# Wedding Venue Gets Threats, Fears Shut Down After Refusing Gay Couple?s Nuptials



## Savior (Aug 10, 2013)

> Another business is facing retribution for declining service to a same-sex couple. Betty and Dick Odgaard, owners of G?rtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, are catching the ire of gay rights advocates after they declined offering their venue to Lee Stafford and his fiance Jared.
> 
> Now the owners, who are Christians, are receiving vicious and threatening emails and phone calls ? and they fear that their business could shut down because of the fierce reaction.
> 
> ...







This is sickening.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 10, 2013)

"After Dick realized it would be a gay ceremony..."

I'm 26 closer to 27 and I laughed.

Speaks volumes of my maturity I guess.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 10, 2013)

Welcome to 21st century america, where people feel entitled to ruin other lives because they're not "tolerant" enough.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

The blaze.

Anyways, while the method is aggressive, I cant fault people for using their speech to let their anger be known.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Welcome to 21st century america, where people feel entitled to ruin other lives because they're not "tolerant" enough.



Wait, what? How are their lives being ruined? Many people start boycotting them and if they go bankrupt, that just means their business model was shit.

I wonder how many people would be outraged over this if they had gotten flak for refusing an interracial marriage.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Many people start boycotting them and if they go bankrupt,
> .



If they garner enough attention, Im sure their business will start booming actually.


----------



## Savior (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> If they garner enough attention, Im sure their business will start booming actually.



Check their yelp review page out...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Conflicted. 

On one hand, the backlash they got was a bit much compared to any harm they've caused. We are talking about a family that could lose everything here for refusing service. Gay marriage is a very new thing to Americans. The Civil Rights movement didn't pan out overnight, we can't expect LGBT rights to either.

On the other hand...they're a business. Like Sauf said, if they go under - it's because of a shitty business model. If their customer base feel put off due to their beliefs, then that's their own fault. If they go under, that's because their potential market clearly disagrees with them, to the point where they want to seek out another business.


----------



## blueblip (Aug 10, 2013)

Wait wait wait...

Isn't this the *exact, same* behaviour that anti-gay nuts used on gay people for years? I mean, sure, they don't have to like the couple for not performing a gay marriage, but hate mail and trying to destroy their livelihood?

When you gaze long into the abyss...


----------



## Zaru (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Wait, what? How are their lives being ruined? Many people start boycotting them and if they go bankrupt, that just means their business model was shit.



I was talking about the intention behind what those people are doing.  They WANT to ruin their lives because some dudes couldn't get married there.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

blueblip said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Isn't this the *exact, same* behaviour that anti-gay nuts used on gay people for years? I mean, sure, they don't have to like the couple for not performing a gay marriage, but hate mail and trying to destroy their livelihood?
> 
> When you gaze long into the abyss...



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Elr5K2Vuo[/YOUTUBE]





Zaru said:


> I was talking about the intention behind what those people are doing.  They WANT to ruin their lives because some dudes couldn't get married there.



And that's the sort of mentality I disagree with. The LGBT community/supporters shouldn't be trying to make examples of people. 

Not to say people shouldn't be free to speak their minds about this, I just wish we could do it in a more civil manner.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 10, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> And that's the sort of mentality I disagree with. The LGBT community/supporters shouldn't be trying to make examples of people.
> 
> Not to say people shouldn't be free to speak their minds about this, I just wish we could do it in a more civil manner.



What we need to realize is that LGBT people and their supporters are not magically a peaceful, calm demographic. Purely by statistics, there will be a lot of colossal assholes (no pun intended) among that group too.


----------



## WT (Aug 10, 2013)

Hope these folks continue to operate their business. Its only the gays and a bunch of appeasers who won't come. Its a win situation. 

Now, they should contact police that they're being harassed.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Zaru said:


> What we need to realize is that LGBT people and their supporters are not magically a peaceful, calm demographic. Purely by statistics, there will be a lot of colossal assholes (no pun intended) among that group too.



The same goes for any group in the world. 



White Tiger said:


> Now, they should contact police that they're being harassed.



"Arrest these people, they were being mean to me on the internets!"


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

blueblip said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Isn't this the *exact, same* behaviour that anti-gay nuts used on gay people for years? I mean, sure, they don't have to like the couple for not performing a gay marriage, but hate mail and trying to destroy their livelihood?
> 
> When you gaze long into the abyss...



No, it's not even remotely close to the treatment gay people received and continue to receive.

What is wrong with writing an e-mail to someone to let them know that you think they're an asshole?

And what do you mean "trying to destroy their livelihood"? If I go to the big super market instead of the little, private grocery store because the owner is a collosal dick, am I "ruining his livelihood"? No, I'm simply exercising my right as a customer to take my money wherever the hell I want to.



Zaru said:


> I was talking about the intention behind what those people are doing.  They WANT to ruin their lives because some dudes couldn't get married there.



What are you talking about? Same as above, if I choose to take the services of business A over those of business B, am I ruining the life of A's owner?



White Tiger said:


> Hope these folks continue to operate their business. Its only the gays and a bunch of appeasers who won't come. Its a win situation.
> 
> Now, they should contact police that they're being harassed.



Can't see any evidence of harrassment. If you have a public e-mail address and phone number, people are going to write you e-mails and call you, big deal.


----------



## WT (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Can't see any evidence of harrassment. If you have a public e-mail address and phone number, people are going to write you e-mails and call you, big deal.





> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??



So the above is not a form of bullying? 

Are you an advocate of bullying because its freedom of speech?


----------



## Zaru (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> And what do you mean "trying to destroy their livelihood"? If I go to the big super market instead of the little, private grocery store because the owner is a collosal dick, am I "ruining his livelihood"? No, I'm simply exercising my right as a customer to take my money wherever the hell I want to.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Same as above, if I choose to take the services of business A over those of business B, am I ruining the life of A's owner?



They're not "choosing to take their services somewhere else". They're raining bad publicity on them and try to disrupt their business. Business model my ass.


Anyway, doesn't it go against the law since they're not a religious institution? They could face trouble either way.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> So the above is not a form of bullying?
> 
> Are you an advocate of bullying because its freedom of speech?



I personally wouldn't consider it bullying, but that's certainly up for debate. Even if it were, it's not against the law.

It's definitely not harrassment, though.



Zaru said:


> They're not "choosing to take their services somewhere else". They're raining bad publicity on them and try to disrupt their business. Business model my ass.



How are they trying to disrupt the business? Bad publicity is what you get when you discriminate against certain customers based on who they are. If a store owner insults me, I may tell all my friends about it and give him a bad review on the internet. How is that wrong in any way?


----------



## blueblip (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, it's not even remotely close to the treatment gay people received and continue to receive.
> 
> What is wrong with writing an e-mail to someone to let them know that you think they're an asshole?
> 
> ...


Let me re-phrase: This is similar to some of the behaviour anti-gay rights nuts have used on gay people over the years.

And switch the situation around. If a gay couple had a business with a publicly listed phone number and email address and some close minded morons started calling them up and spewing similar kind of vitriol ("get out of my country ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)", "you gay sons of bitches from hell", etc.), wouldn't you call it harassment? Of course you would, because it is harassment!

Ideally, the couple should not discriminate between gay and straight services, because that's pure bullshit. But it's also their business, and right or wrong, they can choose to refuse service. You can write or call to complain about their service, and you can point out it's discrimination. But when you start abusing a person's religious preferences, you're no longer talking about the quality of their business, you're making it personal. And it that's wrong, no matter the situation.

You don't resort to things like personal insults precisely because you should be above that. And if there's any group of people who should know how petty it is to insult someone's personal choice in anything, it's the gay community. They've had to put up with (and still do, sadly) for decades upon decades.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

blueblip said:


> Let me re-phrase: This is similar to some of the behaviour anti-gay rights nuts have used on gay people over the years.
> 
> And switch the situation around. If a gay couple had a business with a publicly listed phone number and email address and some close minded morons started calling them up and spewing similar kind of vitriol ("get out of my country ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)", "you gay sons of bitches from hell", etc.), wouldn't you call it harassment? Of course you would, because it is harassment!



HAHAHA, nice fucking try but that is not even close to the reverse situation. Here's the actual reverse situation:

Couple (whether they're gay or straight doesn't matter in the least) runs a wedding business that only allows gay marriages. They get lots of bad reviews, people complain that they're bigoted assholes and they get few customers.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with that at all.



> Ideally, the couple should not discriminate between gay and straight services, because that's pure bullshit. But it's also their business, and right or wrong, they can choose to refuse service. You can write or call to complain about their service, and you can point out it's discrimination. But when you start abusing a person's religious preferences, you're no longer talking about the quality of their business, you're making it personal. And it that's wrong, no matter the situation.



Who is abusing anyone? Insulting someone is perfectly legal in the US last time I checked. And how do you "abuse a person's religion"?



> You don't resort to things like personal insults precisely because you should be above that. And if there's any group of people who should know how petty it is to insult someone's personal choice in anything, it's the gay community. They've had to put up with (and still do, sadly) for decades upon decades.



Or they could grow a thicker skin, how about that? Calling an asshole an asshole is perfectly normal.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Still oddly conflicted.

I don't think I've ever seen a Cafe thread that has me divided so much right down the center. 

Really have nothing to add to the conversation at this point.


----------



## blueblip (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> HAHAHA, nice fucking try but that is not even close to the reverse situation. Here's the actual reverse situation:
> 
> Couple (whether they're gay or straight doesn't matter in the least) runs a wedding business that only allows gay marriages. They get lots of bad reviews, people complain that they're bigoted assholes and they get few customers.
> 
> Personally, I see nothing wrong with that at all.


These aren't negative reviews about the business though. These are personal attacks. I mean, have you read the article and seen some of the comments being left?

"Fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your religion"

"Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you?"

Not to mention people are apparently telling them their family is "finished' and 'doomed'. Tell me again how these sort of comments are criticisms of their business? A critique of their business would be more like, "Your policies are discriminatory and wrong! And I will surely tell anyone I know not to go to you if they need a venue for any event!" or "I will be sure to never, ever recommend you to anyone I know" etc etc.

Furthermore, clogging someone's email and phone line just to abuse them IS harassment. Especially when the emails and calls are personal attacks.



> Who is abusing anyone? Insulting someone is perfectly legal in the US last time I checked. And how do you "abuse a person's religion"?
> 
> Or they could grow a thicker skin, how about that? Calling an asshole an asshole is perfectly normal.


By your logic, no one should be offended by anything hurled at them, because they should just grow thicker skin...

It's called perspective. The world is filled with idiots, bigots, morons, and people of similar ilk. There's nothing positive gained or done by stooping to their level. This is especially pertinent if you want to keep the moral high ground.


----------



## Roman (Aug 10, 2013)

There's two things here, as others mentioned. On the one hand, people have the right to express their outrage that an establishment refused their marriage because they're different from their perception of what is acceptable and traditional. As a business, it's not their right to tell someone what they can and can't do. It's their loss and they don't get paid. If they go under, it's their fault for having a bad business model.

On the other hand, the outrage is too aggressive and very reminiscent of the sort of hatred anti-gay groups express when threatening to shut down the business. While not unwarranted, it's unnecessary given that if they keep up this kind of behavior, eventually they'll go down by themselves as competitors outdo them as a consequence of accepting any sort of client, gay or otherwise.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> The blaze.
> 
> Anyways, while the method is aggressive, I cant fault people for using their speech to let their anger be known.



Why do we let these quack sources go here lately? It's ridiculous, you have people citizing Salon, Blaze, politico, etc. It's just out of control.

Anyways: 



I do not see the problem here, the couple is handling it appropriately. Of course you're going to have some idiots that catch wind of it that's a given.



Zaru said:


> Welcome to 21st century america, where people feel entitled to ruin other lives because they're not "tolerant" enough.



Still trying to speak on matters you know jack shit about I see.



blueblip said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Isn't this the *exact, same* behaviour that anti-gay nuts used on gay people for years? I mean, sure, they don't have to like the couple for not performing a gay marriage, but hate mail and trying to destroy their livelihood?
> 
> When you gaze long into the abyss...



No? How the hell are some anonymous harassers anything close to the anti-gay discrimination that goes on in many parts of the world? What's more is that boycott and bad publicity of a business that discriminates is a standard course of action on matters like this. The couple is handling it well, the people harassing them are not, but to try and equate this to anything close to discrimination the LGBT individuals have faced is idiotic.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why do we let these quack sources go here lately? It's ridiculous, you have people citizing Salon, Blaze, politico, etc. It's just out of control.
> 
> Anyways:
> 
> ...



