Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This actually does piss me off. The article correctly identifies them as a "mob" because that is what they are
 
goldfly said:
isn't the mob the free market?
Click to expand...

Yes - per usual they have the "right" to threaten store owners I guess... But I'd imagine you'd have a different opinion of it if were KKK folks threatening black owners.

It's pretty sad that the owner here gave the gay couple the service they requested, and were still threatened bc they simply hold a different viewpoint.

Not sure how you can defend that - but not surprised I guess
 
sturg33 said:
Yes - per usual they have the "right" to threaten store owners I guess... But I'd imagine you'd have a different opinion of it if were KKK folks threatening black owners.

It's pretty sad that the owner here gave the gay couple the service they requested, and were still threatened bc they simply hold a different viewpoint.

Not sure how you can defend that - but not surprised I guess
Click to expand...

not really defending it

was more pointing out the fallacy of the free market always being right or will fix itself etc etc
 
goldfly said:
not really defending it

was more pointing out the fallacy of the free market always being right or will fix itself etc etc
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what everyone gets so upset about though. The LGBT crowd is NOT looking for equality - they are looking for submission - which makes it really hard for me to defend them.

And this is coming from a guy who supports SSM
 
isn't the other side of the coin asking for submission by putting their religion and its laws in our supposed to be secular(at the very least not supposed to endorse the views of any certain religion) gov't?
 
I'm generally confused by the couple's behavior. If someone's religious views were a high importance, they would have vetted the jeweler first. I feel like overall the information would have been there if they uncovered it later. Period I think it's that simple, if you sign a contract to do business with someone, unless they don't fulfill that contract or do something during the contract that's so egregious it can harm your business, then I don't buy it. For them to do this sounds like maybe they wanted to get out of the ring because they didn't like it or were instead of a refund hoping for a discount. I don't think this was done genuinely. Maybe that's just my internal cynic though.
 
goldfly said:
isn't the other side of the coin asking for submission by putting their religion and its laws in our supposed to be secular(at the very least not supposed to endorse the views of any certain religion) gov't?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where that happened here.

The business owner has a right to an opinion, no?
 
sturg33 said:
I'm not sure where that happened here.

The business owner has a right to an opinion, no?
Click to expand...

" The LGBT crowd is NOT looking for equality - they are looking for submission"

i thought we were talking about crowds now and not just this case when you said this?
 
sturg33 said:
Can you give me an example of whatever point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...

Tennessee Tennessee Amendment 1 The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.

North Dakota North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect

Ohio 2004 State Issue 1 Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

etc etc etc
 
goldfly said:
Tennessee Tennessee Amendment 1 The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.

North Dakota North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect

Ohio 2004 State Issue 1 Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

etc etc etc
Click to expand...

I don't see how the two are relateable. I've already said I support SSM - although the states have the right to choose.

I'm trying to see how these businesses are forcing their will on people. All I see if threatening letters to burn their building to the ground because they don't agree on something. Such a loving group
 
uh

the other side is asking for submission to their religious view

"The religious right crowd is NOT looking for equality - they are looking for submission"
 
I really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm waiting for the religous right to start threatening to burn down Starbucks because they support SSM
 
Why are they called the LGBT "Crowd"
?

I have to laugh at cherry picked instances of people acting like jerks.
Then equating everyone of that persuasion into a "crowd"
As in Westboro Baptist goes on a rant and the left condemns the Christian "Crowd"
Hate when that happens

Why not just a Jerk "Crowd"
?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top