Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[Scoresman]

unchurched leftists.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

 

[3C's]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

How is providing pizza to a gay wedding forcing anyone to accept a lifestyle? You sell the pizza, take the tip, and leave. End of story.

Would selling pizza to a bah mitzvah party mean they were accepting Judaism? The whole thing is silly...

They might catch the gay if they go to a gay wedding.

 

[TPW]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago

"Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you."

 

[Scoresman]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago | Delete | Are you sure? Yes or Cancel

Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you.

That sounds more like the Gay Mafia.

 

[squistion]

What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions

Indeed every gay couple that gets married does so only to get payback against society for past transgressions. Nothing to do with equal rights or the fact that they might love each other, just payback.

What a profound observation.

 

[Parrothead]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago | Delete | Are you sure? Yes or Cancel

Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you.

That sounds more like the Gay Mafia.

not as threatening if you read it in the voice of Jim J. Bullock

 

[TPW]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago | Delete | Are you sure? Yes or Cancel

Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you.

That sounds more like the Gay Mafia.

I prefer "Gaystapo".

 

[njherdfan]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago | Delete | Are you sure? Yes or Cancel

Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you.

That sounds more like the Gay Mafia.

If you sort the donations by "highest" and go to the second page, you get what might be the strongest internet comment I've ever seen.

Sadly this is the first wave. We are seeing the rise of GAY SHARIA. They will go to any length to destroy people of conscience and good will. I expect to see Gay Sharia violence supported by both Social and mainstream Media in my lifetime.

 

[timschochet]

Now I get why TPW has so strongly defended gun rights in previous threads. How else to stop the rampaging gays when they arrive?

Gays are the new zombies.

 

[Parrothead]

"They are going to break in and redecorate your house with colors that don't match"!!

 

[hxperson]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

What I find strange about a lot of the deeply conservative Christian types I know is that when something happens that runs counter to the notion that God is real and is looking over us, for example a wonderful young Christian boy gets cancer and dies before 10 years old, they always explain it away as "well, this was God's will, we can't understand it we just have to accept it".

However, when something happens that runs counter not to the existence of God, but rather his moral teachings, like for example to ongoing rise in acceptance of homosexuals as equal but different people to what now is probably the majority of the developed world's population, I never hear them suggesting that this too might be "God's will".

Seems a bit cognitive dissonant to me.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

What I find strange about a lot of the deeply conservative Christian types I know is that when something happens that runs counter to the notion that God is real and is looking over us, for example a wonderful young Christian boy gets cancer and dies before 10 years old, they always explain it away as "well, this was God's will, we can't understand it we just have to accept it".

However, when something happens that runs counter not to the existence of God, but rather his moral teachings, like for example to ongoing rise in acceptance of homosexuals as equal but different people to what now is probably the majority of the developed world's population, I never hear them suggesting that this too might be "God's will".

Seems a bit cognitive dissonant to me.

Well...yeah. I mean we're talking about religion here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

GoFundMe site is so great. I can't believe I underestimated the stupidity of the anti-gay movement. I thought they'd just line up outside the place, but no. They've given over $100,000 to some guy who lives in Texas, has nothing to do with the restaurant and has given no indication at all of what he intends to do with the money.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American social conservative

 

[tonydead]

This is where I struggle and apparently others do too. Businesses do have the right to discriminate in most situations, and not just for marketing/brand management reasons (like a club with a velvet rope). A small business owner should have the right to refuse service just need to keep working to determine where the line is.Ultimately, while everyone is jumping to the knee jerk condemnation of Indiana's law, isn't it possible that they end up witj a more nuanced version of the rfra than exists now? That would be progress, and a good thing imo.

You are right, depending on the state, this group isn't necessarily protected by the law from discrimination. But, you said it, it is discrimination and that's why they open them selves up to law suits and back lash. And the laws are changing. We don't take kindly to discrimination in this country and it's only a matter of time before sexual orientation is a protected class everywhere.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pizza place closes?