This source is much better.

It's good to see the couple are handling it well. 

Now if only the internet would as well.


----------



## Gin (Aug 10, 2013)

> One angry e-mail said that the family is “finished” and “doomed.” “You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,” it read, with the writer later adding, “F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.” Another person who goes by the name “Micky” wrote, “Betty, you’re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you?“


People here are actually defending this shit?   Really?

I have no words, this is revolting.   You'd think these people were murderers or something based on the abuse they're receiving.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

Honestly, I find the owners' justification a little absurd, "I don't hate the gays I just happen to think they are inherently inferior and less moral than us!"


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Frost said:


> People here are actually defending this shit?   Really?
> 
> I have no words, this is revolting.   You'd think these people were murderers or something based on the abuse they're receiving.



By "people", you mean Sauf, right? Considering he's the only one in the thread doing so. 

Edit: Navy used his anti-sonar coating to swim under my radar.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

blueblip said:
			
		

> But when you start abusing a person's religious preferences, you're no longer talking about the quality of their business, you're making it personal. And it that's wrong, no matter the situation.
> 
> You don't resort to things like personal insults precisely because you should be above that. And if there's any group of people who should know how petty it is to insult someone's personal choice in anything, it's the gay community. They've had to put up with (and still do, sadly) for decades upon decades.



Wow. I didn't notice this one but hold the phone here. While harassing these people is wrong, to bring up their religious preferences in and of itself is not out of line at all. That is the root of the issue to begin with. Furthermore, religion is a personal choice being gay is not, so the comparison is more than a bit absurd; not to mention what the actual personal choice entails many times the comparison becomes even that much moreso. Just because the owners are not like your stereotypical foaming-at-the-mouth bigots doesn't change the fact that they think themselves as having a higher moral ground than LGBT individuals, and they think this on the basis of their religion, because that is what it decrees. Where is the homosexual handbook that declares anything like that?

Aside from that, their business suffering because of bad PR isn't an issue here. We live in a largely capitalist society where the best way for the dissatisfied consumer to speak is with their wallets. If people refuse to do business with these people and discourage others from doing the same that is a completely reasonable course of action. The consumers are not obligated to entertain their views and keep their business afloat.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

blueblip said:


> These aren't negative reviews about the business though. These are personal attacks. I mean, have you read the article and seen some of the comments being left?
> 
> "Fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your religion"
> 
> "Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you?"



Again, in the US insults are perfectly legal ways of expressing your distaste for another person.



> Not to mention people are apparently telling them their family is "finished' and 'doomed'. Tell me again how these sort of comments are criticisms of their business? A critique of their business would be more like, "Your policies are discriminatory and wrong! And I will surely tell anyone I know not to go to you if they need a venue for any event!" or "I will be sure to never, ever recommend you to anyone I know" etc etc.



Telling someone with a shitty business model that their business is doomed... What the hell is wrong with that?



> Furthermore, clogging someone's email and phone line just to abuse them IS harassment. Especially when the emails and calls are personal attacks.



Depends. If the same person does it over and over, it's harrassment. If lots of individuals do it on their own, there's nothing wrong with that.



> By your logic, no one should be offended by anything hurled at them, because they should just grow thicker skin...



Pretty much, yeah.



> It's called perspective. The world is filled with idiots, bigots, morons, and people of similar ilk. There's nothing positive gained or done by stooping to their level. This is especially pertinent if you want to keep the moral high ground.



How are they stooping to their level. If a business owner refuses service and you express your disdain for him and his business, how are you as bad as him? If I refuse to service black people in my establishment, I'll get way more shit than this and nobody would think it unjustified.



Freedan said:


> On the other hand, the outrage is too aggressive and very reminiscent of the sort of hatred anti-gay groups express when threatening to shut down the business. While not unwarranted, it's unnecessary given that if they keep up this kind of behavior, eventually they'll go down by themselves as competitors outdo them as a consequence of accepting any sort of client, gay or otherwise.



How is this in any way reminiscent of anti-gay bigotry? People have every right to express their opinions to other people. The article tries to spin it as abuse or even "threatening" but it's clearly just a lot of people expressing their disdain for two bigots.


----------



## Bioness (Aug 10, 2013)

Give a person bad or rejected service and face the consequences.


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 10, 2013)

Here we go again: Marriage is not a constitutionally protected right. It has been a religious practice from the beginning, therefore it is subjected to the freedom of religion and the freedom to refuse service to anyone who does not conform to said religion's standards. 

It was perfectly fine for this business to refuse this homosexual couple as customers. Also, these ad-hominem attacks against the business owners obviously come from insane retards who don't have their terminology right. "racist sons of b*tches from hell"? Really? How are the owners racist? Last time I checked, homosexuality is not a race. 

This is protected by the 1st amendment, they can be offended all they want. But the business owners also have the right _not to care_.


----------



## Mael (Aug 10, 2013)

The gay people were at fault for getting married in the first place.  Stay in an open relationship and proud.   Marriage will kill the romance.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Give a person bad or rejected service and face the consequences.


Basically....what the hell were they expecting to happen anyways? People are in no way required to continue to give them business and have every right to speak against them too. I also don't see how the way people are responding to their business is in anyway similar to how gays were/are discriminated against. The crazy, foul mouthed insults that sound like they were written by 7 year-olds shouldn't be taken seriously.

They failed to meet their customers expectations, thats their fault. They can continue to run as they please or change.


----------



## Pliskin (Aug 10, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> Here we go again: Marriage is not a constitutionally protected right. It has been a religious practice from the beginning, therefore it is subjected to the freedom of religion and the freedom to refuse service to anyone who does not conform to said religion's standards.
> 
> It was perfectly fine for this business to refuse this homosexual couple as customers. Also, these ad-hominem attacks against the business owners obviously come from insane retards who don't have their terminology right. "racist sons of b*tches from hell"? Really? How are the owners racist? Last time I checked, homosexuality is not a race.
> 
> This is protected by the 1st amendment, they can be offended all they want. But the business owners also have the right _not to care_.



So in essence you say it was okay to refuse them for the business owners and it was equally okay for everyone else to voice their disdain at that..

If so, I agree, really nothing out of the ordinary here. People refused a customer (not clever, but their choice), said customer had a negative review which lead to backlash for the business.

Free market at work, weeding out bad business models.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Pliskin said:


> So in essence you say it was okay to refuse them for the business owners and it was equally okay for everyone else to voice their disdain at that..
> 
> If so, I agree, really nothing out of the ordinary here. People refused a customer (not clever, but their choice), said customer had a negative review which lead to backlash for the business.
> 
> Free market at work, weeding out bad business models.



This. Its not like they were sued for anything. Perhaps people could have voiced their disdain in a more civil way, but there is no wrong dong here.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> This. Its not like they were sued for anything. Perhaps people could have voiced their disdain in a more civil way, but there is no *wrong dong* here.



Freudian slip? Wanna tell us something?


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

2 Dongs = Wrong


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> 2 Dongs = Wrong


You can never go wrong with too many dongs :33


How many people here would not get married at this place solely because they would deny rights to homosexuals? Even if you don't plan on getting married....just pretend. I wouldn't get married there, but thats also cause I'm gay :3 but if you're straight....?


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Not get married there? Just white liberals. Nobody else would think about it.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> Not get married there? Just white liberals. Nobody else would think about it.


 So all is lost if they're black ?


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Yes.As Chris Rock said,  black people dont get married. Straight Wedlock.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Aug 10, 2013)

There Business will be fine as long as they provide a good service. They have done fine so far without a large amount of gay customers, so its not like they are losing much.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> There Business will be fine as long as they provide a good service. They have done fine so far without a large amount of gay customers, so its not like they are losing much.



Depends. The people in that area could be so activist, that that business is dead. Or there could a decent number of conservatives there that the business will do even better with the higher press.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> Yes.As Chris Rock said,  black people dont get married. Straight Wedlock.


Chris Rock....(∪ ◡ ∪) I think marriage is weird...but ima still do it...and I'm black....and I'm gay


Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> There Business will be fine as long as they provide a good service. They have done fine so far without a large amount of gay customers, so its not like they are losing much.


I'd be more concerned about the amount of straight customers they're losing. I feel like they'll probably be fine, but they will definitely see a difference.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Why would you get married? You know of a divorce lawyer needing of a job?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 10, 2013)

Wow, they threaten to kill the "racists" because they aren't 'tolerant'. Ironic coming from people who are intolerant towards the beliefs of Christians. The extreme left are crazy and this is proof.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

I dont see any threats to kill. Rudeness? Definitely.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> Why would you get married? You know of a divorce lawyer needing of a job?


Cause. I'ma meet me a pretty lady, with a sweet laugh, who gonna have sweeter charm than....a bowl of lucky charms? Then we're gonna be holding hands and hugging and kissing and -----ing. Then she gonna turn to me and be all like, "Baby....I loooove you." and ima turn to her and be all like, "Baby....I looooove you too." Then we gonna be all like, "Leeeets bring our love together in harmony, under the government." Then we gonna be spending all this money, spending more time planning our wedding than our actual marriage, I want it on a peach orchid, theres gonna be white petals everywhere, and ima wear a yellow dress cause screw tradition and it brings out my eyes. Then we gonna kiss, go on a honeymoon start ----ing again. Get all _lovey-dovey_ in the honeymoon phase, probably have some fight a few weeks later making us question whether we made the right decision, and there will be a 50% change that we didn't. Though I'm gonna be better than my parents, I'm gonna figure that out _before_ I have kids 

I think that 50% chance is pretty worth it....right .___.?


----------



## Daxter (Aug 10, 2013)

As expressed by someone on the first page, I too am conflicted.

Not that I feel a shred of sympathy for these business owners, but moreso for the LGBT community and their supporters getting a little too angry and showing it. While this is hardly a scratch on the couple who owns the place, I don't want the community to lower themselves and create the image they're as immature and quick-tempered as the opposition. This should have been done more gracefully, though the act itself I can get on board with.

I do hope their business suffers. Putting a religious sense of superiority before making more money? What kind of business people are they? A true businessperson would shut the fuck up, put on a smile and ask what expensive packages they want. Only after the sale has been made and the costumers' backs are turned do you grumble, moan and bitch to your heart's content.



LesExit said:


> Cause *snip*




You're so adorbs man.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

It's worth it. If you arent the one with money.


----------



## PureWIN (Aug 10, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Conflicted.
> 
> On one hand, the backlash they got was a bit much compared to any harm they've caused. We are talking about a family that could lose everything here for refusing service. Gay marriage is a very new thing to Americans. The Civil Rights movement didn't pan out overnight, we can't expect LGBT rights to either.
> 
> On the other hand...they're a business. Like Sauf said, if they go under - it's because of a shitty business model. If their customer base feel put off due to their beliefs, then that's their own fault. If they go under, that's because their potential market clearly disagrees with them, to the point where they want to seek out another business.



Pretty much this.

Both sides are wrong, but the couple should be able to tank their own business without a lot of these hateful words being thrown at them.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

Daxter said:


> As expressed by someone on the first page, I too am conflicted.
> 
> Not that I feel a shred of sympathy for these business owners, but moreso for the LGBT community and their supporters getting a little too angry and showing it. While this is hardly a scratch on the couple who owns the place, I don't want the community to lower themselves and create the image they're as immature and quick-tempered as the opposition. This should have been done more gracefully, though the act itself I can get on board with.
> 
> I do hope their business suffers. Putting a religious sense of superiority before making more money? What kind of business people are they? A true businessperson would shut the fuck up, put on a smile and ask what expensive packages they want. Only after the sale has been made and the costumers' backs are turned do you grumble, moan and bitch to your heart's content.


I agree so much with you words u__u


> You're so adorbs man.


 It's a condition :3


navy said:


> It's worth it. If you arent the one with money.


....Then I'll just make sure thats me


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2013)

It's funny, I posted about a woman getting fifty rape and death threats and hour and her address being posted online because she petitioned to get women added to the UK pound note and many of you acted like she was out of line and not being abused. 

All of a sudden when gays do the same thing to intolerant assholes it's abuse on their part and they should be prosecuted? 

Fuck you Cafe.


