, I'd welcome it...especially in a jury trial. It'd be an avenue to shine a light on blanket bigotry and would go a long way in helping draw the "line" folks are asking about above. FWIW, I agree with the line mentioned above. Bakery? Can't deny a birthday cake to people. Want a cake in the shape of a big dong for a bachelorette party? Sorry, not doing it.

What if there is only one baker in town? What if we're talking about the only gas station for miles?

Or the only Urgent Care open for miles.

Again...wrong side of the line drawn in this thread

ETA: Though, if one is being denied medical care for any reason, it's bigger than this topic.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.

Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."

It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.

Shocking!

The free market works!

 

[Nugget]

I support what Indiana is doing here and I really think this is a good starting point to start resisting this "pro-gay" movement. I think you can only push so far before the pendulum starts swinging the other way. Of course, Hollywood and the media is going to try and bury this legislature. But I honestly think this is a step in the right direction and hope we can continue to build from here.

Of course you do.

Maybe there is a school in Indy that will take your transfer credits.

 

[squistion]

The free market works!

Which also might be the case in Arkansas:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374819/-Walmart-asks-Arkansas-governor-not-to-sign-hate-law

Walmart asks Arkansas governor not to sign hate law

Undeterred by the massive backlash against Indiana's license-to-discriminate law, the Arkansas House Tuesday afternoon passed its own bill allowing businesses to discriminate against (LGBT) people they object to on religious grounds. Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said all along he plans to sign the law, and hasn't indicated that the Indiana backlash would change his mind, but he's coming under serious pressure, Arkansas-style, not to sign.

That's right: Walmart has asked him not to sign the law:

Walmart NewsroomVerified account

‏@WalmartNewsroom Our statement on Arkansas #HB1228

"Every day in our stores, we see firsthand the benefits diversity and inclusion have on our associates, customers and communities we serve. It all starts with our core basic belief of respect for the individual. Todays passage of [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold."

 

[Eminence]

Walmart is the devil! Follow your heart Arkansas!

 

[squistion]

A reaction from a gay site to the Indiana Pizzeria :

http://www.queerty.com/aww-dammit-this-indiana-pizzeria-wont-cater-your-gay-wedding-20150401?utm_campaign=wp-to-twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

Aww, Dammit! This Indiana Pizzeria Wont Cater Your Gay Wedding

Indianas religious freedom law is really sticking it to the gays now that businesses there can legally choose to discriminate against LGBTs because the Bible tells them so. And now, in what can only be described as a crushing blow to equal rights and tacky weddings, an Indiana pizzeria is denying their services to same-sex couples.

"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," Crystal OConnor of Memories Pizza told ABC 57. "We are a Christian establishment."

First of all, what self-respecting gay wedding serves pizza? The only discrimination that couple would have to worry about is from the shady queens in attendance as they eat Dominos through pursed lips.

Second, when did being Christian suddenly make it okay to turn people away from your establishment? Isnt that how Jesus was born, or something?

Anygay, while Crystal insists that shes not discriminating against anyone, her husband Kevin is apparently one vodka soda away from switching teams since his sexuality like everyones is a choice.

"That lifestyle is something they choose," Kevin OConnor wisely said. "I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?"

Remember when you first chose to be gay? Looking long and hard in the mirror and saying to yourself, "You know what, Im going to get discriminated against by religious conservatives for the rest of my gay days because lifes not hard enough and dudes be cute."

But as ABC 57 gingerly puts it, the OConnors own a "small-town business" with "small-town ideals." Ideals as small as their minds and a business twice as empty.

 

[the moops]

There's probably a million pizza places in that town

Actually there is 1

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm picturing the wedding invitations.

Jim-Bob and Carl invite you to share their wedding day at Memories Pizza.

Please circle one

- Pepperoni

- Extra Cheese

- Stuffed Crust

I thought gay men like Italian sausage

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Do a Google search for Memories Pizza! at the top result.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

A reaction from a gay site to the Indiana Pizzeria :

http://www.queerty.com/aww-dammit-this-indiana-pizzeria-wont-cater-your-gay-wedding-20150401?utm_campaign=wp-to-twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

Aww, Dammit! This Indiana Pizzeria Wont Cater Your Gay Wedding

Indianas religious freedom law is really sticking it to the gays now that businesses there can legally choose to discriminate against LGBTs because the Bible tells them so. And now, in what can only be described as a crushing blow to equal rights and tacky weddings, an Indiana pizzeria is denying their services to same-sex couples.

"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," Crystal OConnor of Memories Pizza told ABC 57. "We are a Christian establishment."

First of all, what self-respecting gay wedding serves pizza? The only discrimination that couple would have to worry about is from the shady queens in attendance as they eat Dominos through pursed lips.

Second, when did being Christian suddenly make it okay to turn people away from your establishment? Isnt that how Jesus was born, or something?

Anygay, while Crystal insists that shes not discriminating against anyone, her husband Kevin is apparently one vodka soda away from switching teams since his sexuality like everyones is a choice.