 

[3C's]

GoFundMe site is so great. I can't believe I underestimated the stupidity of the anti-gay movement. I thought they'd just line up outside the place, but no. They've given over $100,000 to some guy who lives in Texas, has nothing to do with the restaurant and has given no indication at all of what he intends to do with the money.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American social conservative

Would be hysterical if later today he thanks everyone for funding his gay wedding.

 

[squistion]

Bipartisan Report ‏@Bipartisanism ·

Conservatives. We won't help the poor like Jesus asked, but we will donate $100k to reward #MemoriesPizza for discriminating against gays.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

Big Gay is coming for you!

Austin Kasso 0 mins ago | Delete | Are you sure? Yes or Cancel

Go to hell you stupid bigots. Don't think you can hold onto that money for long - you don't deserve this money and we are coming to rob you.

That sounds more like the Gay Mafia.

not as threatening if you read it in the voice of Jim J. Bullock

Do what now?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Bipartisan Report ‏@Bipartisanism ·

Conservatives. We won't help the poor like Jesus asked, but we will donate $100k to reward #MemoriesPizza for discriminating against gays.

they won't?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Pizza place closes?

Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS

 

[Steve Tasker]

Big Gay and The Unchurched Leftists....fabulous band name

 

[joffer]

unchurched leftists.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Big Gay and The Unchurched Leftists....fabulous band name

 

[Psychopav]

Not serving gay people and not catering a gay wedding are not the same thing.

Well they kind of are, because catering is a form of service. But it doesn't really matter, that's just semantics. They're both discrimination and they both should be condemned.

Should a person who disagrees with get marriage be condemned? Or only if it causes them to not want to participate in a gay wedding? What if they are willing to participate in a gay wedding but in their minds they feel that homosexuality is 'wrong'?I'm always confused if the outrage is just for the 'discrimination' ie action or the difference in belief itself.

Assuming you meant "gay" here, the answer is yes. If you don't think gay people should have the right to marry you should be condemned.

That sort of attitude was wrong but kind of understandable ten or even five years ago before the public debate and the litigation really kicked into gear. But now that opponents have had years to make their case in courts and to the public over and over and still have failed to come up with even one rational argument for denying equal treatment to homosexuals under the law, the position is worthy of condemnation.

Ok, fair enough. And yes I meant gay marriage.Abortion is legal. Many religions teach that abortion is immoral. Because a legal argument has been made (and succeeded) that abortion is legal does that mean those who oppose abortion in most cases are worthy of condemnation? Legal pot. If someone feels it's not a good idea to allow people to smoke weed legally but their state has decriminalized it should they be condemned because they disagree with the law?

I don't get why disagreeing with a law or policy should be the basis for whether or not a belief is worthy of condemnation. Clearly in this case the condemnation cones from the fact that pro-gay marriage folks find the basic beliefs of anti-gay marriage folks worthy of condemnation (mainly that homosexuality is a 'wrong' sexual expression). That's what people are really upset about. Which is fine but then let's admit that the outrage has more to do with a cultural groundswell of righteous indignation against those who feel that homosexuality is wrong. Not that gay people are discriminated against because a couple businesses in Indiana hypothetically wouldn't sell their products or services to a gay couple.

Well people condemn folks on the other side of the abortion debate all the time, and I have no problem with that.

But there's still a difference between disagreeing with other laws and policies and disagreeing with this one. The difference is that there aren't two sides here. There's no legitimate reason to deny gays the right to marry. People have trotted our a few attempts over the last couple years and they've all been shown to be nonsense both in the courts and in the public debate. The argument about marriage being about procreation? We let old people and the impotent marry. Better for kids to have a mom and dad instead of two moms or two dads? Most data says it doesn't really change anything, but it doesn't matter anyway because it's a false question- nobody is taking a child away from a healthy straight married couple and giving it to a gay one. I mean, read the list of reasons to oppose gay marriage put together by the leading public interest group on the issue and try not to laugh out loud at it.