----------



## Toroxus (Aug 10, 2013)

So uh, yeah, who's gonna "Shut these people down?" The article makes no mention of it. All it does make mention is that the court of public opinion is boycotting them. IF enough people saw things their way, they wouldn't have to worry about loss of business, but nope, they are just hateful bigots and times are a changing.


----------



## Toroxus (Aug 10, 2013)

LesExit said:


> Cause. I'ma meet me a pretty lady, with a sweet laugh, who gonna have sweeter charm than....a bowl of lucky charms? Then we're gonna be holding hands and hugging and kissing and -----ing. Then she gonna turn to me and be all like, "Baby....I loooove you." and ima turn to her and be all like, "Baby....I looooove you too." Then we gonna be all like, "Leeeets bring our love together in harmony, under the government." Then we gonna be spending all this money, spending more time planning our wedding than our actual marriage, I want it on a peach orchid, theres gonna be white petals everywhere, and ima wear a yellow dress cause screw tradition and it brings out my eyes. Then we gonna kiss, go on a honeymoon start ----ing again. Get all _lovey-dovey_ in the honeymoon phase, probably have some fight a few weeks later making us question whether we made the right decision, and there will be a 50% change that we didn't. Though I'm gonna be better than my parents, I'm gonna figure that out _before_ I have kids
> 
> I think that 50% chance is pretty worth it....right .___.?



Not to be the bad cat, but you can have all of this without some phony piece of paper. Gay people have proved that over and over again. Love is a thing between humans, no gods or governments needed. The paper only confers governmental rights.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Not to be the bad cat, but you can have all of this without some phony piece of paper. Gay people have proved that over and over again. Love is a thing between humans, no gods or governments needed. The paper only confers governmental rights.


Oh I know that :33 I was kinda trying to imply that when I said "Leeeets bring our love together in harmony, *under the government.*" as if one needs to really do that XD 

If I ever get married I'm going to try my best to really think it through. People really do then to spend more time planning their wedding than their actual marriage. 

The governmental rights would just make so many things easier I guess, if I plan on doing a lot with my significant other. Buying a home, adopting children ⊙▃⊙

You are not a bad cat, you speak true lovely words, love stands strong all on it's own without silly papers pek


----------



## MegaultraHay (Aug 10, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's funny, I posted about a woman getting fifty rape and death threats and hour and her address being posted online because she petitioned to get women added to the UK pound note and many of you acted like she was out of line and not being abused.
> 
> All of a sudden when gays do the same thing to intolerant assholes it's abuse on their part and they should be prosecuted?
> 
> Fuck you Cafe.



source     ?
edit:





Patchouli said:


> Conflicted.
> 
> On one hand, the backlash they got was a bit much compared to any harm they've caused. We are talking about a family that could lose everything here for refusing service. Gay marriage is a very new thing to Americans. The Civil Rights movement didn't pan out overnight, we can't expect LGBT rights to either.
> 
> On the other hand...they're a business. Like Sauf said, if they go under - it's because of a shitty business model. If their customer base feel put off due to their beliefs, then that's their own fault. If they go under, that's because their potential market clearly disagrees with them, to the point where they want to seek out another business.





PureWIN said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Both sides are wrong, but the couple should be able to tank their own business without a lot of these hateful words being thrown at them.


Read this.


----------



## blueblip (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow. I didn't notice this one but hold the phone here. While harassing these people is wrong, to bring up their religious preferences in and of itself is not out of line at all. That is the root of the issue to begin with. Furthermore, religion is a personal choice being gay is not, so the comparison is more than a bit absurd; not to mention what the actual personal choice entails many times the comparison becomes even that much moreso. Just because the owners are not like your stereotypical foaming-at-the-mouth bigots doesn't change the fact that they think themselves as having a higher moral ground than LGBT individuals, and they think this on the basis of their religion, because that is what it decrees. Where is the homosexual handbook that declares anything like that?
> 
> Aside from that, their business suffering because of bad PR isn't an issue here. We live in a largely capitalist society where the best way for the dissatisfied consumer to speak is with their wallets. If people refuse to do business with these people and discourage others from doing the same that is a completely reasonable course of action. The consumers are not obligated to entertain their views and keep their business afloat.


And where exactly have I said they shouldn't boycott the place? I even gave it as an example of proper criticism of the couple's attitudes: people who don't like them can just write a review simply stating, "I'm not going to ever bring my custom here, nor am I ever going to refer you to anyone." Plain and simple.

However, as shown previously, the comments being left behind are NOT a critique of the business, but personal insults aimed at the couple. Why is that perfectly fine? Bigots are bigots. You're certainly not going to change them by hurling XBox style insults at them.

If anything, you're the one missing the point. There's a difference between leaving a review critical of a business, and then there's hurling insults. I don't give a damn how discriminated a group or people are. Hell, I've be discriminated against a lot in my life, by Arabs, by whites, by blacks, by my own countrymen (because lol lingering caste issues), and others besides. But no matter what, I'm not so pathetic that I'll stoop to hurling cheap vitriol at someone who's an idiot. Know why? Because - pay attention now - *that's exactly what these bigoted assholes do to people they irrationally hate!!*

Did that couple do something wrong? Absolutely. And I think that if people don't want to patronise their business, then they by all means shouldn't. But hurling cheap insults is never justified. Especially when they're being hurled at bigots - behaving like an idiot doesn't make you better than an idiot...it just makes you an idiot.


----------



## Savior (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why do we let these quack sources go here lately? It's ridiculous, you have people citizing Salon, Blaze, politico, etc. It's just out of control.
> .



Man your posts are awful.



Get a clue


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Savior said:


> Man your posts are awful.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a clue



 

You post an obviously biased opinion piece as proof you use good sources? Irony.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 10, 2013)

I think it is highly likely the couple is blowing things out of proportion like the magnitude of the threats for some easy, cheap publicity.

I especially like how it's also mentioned they are a bistro/florist shop.

Totally relevant!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's funny, I posted about a woman getting fifty rape and death threats and hour and her address being posted online because she petitioned to get women added to the UK pound note and many of you acted like she was out of line and not being abused.
> 
> All of a sudden when gays do the same thing to intolerant assholes it's abuse on their part and they should be prosecuted?
> 
> Fuck you Cafe.



There weren't any threats in this case, so how is it comparable?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2013)

Savior said:


> Man your posts are awful.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a clue


So now editorials are okay again? I guess the rules are just different for everyone.


----------



## Sarry (Aug 10, 2013)

This is pathetic. Last time i checked, business owners have the right to refuse clients. 
Boycotting can be a legitimate way to reply but threats over phone and email is pathetic. 

But i do suppose this is what the gay movement has become: spoiled, over-entitled and extremely shallow..


blueblip said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Isn't this the *exact, same* behaviour that anti-gay nuts used on gay people for years? I mean, sure, they don't have to like the couple for not performing a gay marriage, but hate mail and trying to destroy their livelihood?
> 
> When you gaze long into the abyss...



That's what i was thinking.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So now editorials are okay again? I guess the rules are just different for everyone.



What's funny is if you scroll down the editorial you will see people gives links which completely discredit the so called trusty news sources. But Savior thought it was a good idea to post it. Now that I think about it...its not funny at all.


----------



## santanico (Aug 10, 2013)

why other people care.. to this day it still baffles me


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

Sarry said:


> This is pathetic. Last time i checked, business owners have the right to refuse clients.
> Boycotting can be a legitimate way to reply but threats over phone and email is pathetic.



What threats? The title mentions threats but the article says nothing of them.


----------



## Sarry (Aug 10, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> What threats? The title mentions threats but the article says nothing of them.



I would consider these as threats:


> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??



Again, from the article.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

They are rude, but I dont think anything there would be punishable by the law, which threats are.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 10, 2013)

Again, probably a stunt designed to raise awareness of the place.

I don't doubt that they turned away a gay couple and maybe even got some backlash for it. But to this extent and have it be publicized?

Bogus.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

Sarry said:


> I would consider these as threats:
> 
> Again, from the article.



How are any of these even remotely threatening? Of course when you take works like "doomed" and "finished" out of context, which the article clearly does since just one sentence later they're capable of quoting complete sentences, they may look mildly threatening, but when you view it in the context of their business being doomed because they're being assholes with a shitty business model, it's not even in the same ballpark as a threat.


----------



## Revolution (Aug 10, 2013)

It's not sickening.  It is their right as business owners to refuse service to someone.


This is the last generation the United States will see with this kind of discrimination being common.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

Sarry said:


> This is pathetic. Last time i checked, business owners have the right to refuse clients.
> Boycotting can be a legitimate way to reply but threats over phone and email is pathetic.
> 
> But i do suppose this is what the gay movement has become: spoiled, over-entitled and extremely shallow..
> ...



Sounds more like your confirmation bias talking to me.


----------



## navy (Aug 10, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> It's not sickening.  It is their right as business owners to refuse service to someone.
> 
> 
> This is the last generation the United States will see with this kind of discrimination being common.



You misinterpreted his use of "sickening".

 And it is not a right to refuse someone as a business owner for federally protected classes. Homosexuality is not a protected class in this particular case.  

Which discrimination? Discrimination against gays or discrimination against religion.Because neither is true.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2013)

navy said:


> What's funny is if you scroll down the editorial you will see people gives links which completely discredit the so called trusty news sources. But Savior thought it was a good idea to post it. Now that I think about it...its not funny at all.


Savior's a bit of a joke.


----------



## Nikushimi (Aug 10, 2013)

Yeah, discrimination is bad, and these people were in the wrong, but it's their business and it should be their choice; they live with the social and financial ramifications of their decisions. If you don't like it, boycott them; spread word of their business practices. There's no need to go so far as to send them hate mail. Wrongdoing does not justify wrongdoing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2013)

Nikushimi said:


> Yeah, discrimination is bad, and these people were in the wrong, but it's their business and it should be their choice; they live with the social and financial ramifications of their decisions. If you don't like it, boycott them; spread word of their business practices. There's no need to go so far as to send them hate mail. Wrongdoing does not justify wrongdoing.



Why is it wrong to let someone know how you think about them by mail?


----------



## Sarry (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Sounds more like your confirmation bias talking to me.



Well, that's your opinion.


----------



## Savior (Aug 10, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Wow, they threaten to kill the "racists" because they aren't 'tolerant'. Ironic coming from people who are intolerant towards the beliefs of Christians. The extreme left are crazy and this is proof.



Tolerance only works one way for some of these people sadly. So hypocritical.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2013)

Savior said:


> Tolerance only works one way for some of these people sadly. So hypocritical.


That's not hypocritical. We don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance for others. 

True the church has a right to practice it's religion, but no one has to be nice to them about discriminating. Death threats and the like are wrong but people could boycott and protest--that's not them being intolerant.


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 10, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not hypocritical. We don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance for others.
> 
> True the church has a right to practice it's religion, but no one has to be nice to them about discriminating. Death threats and the like are wrong but people could boycott and protest--that's not them being intolerant.



Yes, the church has a right to practice its religion which includes its refusal to wed homosexuals. It is not discrimination, it is simply adhering to religious practices which forbids them from wedding homosexual couples. Again, there is no right to marriage, it is not constitutionally protected. Marriage is always a "want", never a "need". 

Being a constitutional conservative, I fully support the businessowners' decision not to wed that homosexual couple. Threats to the businessowners discredits the couple in particular since they could simply search for a business that agrees to wed homosexuals. This is called "free market capitalism".


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 10, 2013)

Sarry said:


> This is pathetic. Last time i checked, business owners have the right to refuse clients.
> Boycotting can be a legitimate way to reply but threats over phone and email is pathetic.
> 
> But i do suppose this is what the gay movement has become: spoiled, over-entitled and extremely shallow..
> ...



I agree that a boycott is all that needs to be done, but you're generalizing here by saying these people represent the entirety of the LGBT community.



Yachiru said:


> Yes, the church has a right to practice its religion which includes its refusal to wed homosexuals. It is not discrimination, it is simply adhering to religious practices which forbids them from wedding homosexual couples. Again, there is no right to marriage, it is not constitutionally protected. Marriage is always a "want", never a "need".
> 
> Being a constitutional conservative, I fully support the businessowners' decision not to wed that homosexual couple. Threats to the businessowners discredits the couple in particular since they could simply search for a business that agrees to wed homosexuals. This is called "free market capitalism".