"That lifestyle is something they choose," Kevin OConnor wisely said. "I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?"

Remember when you first chose to be gay? Looking long and hard in the mirror and saying to yourself, "You know what, Im going to get discriminated against by religious conservatives for the rest of my gay days because lifes not hard enough and dudes be cute."

But as ABC 57 gingerly puts it, the OConnors own a "small-town business" with "small-town ideals." Ideals as small as their minds and a business twice as empty.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Do a Google search for Memories Pizza! at the top result.

 

[squistion]

Colin Auld ‏@Colin_Auld

Hope #MemoriesPizza becomes a franchise. I'm tired of getting stuck behind all the gays down here putting in huge orders for wedding pizza

 

[njherdfan]

I WANT MY CAKE BAKED BY YOU!

You.

Yes, you.

Because you haven't sanctified my wedding. In your heart.

So you must arrange these flowers for the wedding. Because this affair of the heart must be your affair of the heart, and I'd really love a cake and flowers.

Baked and arranged by you. By only you.

Slave.

“Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together."

See, here's the thing: for the most part, businesses in Indiana could have rejected participation in gay weddings before this legislation. They didn't need this version of a state RFRA. This bill was a mostly empty nod to religious conservatives who want to give the middle finger to, as they put it, "Big Gay." That's why Pence was surrounded by these idiots at the signing ceremony.

If you can't have a laugh at the stupidity of bigots like that, or understand why people might not look fondly upon a state government who kowtows to said bigots, I don't know what to tell you.

Yeah, I think it's completely empty. The only way a business could be punished for not serving a gay wedding is if gay people are a protected class. Clearly, that's not going to happen any time soon in Indiana. Also, I like the fact that the Governor's office won't even publicly state who was at the signing ceremony.

It's my understanding that there are a number of local city ordinances in Indiana that prohibit such discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Interesting, thanks. That could lead to some interesting cases.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I support what Indiana is doing here and I really think this is a good starting point to start resisting this "pro-gay" movement. I think you can only push so far before the pendulum starts swinging the other way. Of course, Hollywood and the media is going to try and bury this legislature. But I honestly think this is a step in the right direction and hope we can continue to build from here.

Latent momo says what?

 

[Joe Summer]

The governor of Arkansas has asked the legislature to revise the law before he'll sign it.

I liked his speech. It was measured and factual, without rhetoric.

 

[randall146]

Awesome new shtick - Eat at Memory Pizza and then start making out with another guy when the bill comes

 

[avoiding injuries]

Awesome new shtick - Eat at Memory Pizza and then start making out with another guy when the bill comes

I think I'd rather just pay. @dooley_11 is having a bad day.

 

[bigbottom]

The governor of Arkansas has asked the legislature to revise the law before he'll sign it.

I liked his speech. It was measured and factual, without rhetoric.

I liked the tone, but it was light on facts. What are the specific problems that he has with the bill? What specific changes is he demanding?

 

[randall146]

Awesome new shtick - Eat at Memory Pizza and then start making out with another guy when the bill comes

I think I'd rather just pay.@dooley_11 is having a bad day.

Not me. I'd temporarily choose the gay freeloading lifestyle, then choose back after they threw us out

 

[randall146]

The governor of Arkansas has asked the legislature to revise the law before he'll sign it.

I liked his speech. It was measured and factual, without rhetoric.

I liked the tone, but it was light on facts. What are the specific problems that he has with the bill? What specific changes is he demanding?

Pretty sure he's demanding not to deal with this while Indiana is under fire

 

[bigbottom]

The governor of Arkansas has asked the legislature to revise the law before he'll sign it.

I liked his speech. It was measured and factual, without rhetoric.

I liked the tone, but it was light on facts. What are the specific problems that he has with the bill? What specific changes is he demanding?

Pretty sure he's demanding not to deal with this while Indiana is under fire

Pretty much.

 

[Amused to Death]

Onward, Christian soldiers! Praise the Lord and pass the Parmesan!

 

[BigJohn]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I find it ridiculous that they would consider selling pizza as participating in the ceremony. It is not like they have to watch the couple kiss after they exchange vows (which I agree is icky and would not go well with pizza).

 

[BigJohn]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring anything. I think maybe what you're missing here is that many people think the entire idea of "not agreeing with" a gay wedding ceremony is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

This is going a tad further than ridicule.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring anything. I think maybe what you're missing here is that many people think the entire idea of "not agreeing with" a gay wedding ceremony is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

This is going a tad further than ridicule.

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

 

[BigJohn]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring anything. I think maybe what you're missing here is that many people think the entire idea of "not agreeing with" a gay wedding ceremony is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

This is going a tad further than ridicule.

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

Re-read my post. They're not denying service to anybody. They are declining to participate in ceremonies that don't fit within their beliefs.