That is unique to this issue. There's rational reasons to support/oppose abortion, legalizing marijuana, or really anything else we discuss. You may disagree with the arguments on the other side, but they are reasonable. Here the reasons to oppose gay marriage are silly and laughable and not really reasons at all. They're nonsense. Every court that looks at them says so. The one circuit that still hasn't struck down gay marriage bans as violations of the equal protection clause punted on the issue and turned it into a "states rights" question.

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

2. Children need fathers.

3. Children need mothers.

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Ha ha.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not serving gay people and not catering a gay wedding are not the same thing.

Well they kind of are, because catering is a form of service. But it doesn't really matter, that's just semantics. They're both discrimination and they both should be condemned.

Should a person who disagrees with get marriage be condemned? Or only if it causes them to not want to participate in a gay wedding? What if they are willing to participate in a gay wedding but in their minds they feel that homosexuality is 'wrong'?I'm always confused if the outrage is just for the 'discrimination' ie action or the difference in belief itself.

Assuming you meant "gay" here, the answer is yes. If you don't think gay people should have the right to marry you should be condemned.

That sort of attitude was wrong but kind of understandable ten or even five years ago before the public debate and the litigation really kicked into gear. But now that opponents have had years to make their case in courts and to the public over and over and still have failed to come up with even one rational argument for denying equal treatment to homosexuals under the law, the position is worthy of condemnation.

Ok, fair enough. And yes I meant gay marriage.Abortion is legal. Many religions teach that abortion is immoral. Because a legal argument has been made (and succeeded) that abortion is legal does that mean those who oppose abortion in most cases are worthy of condemnation? Legal pot. If someone feels it's not a good idea to allow people to smoke weed legally but their state has decriminalized it should they be condemned because they disagree with the law?

I don't get why disagreeing with a law or policy should be the basis for whether or not a belief is worthy of condemnation. Clearly in this case the condemnation cones from the fact that pro-gay marriage folks find the basic beliefs of anti-gay marriage folks worthy of condemnation (mainly that homosexuality is a 'wrong' sexual expression). That's what people are really upset about. Which is fine but then let's admit that the outrage has more to do with a cultural groundswell of righteous indignation against those who feel that homosexuality is wrong. Not that gay people are discriminated against because a couple businesses in Indiana hypothetically wouldn't sell their products or services to a gay couple.

Well people condemn folks on the other side of the abortion debate all the time, and I have no problem with that.

But there's still a difference between disagreeing with other laws and policies and disagreeing with this one. The difference is that there aren't two sides here. There's no legitimate reason to deny gays the right to marry. People have trotted our a few attempts over the last couple years and they've all been shown to be nonsense both in the courts and in the public debate. The argument about marriage being about procreation? We let old people and the impotent marry. Better for kids to have a mom and dad instead of two moms or two dads? Most data says it doesn't really change anything, but it doesn't matter anyway because it's a false question- nobody is taking a child away from a healthy straight married couple and giving it to a gay one. I mean, read the list of reasons to oppose gay marriage put together by the leading public interest group on the issue and try not to laugh out loud at it.

That is unique to this issue. There's rational reasons to support/oppose abortion, legalizing marijuana, or really anything else we discuss. You may disagree with the arguments on the other side, but they are reasonable. Here the reasons to oppose gay marriage are silly and laughable and not really reasons at all. They're nonsense. Every court that looks at them says so. The one circuit that still hasn't struck down gay marriage bans as violations of the equal protection clause punted on the issue and turned it into a "states rights" question.

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

2. Children need fathers.

3. Children need mothers.

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Ha ha.

You lack either a sense of humor or common sense. Those are all either (1) unbelievably stupid nonsense (1, 6, 8, 9 and 10), or (2) totally unrelated to whether or not we should recognize gay marriage (the rest of them). In some cases it's both.

It's not like this is some issue that's still up for debate. The courts have ruled on it and, with the exception of the court that punted on the issue in a poorly reasoned nod to state's rights and the democratic process, have laughed those arguments out of the room.