> "Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in June, and the Varnum v. Brien ruling over four years ago that paved the way for marriage equality in Iowa, we appreciate that this nation and the state of Iowa have experienced real change that may be challenging for some people.
> 
> When the Jim Crow laws were overturned decades ago, the culture didn't change overnight even though the law did. Today, same-sex couples can legally marry in Iowa and have the same federal recognition as non-gay married spouses. So, while the law has changed we understand that the culture will take a little longer.
> 
> *One Iowa respects and appreciates that Mr. and Mrs. Odgaard are Iowans with deeply held religious beliefs and convictions. At the same time, we need to separate our respect for the Odgaards' religious beliefs from the Iowa civil rights code. While religious institutions are protected by religious freedoms, it's important to note that the Gortz Haus is a public venue. It cannot be confused with a religious institution. The Odgaards provide a service to the public that must accommodate all Iowans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community."*





Basically, because they're not a church, it's no longer a religious service they're providing. It's a public service which has to be available to everybody.

As for the threats, they weren't made by the couple. That was a third party - maybe their friends or family, maybe random internet people. Not the couple.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 10, 2013)

Its as Rand Paul said lol. You're a private business. You can discriminate if you want but be prepared to reap the bad PR consequences 

Free market at work!


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 10, 2013)

But yeah, the victim complex of homophobes is always fucking hilarious.

I would recommend watching this Daily Show clip on that kind of thing.


----------



## Thor (Aug 10, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Welcome to 21st century america, where people feel entitled to ruin other lives because they're not "tolerant" enough.



When will they gay bullies stop??? Why don't they understand that not everyone agrees with their lifestyle choice and sexual habit.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 10, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> But yeah, the victim complex of homophobes is always fucking hilarious.
> 
> I would recommend watching this Daily Show clip on that kind of thing.



Whether you like it or not, what the left-wing extremists did was far worse than what the Christians did.

Christian owners: "Sorry, look elsewhere because we don't cater to homosexuals due to our religious beliefs."
Left-wing extremists: "Fuck off. You're finished. You're doomed. You're old and no one likes you nor wants you and we're going to celebrate when you're gone." 

Christian owners: Gay discrimination. (Yes, I know it's bad for their business)
Left-wing extremists: Agism, anti-religious, harassment, veiled threats of violence, libel, threats to destroy a business. 

Cry me a river that two guys are going to have to find a new venue. I'm more concerned that two people are going to have a heart attack after being threatened so much by crazy people.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

Wow that was a terrible analysis, Aizen. A few Idiots harrassed them yeah, that really is quite tame though. However kindly the couple tries to present it, they look at themselves as morally superior to an entire group of people, and refused service on that basis. Any loss of consumership is on them as that is the best way to send a message, and no one is obligated to keep their business afloat. The couple already made a statement denouncing the harrassment, and to try to paint it as the face of this issue is idiotic.

Certain people can rest easy knowing the white heterosexual male isn't quite a disenfranchised minority yet.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow that was a terrible analysis, Aizen.



It was a perfectly sensible analysis.  



> A few Idiots harrassed them yeah, that really is quite tame though.



A few idiots also harass homosexuals. I am talking about cases where 2 or 3 REAL idiots harass homosexuals. 

Veiled threats, libel, deliberate business destruction are not tame. In fact they are no less serious than gay bashing. 



> However kindly the couple tries to present it, they look at themselves as morally superior to an entire group of people, and refused service on that basis.



The article doesn't say anything about the couple claiming to be superior. And who fucking cares if they do? Everyone thinks they're always right and superior. Just stop revealing your ignorance about the couple and your prejudice. Stop supporting violence against Christians. 



> Any loss of consumership is on them as that is the best way to send a message, and no one is obligated to keep their business afloat. The couple already made a statement denouncing the harrassment, and to try to paint it as the face of this issue is idiotic.



Wow, so you want them to just shut up and take the abuse? Fucking disgusting. They might have been murdered if they didn't contact the police.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 10, 2013)

Don't have a problem with boycotting and giving the place a bad review, it is to be expected. If the truth of their practices hurt their sales then they should adjust their practices or deal with the loss in profit. What I don't agree with is the nasty messages and threats.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Still trying to speak on matters you know jack shit about I see.


Still being an insufferable cunt spraying your "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I SAY SO" colon cocktail all over threads, I see.

Some christians don't feel comfortable providing marriage services to homosexuals. Stupid and bigoted maybe, against the law probably, but not a big deal since it doesn't ruin anyone's lives or harm/threaten anyone past slightly hurt feelings, and there's no reason to think that they're bad people outside of this issue. I say that as someone who is mostly against christianity and pro gay rights.

Now on the other side, you got a bunch of assholes harrassing them and trying to bring their business down with bad publicity, attempting to ruin their life, because they weren't "tolerant" enough. It's not about succeeding in it, it's about actually thinking that it's justified to attempt it.

Which is exactly the point I made and makes your typed diarrhea another entry in the excessively long list of your needless shitposting. What the hell were you even trying to achieve or prove with that? You made no point, you gave no explanation, and worst of all you took a non-serious one-liner dead serious. I've rarely seen someone repeatedly go out of their way to be such a colossal dickweed when unprovoked, time and time again, especially not without actually being a troll. 

Not even gonna reply to any of your toxic bullshit anymore from now on, you would just drag down more threads with your egocentric derailing and digital poop flinging. You can touch yourself to the knowledge that your inevitable rancid rebuttal will remain unanswered and even bad trolls deserve more civil treatment than you, because at least they're not serious.



Have a nice day.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> It was a perfectly sensible analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> A few idiots also harass homosexuals. I am talking about cases where 2 or 3 REAL idiots harass homosexuals.



Try entire countries that harrass, dehumanize, and kill people simply for being gay. Or entire people that consider themselves morally superior and wish to deny LGBT individuals their due to rights on religiously motivated bigotry. 



> Veiled threats, libel, deliberate business destruction are not tame. In fact they are no less serious than gay bashing.



The article mentions no libel and destruction, but a few idiots leaving harrassing emails and possibly phone calls, a few idiots that you and others have chosen to cling to as the face of an issue. 



> The article doesn't say anything about the couple claiming to be superior. And who fucking cares if they do? Everyone thinks they're always right and superior. Just stop revealing your ignorance about the couple and your prejudice. Stop supporting violence against Christians.



They refuse service to the couple because they view homosexuality as immoral, and the couple's union as such on the basis of their religion. They consider themselves morally superior to an entire group of people on the basis of what gender they are attracted to because they think their god hates it. Also, if you can read you'd notice I condemned the harassment so any half literate person can also see I don't approve of violence against them. 



> Wow, so you want them to just shut up and take the abuse? Fucking disgusting. They might have been murdered if they didn't contact the police.



So you're not even half literate then. 



Zaru said:


> Still being an insufferable cunt spraying your "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I SAY SO" colon cocktail all over threads, I see.
> 
> Some christians don't feel comfortable providing marriage services to homosexuals. Stupid and bigoted maybe, against the law probably, but not a big deal since it doesn't ruin anyone's lives or harm/threaten anyone past slightly hurt feelings, and there's no reason to think that they're bad people outside of this issue. I say that as someone who is mostly against christianity and pro gay rights.
> 
> ...



You talk of excessively worded responses but then you throw a massive bitchfit like this, that's pretty hilarious. 

Never said you couldn't comment, but evidently on these matters you know jack shit, and as I tell you before, you can probably understand when people judge a person on their own history of comments on a matter.  An offended consumer base speaking with their wallets and the business suffering is the best and only thing individuals separate from the couple can do. That isn't an issue, FYI, historically this is a tried and true method.  

 The harrassment is wrong but it's not the face of this issue, since I apparently have to repeat this.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 10, 2013)

I feel like people may be taking the few people who left ridiculous idiotic messages too far, I'm pretty sure the majority of people against it didn't leave anything like that. It's not like the couple did this and the only and biggest reaction to this couple was to burn down their establishment along with their bodies....people are just truly upset because more and more people today actual do care about people getting equal treatment besides their sexuality. Does that mean people should respond in such a ridiculous way...no. I think the point is people are taking the few people who did and using them to speak for all the upset people.

How can people compare how a few people reacted to this couples decision to the way homosexuals have been treated o___O? Are we seriously trying to compare these ridiculous rage emails to treatment of gay people when there are countries where it it perfectly excusable to kill someone for being gay? This couple isn't facing anything compared to what homosexuals have gone through and are going through. They fully decided to deny homosexuals at their establishment, therefore they will face whatever consequences come with that decision. Fortunately for them their consequences will only go as far as stupid emails and phone calls, and probably a loss of some revenue. This kind of thing will probably be close to unheard of in America in a few decades. Newer generation will have a bit more of it's shit put together...in some areas at least. Cause I got some serious question for some of my friends...


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 10, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Try entire countries that harrass, dehumanize, and kill people simply for being gay. Or entire people that consider themselves morally superior and wish to deny LGBT individuals their due to rights on religiously motivated bigotry.



How the hell is that relevant to the case we're talking about? Listen, dude, you can't use the magnitude of crimes committed by others on a person who had nothing to do with those crimes. Because if your logic is applied, every German person who exists now would be regarded as mass killers of Jews. Tell me how on fucking earth that would make sense?



> The article mentions no libel and destruction, but a few idiots leaving harrassing emails and possibly phone calls, a few idiots that you and others have chosen to cling to as the face of an issue.



They sent emails in which they threatened to destroy the business. And moreover, they have argued the couple believe they are superior and homosexuals are inferior. The couple never said anything like that. 

Words like "The family is doomed and finished" and "Betty, you're old and almost dead" are both clear and veiled threats. They might be planning murder. And one person called them "racist" which would be a false, since homosexuality isn't a race, it's a sexual orientation...that's probably libel.



> They refuse service to the couple because they view homosexuality as immoral, and the couple's union as such on the basis of their religion.



They actually never expressed anything like that. They just said they were Christians and so they have to abide by its rules.  



> They consider themselves morally superior to an entire group of people on the basis of what gender they are attracted to because they think their god hates it.



Again, they didn't say anything about moral superiority. The extreme left is ad homineming because their prejudical perception leads to strawmanning. And even if they did, who gives a shit? Freedom of expression and thought, dude. The extreme left are threatening them. Clearly you are fighting for the wrong side. 



> Also, if you can read you'd notice I condemned the harassment so any half literate person can also see I don't approve of violence against them.



Bullshit. You said so yourself, "just a couple idiots sending tame insults. Just relax." 



> So you're not even half literate then.



You're full of yourself, assface.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 10, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> How the hell is that relevant to the case we're talking about? Listen, dude, you can't use the magnitude of crimes committed by others on a person who had nothing to do with those crimes. Because if your logic is applied, every German person who exists now would be regarded as mass killers of Jews. Tell me how on fucking earth that would make sense.


 
You were trying to equate what the business owners faced to the plight of homosexuals. I offered some perspective that you were sorely lacking.



> They sent emails in which they threatened to destroy the business. And moreover, they have argued the couple believe they are superior and homosexuals are inferior. The couple never said anything like that.



No, a single e-mail said "your business is doomed", there were no threats of destroying the business. They were harassing, but not what you are trying to blow it up to be. 

The couple objects to homosexuality and homosexual unions on the basis of their morality, so it is evident that they consider homosexuality immoral and in turn, homosexual relationships immoral as well. So that all leads to the fact that they consider themselves morally superior.



> Words like "The family is doomed and finished" and "Betty, you're old and almost dead" are both clear and veiled threats. They might be planning murder. And one person called them "racist" which would be a false, since homosexuality isn't a race, it's a sexual orientation...that's probably libel.



You know nothing of the terms you throw around. "Betty you're old and almost dead" is not a murder threat, a terrible comment to make for sure but again, harassment at the most. You are like the Blaze article itself blowing up the comments as the face of the issue. 

Calling them 'racist' is probably inaccurate but it's not necessarily libel; there's more to libel than that.



> They actually never expressed anything like that. They just said they were Christians and so they have to abide by its rules.



They said as Christians they morally object to homosexuality, so it is clear that they consider it morally inferior.



> Again, they didn't say anything about moral superiority. The extreme left is ad homineming because their prejudical perception leads to strawmanning. And even if they did, who gives a shit? Freedom of expression and thought, dude. The extreme left are threatening them. Clearly you are fighting for the wrong side.



They said plenty about moral superiority, as they made it clear they consider homosexuality morally inferior. 