 

[squistion]

Dana Loesch ‏@DLoesch ·

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

X X X

No, the above is never acceptable and should not be tolerated, and if anyone making such threats can be identified, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[timschochet]

Asa Hutchinson just vetoed the Arkansas bill.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring anything. I think maybe what you're missing here is that many people think the entire idea of "not agreeing with" a gay wedding ceremony is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

This is going a tad further than ridicule.

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

Re-read my post. They're not denying service to anybody. They are declining to participate in ceremonies that don't fit within their beliefs.

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.

You're reading "we won't deny service to people if they're physically in our restaurant" and somehow turning that into "we won't deny service to anyone anywhere" despite their explicit statements otherwise. Not sure why. But the fact is that they would deny service to a gay couple getting married, and that position makes them worthy of ridicule and condemnation.

 

[IC FBGCav]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

Think to do this all they have to do is way over quote the request, yet they had to publicize their view in an interview and now they got this.

 

[squistion]

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

Re-read my post. They're not denying service to anybody. They are declining to participate in ceremonies that don't fit within their beliefs.

No matter how you try to spin it, declining to participate (by not making and delivering the pizza) is denying service. The reason may be based on religious beliefs but it still is denying service.

 

[BigJohn]

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring anything. I think maybe what you're missing here is that many people think the entire idea of "not agreeing with" a gay wedding ceremony is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

This is going a tad further than ridicule.

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

Re-read my post. They're not denying service to anybody. They are declining to participate in ceremonies that don't fit within their beliefs.

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.

You're reading "we won't deny service to people if they're physically in our restaurant" and somehow turning that into "we won't deny service to anyone anywhere" despite their explicit statements otherwise. Not sure why. But the fact is that they would deny service to a gay couple getting married, and that position makes them worthy of ridicule and condemnation.

They are denying providing the pizza for a gay wedding. If the same gay couple came into the restaurant and ordered pizzas to eat there, there is no issue.

I'm guessing if they just came in and ordered 40 pizzas and didn't disclose what they would be used for, I assume the place would sell them no problem. It's the declaration that they are for a gay wedding that is the sticking point.

 

[BigJohn]

I deleted my post because the wording was a bit off, but anyway ... this outcome is exactly what conservatives would want, no? People are being allowed to refuse services based on the sexuality of the parties, which is their right. And the public is responding with its opinion regarding the policy, as is its right. It's unbridled free market capitalism at work. What's the problem here?

Re-read my post. They're not denying service to anybody. They are declining to participate in ceremonies that don't fit within their beliefs.

No matter how you try to spin it, declining to participate (by not making and delivering the pizza) is denying service. The reason may be based on religious beliefs but it still is denying service.

That's fine. I disagree.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wonder what would happen if someone ordered a bunch of pizza's and asked to have them delivered to a hall. Say 30+ pies ordered a day or 2 in advance. Would they question what the occasion was? And what if they pull up to make the delivery and saw it was for a gay wedding - would they just refuse to deliver and absorb the loss? What if there was a deposit, would it get returned or would the couple have to sign something guaranteeing its not a gay wedding?

Lotta ins, lotta outs.

 

[squistion]

Asa Hutchinson just vetoed the Arkansas bill.

He is no fool. Not a surprise he did a complete 180 after seeing the #### storm that the similar bill caused in Indiana.

 

[tonydead]

They are denying providing the pizza for a gay wedding. If the same gay couple came into the restaurant and ordered pizzas to eat there, there is no issue.

What makes you say that?

“We are a Christian establishment,” says O'Connor.

The O'Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.

 

[BigJohn]

They are denying providing the pizza for a gay wedding. If the same gay couple came into the restaurant and ordered pizzas to eat there, there is no issue.

What makes you say that?

“We are a Christian establishment,” says O'Connor.

The O'Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.

This is still holding true to my statements earlier. They are in no way denying service to gay people. They flat out said that.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The line they have drawn is participating in a gay wedding. IMO, I absolutely support this stance 100 percent. It's not discrimination against gays, it's choosing not to participate in a ceremony that they don't agree with them. This fact seems to get completely ignored.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I wonder what would happen if someone ordered a bunch of pizza's and asked to have them delivered to a hall. Say 30+ pies ordered a day or 2 in advance. Would they question what the occasion was? And what if they pull up to make the delivery and saw it was for a gay wedding - would they just refuse to deliver and absorb the loss? What if there was a deposit, would it get returned or would the couple have to sign something guaranteeing its not a gay wedding?

Lotta ins, lotta outs.

That would be inconsiderate of the happy couple to risk all of their guests being hungry on their special day just to catch a pizza place in a "gotcha" moment.

 

[roadkill1292]

Quick hijack -- I love the word "####storm."

 

[The Commish]

They are denying providing the pizza for a gay wedding. If the same gay couple came into the restaurant and ordered pizzas to eat there, there is no issue.

What makes you say that?

“We are a Christian establishment,” says O'Connor.

The O'Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.

Because they said there would be no issue.