 

[hxperson]

1. Children hunger for their biological parents. - So, adoption is a bad thing for the kids?

2. Children need fathers. - why?

3. Children need mothers. - why?

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate. - a repeat of 2 & 3, please define "inadequate"

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. - Or, it might just be that their parents are more open minded about the truth of their sexual orientation. If you can prove that is not the case, then I might accept this.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage. - This is not a fact, just a highly discriminatory statement against homosexuals

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose. - So infertile men and women should not get married?

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment. - Another highly discriminatory statement not grounded on fact

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles. - What does this even mean? And what is a gender-typical role? Is this group condemning women who re-enter the workforce after having children?

10. Women and marriage domesticate men. -

Ha ha.

seems pretty laughable to me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. Children hunger for their biological parents. - So, adoption is a bad thing for the kids?

2. Children need fathers. - why?

3. Children need mothers. - why?

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate. - a repeat of 2 & 3, please define "inadequate"

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. - Or, it might just be that their parents are more open minded about the truth of their sexual orientation. If you can prove that is not the case, then I might accept this.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage. - This is not a fact, just a highly discriminatory statement against homosexuals

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose. - So infertile men and women should not get married?

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment. - Another highly discriminatory statement not grounded on fact

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles. - What does this even mean? And what is a gender-typical role? Is this group condemning women who re-enter the workforce after having children?

10. Women and marriage domesticate men. -

Ha ha.

seems pretty laughable to me.

It's a tough choice, but I think #10 is my clear favorite. It's important that we "domesticate" men- without marriage we'd all be a bunch of savages with no regard for the rule of law or the benefits of indoor plumbing. And if we ban gay marriage? Well obviously the gay men will then decide to marry women who will domesticate them! It's a brilliant plan.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pizza place closes?

Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS

I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.

The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Pizza place closes?

Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS

I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.

The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.

What did they do wrong exactly?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pizza place closes?

Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS

I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.

The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.

What did they do wrong exactly?

 

[squistion]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

 

[cstu]

Salesforce CEO offering hefty relocation packages to Indiana employees who ...
Washington Times - ‎41 minutes ago‎
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is offering relocation packages to Indiana-based employees who no longer feel comfortable living in the state since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law.

 

[cstu]

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

Clearly we need to exterminate bonobos to prevent this abomination.

 

[roadkill1292]

What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions

Indeed every gay couple that gets married does so only to get payback against society for past transgressions. Nothing to do with equal rights or the fact that they might love each other, just payback.

What a profound observation.

It provides an interesting insight into the minds of what is probably a small minority of social conservatives (I can't believe gb TPW represents a majority of anything). In the fifties and sixties, minorities were routinely criminalized and persecuted for being minorities, with the consent and, often, assistance of the conservative majority in power. That group is losing its majority status and power. Could it be they fear that the new ruling majority will impose the same harsh penalties on believers that they once did to minorities? That's what they did. That's what they would do again if they had the power to do so. So why not expect the other side to do it to you?

And, yes, we can all find the stupid posts that say "we should ban religion." The internet gives voice to the dumbasses on both sides. But we're not gonna make your church perform gay weddings. We're just gonna make fun of you.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate. A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

 

[Eminence]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

MVP! MVP!

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

MVP! MVP!

So are you two gonna ####, or what?

 

[Parrothead]

Stolen from another board: when Jesus was a home improvement contractor, do you think he turned down contracts from teh gayz?

Who knows? But he did say, "Go and sin no more" and ran the money changers out of the temple. This whole notion by unchurched leftists that Christ was equally accepting of both sin and sinner is a modern heresy.

Being churched seems to have made you a pretty antagonistic character, sternly segregating people into second class citizenship. Not only do I think your attitudes un-Christian, I think they're downright un-American.

Refusing to accept sinful, abhorrent behavior as conventional relegates nobody to a second class status. But conducting monetary, social, and political offensives to silence your opposition and shutter legitimate businesses sure as heck does.

Besides, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. I don't. But you are free to think it. I wish your end of the political spectrum felt and acted the same way.