They have a freedom to express themselves, and people have the freedom in turn to let them know how ignorant they are. However, since you can't read, this is not the same as harassing or threatening them. That, and anything violent is out of line. 

However, it is stupid to bitch about their business suffering financially. In a free-market society this is the best and the most tried and true method for a consumer to express dissatisfaction, just to repeat this for the unenlightened. 



> Bullshit. You said so yourself, "just a couple idiots sending tame insults. Just relax."



So you are half-literate then. 



> You're full of yourself, assface.



Perhaps.


----------



## santanico (Aug 11, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> Yes, the church has a right to practice its religion which includes its refusal to wed homosexuals. It is not discrimination, it is simply adhering to religious practices which forbids them from wedding homosexual couples. Again, there is no right to marriage, it is not constitutionally protected. Marriage is always a "want", never a "need".
> 
> Being a constitutional conservative, I fully support the businessowners' decision not to wed that homosexual couple. Threats to the businessowners discredits the couple in particular since they could simply search for a business that agrees to wed homosexuals. This is called "free market capitalism".



ugh, there is so much wrong with this post, I can't even.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Don't worry, I will. For a constitutional conservative he evidently knows shit of what he's talking about on the matter. Since marriage in the legal sense is a mutually agreed upon contract that carries with it certain legal benefits and privileges that normally wouldn't be available to two unrelated individuals, it being a want or need is irrelevant. At the end of the day it is a legal matter, not religious. Courts in the west, including the U.S.  Supreme Court consider marriage a constitutional right, the precedent being set most significantly starting with Loving v. Virginia and the path for same-sex marriage federally being set recently with striking down of DOMA. Many states already recognize marriages between same-sex individuals, and the discrimination of people on the basis of sexual orientation has already been found to be unlawful. 

To remedy Yachiru's cluelessness on marriage, the concept predates religion, especially modern ones. Marriage started out more as a social and economic agreement more than anything where the wife was little more than a commodity who was promised to an individual in exchange for some usually mutually beneficial agreement among the woman's family and the groom and his family. Arguments of morality and sanctity worth shit.


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not hypocritical. We don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance for others.
> 
> True the church has a right to practice it's religion, but no one has to be nice to them about discriminating. Death threats and the like are wrong but people could boycott and protest--that's not them being intolerant.



Sending hate mail and threatening the owners due to their beliefs is low and is unacceptable. It should be denounced by everyone. Two wrongs do not make a right. This couple seems perfectly normal and they refused service because it is against their religion. Since when is that not allowed.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Thats what you get for denying someone's human rights. 

Gay couples deserve all the rights as any straight couple.

Idc whether you agree with it or not, everyone has the right to happiness regardless of sexual orientation.

Denying anyone that right based on Religious beliefs is ridiculous just because your beliefs arent compatible with someone elses doesnt make that other person wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> *Thats what you get for denying someone's human rights. *
> 
> Gay couples deserve all the rights as any straight couple.
> 
> ...



What? How is marriage a human right?

Also, two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

To be fair this wedding ceremony is just a show....
Like baptism or confirmation. 

Now a government contract agreement? That is relevant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

navy said:


> To be fair this wedding ceremony is just a show....



Well  people are speaking with their wallets evidently, which is the best course of action.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well  people are speaking with their wallets evidently, which is the best course of action.



I dont know if they are. It is the blaze after all. Could be a publicity stunt or over reaction to attract more religious conservatives.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

I just find it amazing the number of people here that bought the Blaze's transparent spin on the story.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You were trying to equate what the business owners faced to the plight of homosexuals. I offered some perspective that you were sorely lacking.



The plight of the homosexuals? They were bloody told to find another venue. How the hell that compares with veiled threats, ageism, libel, harassment, stealing of private email addresses and phone numbers is something I will never understand.

The stuff that happened to other homosexuals is irrelevant. The incremental hate they have imagined is completely fictitious. Here's a comparison: If black people say they are being treated like slaves, it would be a huge exaggeration because black people who live now never experienced the treatment their ancestors did. They are talking out their ass. The pain and suffering of ancestors aren't incrementally felt by every individual of the entire race. So what if these guys can describe the horrors that happened to African slaves who were shipped over to the US. What they imagine is still just an imagination... a bit like how Christians might imagine the persecution their ancestors had to endure through the age of the Roman Empire. 



> No, a single e-mail said "your business is doomed", there were no threats of destroying the business. They were harassing, but not what you are trying to blow it up to be.



That's even worse if it's all from one email. 



> The couple objects to homosexuality and homosexual unions on the basis of their morality, so it is evident that they consider homosexuality immoral and in turn, homosexual relationships immoral as well. So that all leads to the fact that they consider themselves morally superior.



Where did they actually say that?



> You know nothing of the terms you throw around. "Betty you're old and almost dead" is not a murder threat, a terrible comment to make for sure but again, harassment at the most.



You deleted the second sentence, which when combined with the first sentence, sends out a chilling message to Betty. In the first sentence they say Betty is old and she's almost dead. In the second sentence they say the world will not miss them. That is what I'd call a veiled threat, especially in light of the fact they stole information of Betty's location via her IP, email, phone, etc. They are just taunting her before they kill her. That's extremely serious. 



> You are like the Blaze article itself blowing up the comments as the face of the issue.



You're watering down the strength of the venom in the threats poor Betty and her husband have to endure, just because they didn't want no homosexuals at their premises. 



> Calling them 'racist' is probably inaccurate but it's not necessarily libel; there's more to libel than that.



Yeah, like threatening to destroy their business and their reputation beyond repair so that they die of a heart attack. How the hell can you even defend these people?



> They said as Christians they morally object to homosexuality, so it is clear that they consider it morally inferior.



They didn't. And even if they did, that's hardly worth sending death threats.



> They said plenty about moral superiority, as they made it clear they consider homosexuality morally inferior.



No they didn't. They said they're Christian and have to abide by everything written in their Bible. It might just be that they're scared of the consequences. They've read about Sodom and Gomorrah...maybe... who knows... point is they're scared. And they're now being threatened. Nobody cares about old people. The amount of work these people have put in and now they're being treated like shit. This generation of homo lovers are just as sick as the homo haters. There's got to be a sensible approach to these problems. Threatening old people until they get heart attacks isn't right.



> They have a freedom to express themselves, and people have the freedom in turn to let them know how ignorant they are. However, since you can't read, this is not the same as harassing or threatening them. That, and anything violent is out of line.



The Christian couple expressed themselves; extreme left threatened them with violence for expressing themselves. I think the extremist left is just as bad as the homo bashers. Replace bashing with...bashing... great fucking idea... real progressive and liberal. :derp



> However, it is stupid to bitch about their business suffering financially. In a free-market society this is the best and the most tried and true method for a consumer to express dissatisfaction, just to repeat this for the unenlightened.



Of course they're going to bitch. Their business probably won't exist anymore now that the Christian bashers are going to smash their house up and send them threatening emails until they get a heart attack. Goddamn hooligans.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Of course they're going to bitch. Their business probably won't exist anymore now that the Christian bashers are going to smash their house up and send them threatening emails until they get a heart attack. Goddamn hooligans.



Over reaction much?

There were a few bad eggs. I don't see it extending beyond that.The article, quite conveniently I might add, did not post any statements that seemed as if the business owners should fear for their lives or fear for their buildings.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

navy said:


> Over reaction much?
> 
> There were a few bad eggs. I don't see it extending beyond that.The article, quite conveniently I might add, did not post any statements that seemed as if the business owners should fear for their lives or fear for their buildings.



I go where there is injustice and I will fight for and protect the weak and defenceless.... without ever threatening people with violence. Old people need protection!!


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

You accomplished nothing my young internet warrior.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

navy said:


> You accomplished nothing my young internet warrior.



I am neither warrior nor soldier. I am a protector and a pacifist, and I protect the weak and defenceless.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I am neither warrior nor soldier. I am a protector and a pacifist, and I protect the weak and defenceless.



From what?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> From what?



They are being threatened with death. Don't you care even a little for old people? I guess it's not cool enough... much more cool to be pro gay and forget other types of people exist with all kinds of problems of their own.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I am neither warrior nor soldier. I am a protector and a pacifist, and I protect the weak and defenceless.



I stand corrected. 

A̶l̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶s̶h̶e̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶.̶


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> They are being threatened with death. Don't you care even a little for old people? I guess it's not cool enough... much more cool to be pro gay and forget other types of people exist with all kinds of problems of their own.



And you smashing your keyboard is going to do what exactly?

And what death threats?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> And you smashing your keyboard is going to do what exactly?
> 
> And what death threats?



VEILED death threats. Don't be selective. You know these poor people are in danger. We have to do something before they're killed! Goddamin it!


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> VEILED death threats. Don't be selective. You know these poor people are in danger. We have to do something before they're killed! Goddamin it!



Don't worry. The NSA is on the case.

*plays catchy 80's sitcom music*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

Why do people keep talking about threats? There weren't any. If you want to say that the couple was threatened, then cite your source for that claim.


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Thats what you get for denying someone's human rights.






Gtfo with your trolling son.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2013)

Savior said:


> Gtfo with your trolling son.



What? They got cursed out for being dicks? What's the matter. There aren't any actual threats in the emails that are posted on your source.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why do people keep talking about threats? There weren't any. If you want to say that the couple was threatened, then cite your source for that claim.





> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why do people keep talking about threats? There weren't any. If you want to say that the couple was threatened, then cite your source for that claim.






> Odgaard told KCCI that she and her husband have received hate-mail and *threats *since news about their rejection of the couple broke on Tuesday.



Is this not called threatening someone now?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2013)

Those aren't threats. That sounds more like they're talking about the business.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

Those aren't threats. Just rude angry people.



Savior said:


> Is this not called threatening someone now?



The article posted no threats even though it made the claim...which is curious at best. 

Just blazing it up.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

Not a single threat to be seen, thanks for proving my point.



Savior said:


> Is this not called threatening someone now?



Then why didn't they quote a single one of those threats? They seemed perfectly capable of quoting the insults, which are legal though, and then refuse to quote a single threat.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2013)

Just one more reason the Blaze isn't a credible source. We can't even assume the titles are truthful.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

navy said:


> Those aren't threats. Just rude angry people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are VEILED threats of violence. Such threats are designed to scare people into changing their behaviour. And there's a chance they will actually kill them. 

Think like a real detective for once in your life.


----------



## Elias (Aug 11, 2013)

> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??



Sounds like a typical youtube comment. Nothing to close your store over.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

elias said:


> Sounds like a typical youtube comment. Nothing to close your store over.



Sounds like the emails of a serial killer.


----------



## Elias (Aug 11, 2013)

I guess everyone on youtube is a serial killer then.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> They are VEILED threats of violence. Such threats are designed to scare people into changing their behaviour. And there's a chance they will actually kill them.
> 
> Think like a real detective for once in your life.



Think like a normal human being and not just someone who wants to cover his ass because he started arguing for the wrong side. There are no threats of any kind. Telling someone that their business is finished, because they're bigoted assholes and decent people will boycott them, is not a threat, it's an objective prediction.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

elias said:


> I guess everyone on youtube is a serial killer then.



People on YouTube don't send you emails and nor do they call you on your home phone. Killers do.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Telling someone that their business is finished, because they're bigoted assholes and decent people will boycott them, is not a threat, it's an _objective prediction._



Not really, since it ignores other bigots.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> What? How is marriage a human right?
> 
> Also, two wrongs don't make a right.



Marriage = Happiness

Everyone has the right to happiness. 

I dont give a single fuck what any religion says, all people deserve the same rights and all people deserve to be happy. 

You dont like the idea of same sex marriage? Tough shit.

If the idea of two people getting married threatens your beliefs or your religion then your beliefs or your religion wasnt that powerful to begin with.


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Just one more reason the Blaze isn't a credible source. We can't even assume the titles are truthful.



You love pushing your agenda

Why are you so mad at the Blaze just because they're covering stories that others won't. That's not a bad thing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

navy said:


> Not really, since it ignores other bigots.



Never said it was accurate, but it's objective and doesn't require the person who made the prediction to do anything, so it's nothing at all like a threat.



Savior said:


> You love pushing your agenda
> 
> Why are you so mad at the Blaze just because they're covering stories that others won't. That's not a bad thing.



Others do cover the story, but they focus more on the fact that a gay couple was discriminated against than on the hurt feelings of two bigots.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Sickening that people on here defend killers, but crucify anyone that even thinks of scratching a homosexual person. Extremist lefties.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Sickening that people on here defend killers, but crucify anyone that even thinks of scratching a homosexual person. Extremist lefties.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Yes because caring about the rights of human beings is totally comparable to the defense of murderers


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Never said it was accurate, but it's objective and doesn't require the person who made the prediction to do anything, so it's nothing at all like a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> Others do cover the story, but they focus more on the fact that a gay couple was discriminated against than on the hurt feelings of two bigots.



How are they bigots?



> The couple noted that *they have business associates, former staff members and friends who are gay and that they have nothing against them. There is no hate*, they claim, as media and activists have charged. *They simply disagree with the lifestyle, but respect the personal decisions that people make.
> *
> "I would serve them in every other way -- we simply don't want to take part ... it just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility," the wife added, noting that she would have gladly provided flowers or cake (something more detached from the actual nuptials). "I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity."


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Marriage = Happiness



You haven't answered my question.

Marriage =/= Happiness

It is merely a contract in both a legal and religious sense.

Your lover= Happiness



> Everyone has the right to happiness.



No they don't.



> I dont give a single fuck what any religion says, all people deserve the same rights and all people deserve to be happy.



That's nice 'n all, but how does this pertain to this discussion.



> You dont like the idea of same sex marriage? Tough shit.



Does that mean you get to shove it down my throat? Get the fuck out of here.



> If the idea of two people getting married threatens your beliefs or your religion then your beliefs or your religion wasnt that powerful to begin with.



Again, how does this pertain to this discussion. You are now blabbering. Stop with this rhetoric.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

The very idea of anyone judging a couple based purely on the basis of sex is bigotry right there. 

A same sex couple has every right to be respected and to be given the same rights and privileges as any traditional couple. 

Respecting the choices and granting the same rights are two totally different things. 

You can grant all the privileges and rights and still disagree with the lifestyle. 

I find it very offensive that anyone could look down on or deny rights to a couple based purely on the sex of the couple. 

They shouldnt disagree with the couple over their sex and their choice to be together. 

They should be judged on political views, moral viewpoints, and their personalities not who they decide to spend their life with.



Ayanli said:


> You haven't answered my question.
> 
> Marriage =/= Happiness
> 
> ...



At that point its not about just happiness its about rights and privileges. 

A same sex couple deserves to be treated the exact same under the law as any other "traditional couple" 

Marriage is a right, a right that every couple deserves regardless of their sexual orientation. 





> No they don't.



Every human being has the right to happiness within reason. 

And same sex marriage is well within reason.






> Does that mean you get to shove it down my throat? Get the fuck out of here.



No it doesnt, but just because you disagree with it does that mean they shouldnt be able to do it? 

You get the fuck out of here.


----------



## navy (Aug 11, 2013)

Well that's an interesting dilemma. If the authors of the religion are bigots are you not partaking in bigoted action regardless of personal feeling?

I never really thought about it though.


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Yes because caring about the rights of human beings is totally comparable to the defense of murderers



Marriage is a human right? 
Where did you go to school?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> The very idea of anyone judging a couple based purely on the basis of sex is bigotry right there.
> 
> A same sex couple has every right to be respected and to be given the same rights and privileges as any traditional couple.
> 
> ...



Go ahead. Get married. 

Get married at a Christian or government institutions that support gay marriage.

Don't go to some conservative church and then cry foul.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Savior said:


> Marriage is a human right?
> Where did you go to school?



How is it not? 

How isdeclaring your love and life for someone before your friends and family and not a right? 

As i stated before it also includes the rights and privileges of same sex couples under the law. 

Same sex couples have every right to be treated the same under the law as every other couple.  



Ayanli said:


> Go ahead. Get married.
> 
> Get married at a Christian or government institutions that support gay marriage.
> 
> Don't go to some conservative church and then cry foul.



Just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean you should be able to discriminate against it based purely on religious belief. 

If someone wanted to get married at the same place their parents got married at even though its a "conservative"  establishment then they should not be able to be turned away based purely on their sexual orientation.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

Savior said:


> How are they bigots?



Right, just like people "have black friends" can't be racist.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> How is it not?
> 
> How isdeclaring your love and life for someone before your friends and family and not a right?
> 
> ...



There is a difference between disagreement and discrimination. You cry foul because homosexuals are unable to wed EVERYWHERE, so how would you solve this, Fiona? Would it be by forcing religious institutions to perform same-sex weddings? Despite their opposing views? There are places you can wed, stop being so childish in wanting everything.


Bitch... did you just neg me and call me a bigot. YOU FUCKING CRAY!!!


----------



## Gino (Aug 11, 2013)

cunt said:
			
		

> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??



What a massive cunt that needs to vanish from the earth and it seems like some of you don't know what threats are.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> There is a difference between disagreement and discrimination. You cry foul because homosexuals are unable to wed EVERYWHERE, so how would you solve this, Fiona? Would it be by forcing religious institutions to perform same-sex weddings? Despite their opposing views? There are places you can wed, stop being so childish in wanting everything.



Yes thats exactly what i would do. 

Did the south want to end segregation? No. Did it go against what they believed? Yes.

But despite their "opposing views" it was implemented and life went on. The world did not end and it kept on spinning. 

They should not be able to discriminate based solely on their religious beliefs. 

Discrimination is discrimination. 

They should be treated the same no matter what the belief system. 

They could hate them, they could disagree all they want, but they should never withhold their rights from them based solely of some belief. 

Rights are rights, and they should always be respected. 

Respect and agreement are not the same thing. 

I can respect someone and disagree with someone at the same time. 

If your religious beliefs are in jeopardy based simply on 2 people that you have never met before and would probably never see again wanting to be married then your beliefs are alot shakier than you believe.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Yes thats exactly what i would do.
> 
> They should not be able to discriminate based solely on their religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



I don't eat pork because it is against my beliefs. Maybe I should eat it because it would never jeopardize my religious beliefs.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> I don't eat pork because it is against my beliefs. Maybe I should eat it because it would never jeopardize my religious beliefs.



So you are comparing the right to marry, be happy, and be treated equally with eating pork?  

If your religion says you cant eat pork then dont. 

Its not affecting anyone elses life. 

If your religion says that certain people shouldnt be treated the same and shouldnt be able to have certain rights? 

Then its affecting other peoples lives and you dont have the right to deprive those people of those rights just because its not within your beliefs. 

If Same sex marriage was legalized the world over tomorrow do you know what would happen? 

....


Nothing. 

The world would continue spinning, people would show up for church, kids would still play at the park and your life would not change. 

Anyone that believes otherwise is completely ridiculous.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't get it. There are churches that are pro-marriage, city hall/town hall's that offer you marriage. Yet you decide to come to a church, that you know well enough is not comfortable with your lifestyle, and demand that you deserve the right to be married at this church, despite the church on the opposite side of the street offering you access. 

You have a problem with people advocating the abolishment of same-sex marriage, but you have no problem forcing churches to wed same-sex couples.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> I don't get it. There are churches that are pro-marriage, city hall/town hall's that offer you marriage. Yet you decide to come to a church, that you know well enough is not comfortable with your lifestyle, and demand that you deserve the right to be married at this church, despite the church on the opposite side of the street offering you access.
> 
> You have a problem with people advocating the abolishment of same-sex marriage, but you have no problem forcing churches to wed same-sex couples.



Obviously they didnt know that when they went there or else they wouldnt have gone there in the first place. Dont act like they picked an oober conservative church and said "lets pick that church and make an uproar when they say no. We will ruin their lives over this i swear."

They saw a place they liked and wanted to be married there, they were told no based purely off the beliefs of the owners which is discrimination.

I have no issues whatsoever of people disagreeing with same sex marriage. 

I could care less if you all spend all your time praying to your god to smite them all and bring down wrath upon them. 

I dont give a damn if you wanna picket the weddings and protest the choice they have made. 

I do however give a whole lot of damns when it comes to the actual denial of those rights based purely on your beliefs.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

That is very nice of you, Fiona.

But... I do however give a whole lot of damns when it comes to forcing religious institutions to do something that is against their beliefs. 

We can agree to disagree. Simple as that.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> That is very nice of you, Fiona.
> 
> But... I do however give a whole lot of damns when it comes to forcing religious institutions to do something that is against their beliefs.
> 
> We can agree to disagree. Simple as that.



I completely agree with you on that to a point. 

But If those beliefs require the denial of rights/privileges for others then at that point you have no right to force that belief on others so much that they are denied that rights based solely on that alone. 

You can believe it all you want. 

You can hold onto it, and preach it all you want but that doesnt mean you can force it on others who want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I completely agree with you on that to a point.
> 
> But If those beliefs require the denial of rights/privileges for others then at that point you have no right to force that belief on others so much that they are denied that rights based solely on that alone.
> 
> ...



No beliefs are being forced in this scenario. These individuals are not attempting to to ban same-sex marriages on a national scale, don't put these people on the same level. As such, nor can you force it on others who want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> No beliefs are being forced in this scenario. These individuals are not attempting to to ban same-sex marriages on a national scale, don't put these people on the same level. As such, nor can you force it on others who want nothing to do with it.





Im done. 

This is just getting ridiculous. 

If you think its okay deny a basic right to someone based on their  sexual orientation then dont blame me if i think that you or any other person that thinks that is okay is less of a person for it.

Because when it comes down to it what is going on here is still discrimination and that is not okay i dont care what your beliefs tell you.


----------



## hadou (Aug 11, 2013)

I do not approve of the marriage denial in the establishment. I also do not approve of the harassment the owners of the establishment are going through. Let cool heads prevail.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> If you think its okay deny a basic right to someone based on their  sexual orientation then *dont blame me if i think that you or any other person that thinks that is okay is less of a person for it*



Is this not bigotry?


----------



## Gino (Aug 11, 2013)

If you're with the KKK yo punk ass ain't getting married in my establishment.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Gino said:


> If you're with the KKK yo punk ass ain't getting married in my establishment.



In this case it should be okay because KKK interfere with our social rights.


----------



## Gino (Aug 11, 2013)

Tolerance be damned.


----------



## WT (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> So you are comparing the right to marry, be happy, and be treated equally with eating pork?
> 
> If your religion says you cant eat pork then dont.
> 
> ...



Absolutely fine. I get your point and respect it. 

People should be treated equally.

You can have your rights and whatnot, heck, If I was your boss, I'd treat you awesomely as well. I'd give you regular pay rises, facilities and whatnot equal to hetero's. If you outperformed them, I'd give you more.

However, there's still a MASSIVE part of me which still and will continue think that homos are a fucked up breed of human beings.

BAWWWW


----------



## Savior (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Right, just like people "have black friends" can't be racist.



By your definition of the word, following a religion makes you a bigot. That's just nonsense. You're just making up your own definitions for words.


----------



## Enclave (Aug 11, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> Here we go again: Marriage is not a constitutionally protected right. It has been a religious practice from the beginning, therefore it is subjected to the freedom of religion and the freedom to refuse service to anyone who does not conform to said religion's standards.
> 
> It was perfectly fine for this business to refuse this homosexual couple as customers. Also, these ad-hominem attacks against the business owners obviously come from insane retards who don't have their terminology right. "racist sons of b*tches from hell"? Really? How are the owners racist? Last time I checked, homosexuality is not a race.
> 
> This is protected by the 1st amendment, they can be offended all they want. But the business owners also have the right _not to care_.



Marriage is not a religious institution but rather a civic institution.  It's a legal contract governed by the State.  The fact that religions endorse them as well and have their own beliefs surrounding them is pretty much 100% irrelevant.

So no, it was not fine for this couple to refuse the homosexual couple as religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.



LesExit said:


> How many people here would not get married at this place solely because they would deny rights to homosexuals? Even if you don't plan on getting married....just pretend. I wouldn't get married there, but thats also cause I'm gay :3 but if you're straight....?



I would not have gotten married at a venue that I knew to refuse homosexuals.


----------



## Gino (Aug 11, 2013)

The better question is do we all really care?In the end I'm pretty sure the couple is still gonna get married.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

I just love seeing homophobes scrambling to justify their bigotry. The only reason they spun the story, the only reason the OP posted it was for that reason. 

Also, the Blaze shouldn't be considered a legit source, and a good reference to other unreliable ones with that link Savior posted ironically enough.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2013)

Savior said:


> By your definition of the word, following a religion makes you a bigot. That's just nonsense. You're just making up your own definitions for words.