I've seen exactly what your end of the spectrum thinks and, more importantly, does to minorities that it deems "sinful." It fires them from their jobs if they're lucky and throws them in jail if they're not. Through the use of boycotts and speaking out, minorities have earned the right to be heard in ways that they weren't heard 50 years ago and the nation has decided that they're right -- they really weren't getting a fair shake. You're welcome to consider it sinful, abhorrent behavior, I'll defend your right to believe that. But you don't get to escape criticism for it any more. Boohoo, people think differently these days.

I have never fired an individual for being homosexual, nor have in my entire life worked in any environment where an individual was fired for being homosexual. What the homosexual movement is engaged in these days isn't about equality. It's about payback for past transgressions and forcing people to accept a lifestyle they find repugnant under the threat of financial and regulatory coercion. That's not "criticism". That's active, aggressive, prejudice against a targeted group.

MVP! MVP!

So are you two gonna ####, or what?

not if they want pizza

 

[TobiasFunke]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Pizza place closes?

Death threats? Arson threats? Closing your business? HILARIOUS

I wasn't really laughing at the fact that they "had" to close but the absurdity of the situation.

The death/arson threats are inexcusable...but I have zero sympathy for these buttclowns when it comes to all of the other backlash.

What did they do wrong exactly?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy. Selective outrage, I suppose.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy.Selective outrage, I suppose.

If you're going to make everyone live by YOUR rules, at least follow them yourself.

 

[hxperson]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy.Selective outrage, I suppose.

If you're going to make everyone live by YOUR rules, at least follow them yourself.

Boycotting in this case would be protesting rules, not making them. Pretty big difference there.

 

[Joe Summer]

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Gay men say

 

[TobiasFunke]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy.Selective outrage, I suppose.

No, selective tactics. It's unfortunate that you don't understand the difference. Maybe if you did you wouldn't mindlessly regurgitate whatever terrible argument every single conservative blogger in America makes on a given day.

 

[Eminence]

I'm glad there is still sanity in the world. Hollywood has a lot of people brainwashed. Seriously, all this commotion over 2-3% of the population? Considering they've mapped the human genome and haven't found a gay gene, homosexuality is either a mental illness, conditioning, or a choice.

I don't understand how a society can accept two sides on abortion but refuse to accept two sides on homosexuality. Even though the anti gay side isn't trying to assimilate their opposition. Sad how Hollywood has pushed a condition that effects 2 - 3% of the population as normal.

 

[jonessed]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy.Selective outrage, I suppose.

If you're going to make everyone live by YOUR rules, at least follow them yourself.

They will do whatever grabs attention in the blogosphere. Free publicity.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to gays: Don't complain about discrimination here because they hang people for being gay in Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/tom-cotton-gays-indiana-religious-freedom_n_6992282.html

Tom Cotton To Gays Of America: At Least You're Not Living In Iran

WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.

[...] "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think its important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities," Cotton said.

"In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."

It's dumb for him to bring it up, but based on our current negotiations with them, I suppose I see where he's coming from. Even though what you and the article characterized about his statement isn't really accurate.A better example of hypocrisy would be Apple boycotting Indiana when they do business in places much more discriminatory.

I've seen this one before, making the rounds on the conservative blogs I take it?

The main reason you boycott something is to bring about change. Boycotts of Indiana worked like a charm, the right wingers there have already been forced to change course. Boycotts of Saudi Arabia (that's the conservative blogger line, right?) would not work. Part of the reason is that Indiana is a democracy. If people in Indiana don't get their iPhones they'll throw hissy fits and exert pressure on their elected leaders. If people in Saudi Arabia don't get their iPhones the extremely wealthy and powerful monarchy that rules the country will tell them to go #### themselves. If anything, delivering products that allow people in Saudi Arabia to access to the internet more easily is a good thing for the cause of gay rights, and all human rights for that matter.

It's actually kind of surprising that people don't understand the difference.

Almost as surprising as people making excuses for the hypocrisy.Selective outrage, I suppose.

No, selective tactics. It's unfortunate that you don't understand the difference. Maybe if you did you wouldn't mindlessly regurgitate whatever terrible argument every single conservative blogger in America makes on a given day.

Oh, please. You spew liberal talking points day in and day out.

 

[Todd Andrews]

bigots....come out and play....