If the religion has as part of it's belief system bigoted views then yes it does.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I just love seeing homophobes scrambling to justify their bigotry. The only reason they spun the story, the only reason the OP posted it was for that reason.



If there were homosexuals being threatened with death threats, then you'll see me defend them. For being rejected a venue? Go fuck yourself, asshole. People get kicked out of places for all kinds of reasons. Homosexuals don't have diamonds dropping out their ass and oil spraying out their penis. They shouldn't be anymore privilged than anyone else.



> Also, the Blaze shouldn't be considered a legit source, and a good reference to other unreliable ones with that link Savior posted ironically enough.



Translation: I don't like the Blaze, therefore they aren't a credible source.


----------



## Xyloxi (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Sickening that people on here defend killers, but crucify anyone that even thinks of scratching a homosexual person. Extremist lefties.



What far-left? The far-left in the US is for the most part non-existent apart from a few fringe groups. Nobody in this thread has made arguments from a Marxist viewpoint, as well as the left-right spectrum being a purely economic thing. An individual can be right wing, liberal on social issues or a leftie who has pretty illiberal social views. 



White Tiger said:


> Absolutely fine. I get your point and respect it.
> 
> People should be treated equally.
> 
> ...



Right back at you, people should be treated equally within reason.

If I ever had my own company, I'd treat a Muslim the same just the same as any other employee, neither better nor worse, which is true equality. 

I personally think your religion is mad, but that doesn't mean that Muslims themselves are disturbed as an entire population.


----------



## Afalstein (Aug 11, 2013)

Gino said:


> The better question is do we all really care?In the end I'm pretty sure the couple is still gonna get married.



Obviously we do care, or else the thread would have died a long time ago.  Yes, the couple is still going to get married and have equal rights under the law, but in reality, that's never been what the debate is about.



Enclave said:


> Marriage is not a religious institution but rather a civic institution.  It's a legal contract governed by the State.  The fact that religions endorse them as well and have their own beliefs surrounding them is pretty much 100% irrelevant.
> 
> So no, it was not fine for this couple to refuse the homosexual couple as religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
> .



In this particular instance, it would seem to.  Asking a religious couple to host/endorse a marriage ceremony definitely seems to mesh the two.  If religion has nothing to do with marriage, then I don't see why the gay couple would wish to get married there in the first place.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I just love seeing homophobes scrambling to justify their bigotry. The only reason they spun the story, the only reason the OP posted it was for that reason.
> .



Surely the story is less about a justification for bigotry, and more about the right to BE bigots.  The story doesn't seem to be arguing that gays are terrible for being gays, after all.  In fact, I don't even see that they're claiming most of the death threats are from gays.  However stupid or backward you might think the venue owner's might be, the point remains that refusing service, however rude, is not against the law.

Granted, neither is sending hate mail--though death threats probably are.


----------



## Enclave (Aug 11, 2013)

Afalstein said:


> In this particular instance, it would seem to.  Asking a religious couple to host/endorse a marriage ceremony definitely seems to mesh the two.  If religion has nothing to do with marriage, then I don't see why the gay couple would wish to get married there in the first place.



It's a public venue, that's like asking why my wife and I got married in the hall we got married in.  Because it's a public venue not a freakin' church.

See, if this was a church?  My opinion would be different, but it's not.  Also it's worth noting?  The law sides with my position.  What this venue did was illegal in Iowa.

For example.  Say this wasn't a homosexual couple, say this was a interracial couple.  A white guy and a black woman.  Then say this venue told them they can't get married at the venue because of the owners religious beliefs.  That's discrimination and illegal just like this.

When you operate a business there are discrimination laws you need to pay heed to.  If you don't feel you can obey the laws then you probably should rethink operating that sort of business.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Savior said:


> By your definition of the word, following a religion makes you a bigot. That's just nonsense. You're just making up your own definitions for words.


Yeah kinda.

I fail to see how so called Christians really are when they fail to follow pretty much everything Jesus actually said.

 Luke 6:37
'Do not judge and do not condemn.'
 Luke 6:28
'Bless those who curse you.'

The only anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament. With other such bs as you have to stone your children if they ignore you. Or you have to marry your rapist. Or you should kill your whole family if they say to worship other gods.

Pretty much all Christians ignore that stuff in favor of what Jesus said. Except the lines on the gays.

Its pretty much just using the bible to justify your dislike for gays because gays are ewwwww


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeah kinda.
> 
> I fail to see how so called Christians really are when they fail to follow pretty much everything Jesus actually said.
> 
> ...



What's the problem here?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

tl;dr of my point: If you're a Christian and you are anti-gay, you're clearly not understanding what Jesus said and are a terrible Christian.

Mark 12:31
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


----------



## Enclave (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> tl;dr of my point: If you're a Christian and you are anti-gay, you're clearly not understanding what Jesus said and are a terrible Christian.
> 
> Mark 12:31
> Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.



I thought it was common knowledge that 99% of Christians are not actually Christians and just call themselves Christian out of ignorance of what a Christian actually is?

Seriously, based on Jesus' teachings?  Conservatives in the States would lambast him for being a flaming liberal hippy.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 11, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Seriously, based on Jesus' teachings?  Conservatives in the States would lambast him for being a flaming liberal hippy.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> tl;dr of my point: If you're a Christian and you are anti-gay, you're clearly not understanding what Jesus said and are a terrible Christian.



But how can you be a bad Christian if you are anti-gay? Would that not be counter-intuitive considering you are following the few interpreted anti-verses on homosexuality?



Sunuvmann said:


> Mark 12:31
> Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.



Did you just also cherry pick?


----------



## Enclave (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> But how can you be a bad Christian if you are anti-gay? Would that not be counter-intuitive considering you are following the few interpreted anti-verses on homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just also cherry pick?



Can you post any of Jesus' teachings that is anti-homosexual?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> But how can you be a bad Christian if you are anti-gay? Would that not be counter-intuitive considering you are following the few interpreted anti-verses on homosexuality?


None of which Jesus said.

The whole point of the new testament is a revision of the old stuff. The point is that New Testament stuff supersedes old testament.

And in the new testament, he said a lot of that aforementioned stuff on being kind to your fellow man.

Which means oh hey, Jesus would disprove of homophobia 



> Did you just also cherry pick?




Not really, that line is pretty much the thesis of much of his teachings.

Jesus' teachings could be summed up as three things:
1)  (Fuck da police. And da police being Rome)

2) 
(Couldn't find a decent meme for 'Fuck the rich' or some such shit)

3)


----------



## Xyloxi (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> But how can you be a bad Christian if you are anti-gay? Would that not be counter-intuitive considering you are following the few interpreted anti-verses on homosexuality?



The problem being that the loving part of Christianity is in conflict with the fire and brimstone part of the Old Testament. I personally don't understand why a same-sex couple would want a Christian wedding, or be Christian at all, let alone try and get married in a more anti-LGBT church.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> -snip-



Fair enough.

I still don't see what good it would do to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. Offtopic, I know.

Edit: 



Enclave said:


> Can you post any of Jesus' teachings that is anti-homosexual?



I was playing a pseudo devil's advocate. I thought that was quite clear.



Xyloxi said:


> The problem being that the loving part of Christianity is in conflict with the fire and brimstone part of the Old Testament. I personally *don't understand why a same-sex couple would want a Christian wedding, or be Christian at all, *let *alone try and get married in a more anti-LGBT church.*



Simply because they still believe in God. 

For the second bold, Fiona put it so... eloquently as to why.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I still don't see what good it would do to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. Offtopic, I know.


Well conforming with the laws probably should be a requirement (if it isn't already) given the tax exempt status of the religious institutions.

By being tax exempt, they are essentially being subsidized by the state.

They are therefore for all intents and purposes a public institution.

If they don't want to, that's fine, go be a private religious institution. However they should be then taxed like any other business.


----------



## santanico (Aug 11, 2013)

At this point in time, I think it should be general knowledge that all religion are based off some sort of bigotry.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Well conforming with the laws probably should be a requirement (if it isn't already) given the tax exempt status of the religious institutions.
> 
> By being tax exempt, they are essentially being subsidized by the state.
> 
> ...



Yes, I know, but....

For the not so profitable religious institutions, you are either telling them to either:

Shut down.
Somehow find profitable ventures
Haggle more from their followers.
Or perform same-sex marriages... despite them being completely against it. I don't care if there are conflicting reasons with the biblez and Bejeezus. This is their way of life. Pro-gay movements will keep moving and eventually people's opinion of it will be swayed, but forcing them to perform same-sex or shut down isn't the way to do it and if you can't see why then... oh well. Find a church that performs same sex marriages, if you want a Christian marriage, or use the government institutions provided. By forcing them you are no better than those advocating against any and all same-sex marriages.


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 11, 2013)

I see Bible verses being taken out of context here. First of all:

_17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.? (Matthew 17-18)
_

This is synonymous with Romans 3:31
_Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law._

Jesus has made it very clear that the laws of the Old Testament are still valid. Particularly the lines that condemn homosexuality. 

Also, regarding those Luke verses: Luke 6:37 speaks about not falsely condemning and judging, for you will be held by the same standards as the ones you impose upon others. It does not mean we should keep our mouths shut when the laws are violated. Jesus himself lashed out against the vendors in the temple, and Paul himself lashed out against evildoers.

Luke 6:28 again is about praying for those who curse you, who mock your faith. 

I hope I cleared it up a bit.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> I see Bible verses being taken out of context here. First of all:
> 
> _17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.? (Matthew 17-18)
> _
> ...


But at the same time he stops the enforcement of THE LAW, same part of the bible that the homosexuality stuff comes from,

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

when he does the whole 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone part'



> 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
> 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
> 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
> 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
> ...



How is that not saying 'Fuck this Old Testament law bullshit'?


----------



## LesExit (Aug 11, 2013)

Xyloxi said:


> The problem being that the loving part of Christianity is in conflict with the fire and brimstone part of the Old Testament. I personally don't understand why a same-sex couple would want a Christian wedding, or be Christian at all, let alone try and get married in a more anti-LGBT church.


Cause people cherry-pick their religion. It's really as simple as that I guess. Theres so much crap in the Bible, but people just look past it and focus on good things, for the most part. Most religious people have a solid 21st-century morality these days, however homosexuality is of course seen as "ew" and bad still, because the issue has been continually cherry-picked out of the Bible for _years_. People have an issue form it, because they've been taught to and don't see how it's hypocritical when they _don't_ go around preaching about all the other laws people break everyday from the Bible that no one cares about because they're clearly _ridiculous_

I could never have a Christian wedding, since I refuse to cherry-pick the religion, I see it as a whole, and it's full of terrible from a God not worth worship in the slightest in my opinion ⊙▃⊙ 

...I'm gonna have a real nice wedding though...>u>


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Aug 11, 2013)

I'm conflicted.

Let's compromise.  Betty and Dick agree to be punched in the face...say seven times each. And then the boycott can be called off. It's win-win.


----------



## Daxter (Aug 11, 2013)

Xyloxi said:
			
		

> The problem being that the loving part of Christianity is in conflict with the fire and brimstone part of the Old Testament. I personally don't understand why a same-sex couple would want a Christian wedding, or be Christian at all, let alone try and get married in a more anti-LGBT church.




I feel that way too. I don't understand gay Christians, but if that's what they wanna do.... >____> 

Then again, I don't understand people who take religion seriously anyway.


I also love how any time a thread with a gay theme goes on long enough, bible quotes start happening.


----------



## Gino (Aug 11, 2013)

Bible are some of the best books I ever read.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> I see Bible verses being taken out of context here. First of all:
> 
> _17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.… (Matthew 17-18)
> _
> ...



Well, then you shouldn't be mixing any two types of linen.

You also shouldn't be eating pork, shellfish, or fish without scales.

You should kill your mother, brother, or neighbor if they express doubt or disbelief in God. 

If you catch a women during menstruation, you should drag her out to be stoned.

If you catch a man with a man or a woman with a woman you have the duty to kill them.

If you catch a woman laying with a man that is not her husband they are to be killed. 

A disobedient child is to be executed.

If a woman is raped, she is to be stoned to death. 

If one works on the Sabbath, they are to be put to death.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, then you shouldn't be mixing any two types of linen.
> 
> You also shouldn't be eating pork, shellfish, or fish without scales.
> 
> ...


Pretty much the point of my rebuttal. Jesus himself thought that kinda stuff was bs. His defense of the adultering women pretty much says all the old testament laws, can be nulled by the current morality and to a greater extent, common sense.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 11, 2013)

Daxter said:


> I feel that way too. I don't understand gay Christians, but if that's what they wanna do.... >____>
> 
> Then again, I don't understand people who take religion seriously anyway.
> 
> ...


They might've just been raised being religious and can't shake their religion out of their heads. Then they simply might not want to acknowledge what the Bible does say and so just ignores it. I think thats kinda alright, no matter how much wrong is in Christianity, I'm happy that there are people who exist whom use a bit more critical thinking to pick out the better messages.


Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, then you shouldn't be mixing any two types of linen.
> 
> You also shouldn't be eating pork, shellfish, or fish without scales.
> 
> ...


Shhh...they are too busy- 


Sunuvmann said:


> Pretty much the point of my rebuttal. Jesus himself thought that kinda stuff was bs. His defense of the adultering women pretty much says all the old testament laws, can be nulled by the current morality and to a greater extent, common sense.


Then tell this to all Christians hung up over homosexuality, tell this too my_ freaking family_ ⊙▃⊙


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Pretty much the point of my rebuttal. Jesus himself thought that kinda stuff was bs. His defense of the adultering women pretty much says all the old testament laws, can be nulled by the current morality and to a greater extent, common sense.



He also told the adultering woman "Go and sin no more". He saved her by his grace - she represents the sinful nature of man, and he is the saviour. 

Also, some confusion stems from what law Jesus was referring to. When Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the Law and that it would not pass away until all things were fulfilled, He asserted that the Law was going to remain in effect for the purpose of showing people their need for salvation. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, and He did so by living a life in total obedience to the Law, and by dying for us who did not live in total obedience to the Law. In addition to fulfilling the demands of the Law, Jesus fulfilled the prophetic foreshadowings and inferences that were presented in the Law. The Law is still in effect and should be used for its intended purpose. Using it for purposes other than its intended purpose is to distort the intent of the Law and deceive people from the truth of the New Covenant.

However, what is a sin, is still a sin. Such as homosexuality. Murder is a sin. Bearing false testimony against someone is a sin. And that, we should call out.

Under the new covenant, homosexuality is viewed with disdain. 

Romans 1.26-7: _"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error"_


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

By not killing the adulterer he didn't live in perfect obedience to the laws.

By dismissing the dietary laws, he didn't live in perfect obedience to the laws. 

By dismissing the mixing of linens, and work on the Sabbath, he didn't live in perfect obedience to the laws.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Aug 11, 2013)

Good, bring their business to ashes, my gays.
​


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

There's plenty of gay Christian institutions that would have married them off in a heartbeat. Why not get married in one of them. I swear to God, it seems like its only gay Christians who keep creating these scenes even though a perfectly better alternative exists for them.

List of all the gay Christian churches in Iowa 



That's a huge list.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Its almost like the reasonable human beings come out during the day  

And the degenerates and homophobes troll at night 

Im glad to see so many people come in and argue against them, my faith in humanity has been partially restored


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> There's plenty of gay Christian institutions that would have married them off in a heartbeat. Why not get married in one of them. I swear to God, it seems like its only gay Christians who keep creating these scenes even though a perfectly better alternative exists for them.
> 
> List of all the gay Christian churches in Iowa
> 
> ...



NO.

I want that church... that one there, the one with the anti-LGBTYX signs. I demand to get married in that NOW. Why? Cuz Fiona said it is my right and if you not likey my views, u homophobe that is less of a human to me, so I will treat u as such.



U bad, spock, BAD.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

Yachiru said:


> He also told the adultering woman "Go and sin no more". He saved her by his grace - she represents the sinful nature of man, and he is the saviour.
> 
> Also, some confusion stems from what law Jesus was referring to. When Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the Law and that it would not pass away until all things were fulfilled, He asserted that the Law was going to remain in effect for the purpose of showing people their need for salvation. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, and He did so by living a life in total obedience to the Law, and by dying for us who did not live in total obedience to the Law. In addition to fulfilling the demands of the Law, Jesus fulfilled the prophetic foreshadowings and inferences that were presented in the Law. The Law is still in effect and should be used for its intended purpose. Using it for purposes other than its intended purpose is to distort the intent of the Law and deceive people from the truth of the New Covenant.
> 
> ...



Sure. Adultery is still a sin. So is sex before marriage. And so to would be sodomy. Many things are a sin.

But people don't disallow people from marrying if they committed adultery or had sex before marriage. Or want to be swingers and keep adulterating during marriage.

And many such people still get church weddings 

The point is that the punishment aspect of committing the sin is subject to change and being dismissed as the times change.

>Romans
I for one completely discount anything written by Paul. He isn't a true disciple and really amounts to nothing more than a fanboy writing fanfiction.

Also, again, not said by Jesus.


Fiona said:


> Its almost like the reasonable human beings come out during the day
> 
> And the degenerates and homophobes troll at night
> 
> Im glad to see so many people come in and argue against them, my faith in humanity has been partially restored


More reason for you to actually be on here during normal human hours


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Its almost like the reasonable human beings come out during the day
> 
> And the degenerates and homophobes troll at night
> 
> Im glad to see so many people come in and argue against them, my faith in humanity has been partially restored



I've never done a single thing wrong in my entire life. Plus I have at least two homosexual friends from another forum I visit often; indicating I am by no stretch of the imagination a homophobe; things aren't as black and white as you think. And my level of purity is greater than even a baby, for unlike a baby, I have seen true evil, had the opportunity to become it and yet turned away from it like an angel.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> More reason for you to actually be on here *during normal human hours*


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I've never done a single thing wrong in my entire life. *Plus I have at least two homosexual friends from another forum I visit often; indicating I am by no stretch of the imagination a homophobe*; things aren't as black and white as you think. And my level of purity is greater than even a baby, for unlike a baby, I have seen true evil, had the opportunity to become it and yet turned away from it like an angel.


I'm not racist because I have a black friend.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> And my level of purity is greater than even a baby, for unlike a baby, I have seen true evil, had the opportunity to become it and yet turned away from it like an angel.





You're the best,


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> NO.
> 
> I want that church... that one there, the one with the anti-LGBTYX signs. I demand to get married in that NOW. Why? Cuz Fiona said it is my right and if you not likey my views, u homophobe that is less of a human to me, so I will treat u as such.
> 
> ...





Do you see all those blue indicators? Those are all the gay Christian churches within 10 miles from Grimes. There ones which even are within 5 or 6 miles. Would it have killed one of them to drive 10 miles to a Christian Church that does gay marriages?


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

I honestly dont give a darn if you all give me crap for it. 

No one should be turned away just because of their sexual orientation or who they are marrying. 

It goes against your beliefs? Thats fine. 

Condemn it. Pray for Wrath. Picket it. Protest it. 

Never deny it.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I honestly dont give a darn if you all give me crap for it.
> 
> No one should be turned away just because of their sexual orientation or life choices.
> 
> ...



Gay man approaches a pastor protesting gay marriage at a LGBT parade.

Gay man: Sir, after you are done protesting, would you mind marrying me and my boyfriend.

Pastor: Uh Sure, just swing by Sunday. Saturday I'll be busy picketing lesbo-a-thon. Nice shirt, btw, really brings our your shoulders.

Gay man: Thanks, that is so sweet.

Pastor returns to protesting.

Pastor: BURN IN HELL ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). BURN IN HELL ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).

Never deny.


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

The Ku Klux Klan better have a spot for me in their next bonfire party but I swear if they turn me away cuz I'm gay and brown Ill make sure they sell their hoods to compensate me.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Gay man approaches a pastor picketing gay marriage at a LGBT parade.
> 
> Fabulous man: Sir, after you are done picketing, would you mind marrying me and my boyfriend.
> 
> Pastor: Uh Sure, just swing by Sunday. Saturday I'll be busy picketing lesbo-a-thon.



Im not seeing a problem here.



Spock said:


> The Ku Klux Klan better have a spot for me in their next bonfire party but I swear if they turn me away cuz I'm gay and brown Ill make sure the sell their hoods to compensate me.



Because what you just said is totally comparable to what i am saying


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

You guys realize this isn't about a church, right?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Im not seeing a problem here.



Check it again.



Fiona said:


> Because what you just said is totally comparable to what i am saying



Either you are too stupid to see the analogy or you are just blissfully ignant.



Saufsoldat said:


> You guys realize this isn't about a church, right?



Yes.


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Im not seeing a problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> Because what you just said is totally comparable to what i am saying



It sorta is. If you know that this certain establishment does not offer the kind of services you require, why would you even go there. This is a marriage after all, you'd think they'd have put some effort in googling a gay Christian church that happens to be within 5 miles of their location. You won't catch me partying with the Klan just because I like bonfires and good dances.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I've never done a single thing wrong in my entire life. Plus I have at least two homosexual friends from another forum I visit often; indicating I am by no stretch of the imagination a homophobe; things aren't as black and white as you think. And my level of purity is greater than even a baby, for unlike a baby, I have seen true evil, had the opportunity to become it and yet turned away from it like an angel.



I have a black friend.


----------



## Sarry (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> Do you see all those blue indicators? Those are all the gay Christian churches within 10 miles from Grimes. There ones which even are within 5 or 6 miles. Would it have killed one of them to drive 10 miles to a Christian Church that does gay marriages?



But going to those churches won't give him the attention they crave


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> It sorta is. If you know that this certain establishment does not offer the kind of services you require, why would you even go there. This is a marriage after all, you'd think they'd have put some effort in googling a gay Christian church that happens to be within 5 miles of their location. You won't catch me partying with the Klan just because I like bonfires and good dances.





Sarry said:


> But going to those churches won't give him the attention they crave



Again, you guys know this business isn't a church, right?


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Just because someone doesnt fall in line with your beliefs does not mean you can deny them their wish. Comparing someone denying a marriage location based on some random religious belief is not even remotely comparable to what you said. 

As Saufsoldat said this isnt a church we are talking about. 

You all can disagree with the act all you want. 

Pray for them to burn in hell, pray for me to burn in hell if it makes you feel better. 

Ill be over here supporting equality.

Why am i supporting equality? 

Because they are human beings just like us. I dont see the issue. It might be that i was raised without religion in any form. 

I dont see how something so simple can cloud someones judgement so effectively.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> Do you see all those blue indicators? Those are all the gay Christian churches within 10 miles from Grimes. There ones which even are within 5 or 6 miles. Would it have killed one of them to drive 10 miles to a Christian Church that does gay marriages?



Hey, guess what? It's not a church:


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Hey guess what? The current discussion was about gay Christians.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Its a belief people.

Them having their wedding there will not end their belief. 

Their belief wont disappear in a cloud of smoke.

If something so simple can taint your belief then the belief wasnt so strong to begin with it seems. 

Denying someone equal rights just because your "religious" beliefs say so is still discrimination. 

You have a problem with that? 

Then dont have discriminating views.


----------



## Canute87 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Its a belief people.
> 
> Them having their wedding there will not end their belief.
> 
> ...



You can't carry out an action contradictory to a belief and still maintain that belief.  That's hypocrisy.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Just because someone doesnt fall in line with your beliefs does not mean you can deny them their wish. Comparing someone denying a marriage location based on some random religious belief is not even remotely comparable to what you said.
> 
> As Saufsoldat said this isnt a church we are talking about.
> 
> ...



Who is denying their wishes? Get married at the many places that offer you that opportunity. A couple gets rejected from a church (It doesn't even have to be conservative) and then you are all up in arms spouting FREEDOM AND RIGHTS. 

What, in God's name, are you talking about?

I brought up the church thing during our little... discussion.

Why... for some odd reason do you keep bringing up shit like wrath and destruction. Not one person here has made any malicious intents clear to the gay community, yet after every post you write shit like, "Gays have a right, I don't care if you wish them eternal hellfire, pray for their annihilation, or bad cramps."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> There's plenty of gay Christian institutions that would have married them off in a heartbeat. Why not get married in one of them. I swear to God, it seems like its only gay Christians who keep creating these scenes even though a perfectly better alternative exists for them.
> 
> List of all the gay Christian churches in Iowa
> 
> ...





> Do you see all those blue indicators? Those are all the gay Christian churches within 10 miles from Grimes. There ones which even are within 5 or 6 miles. Would it have killed one of them to drive 10 miles to a Christian Church that does gay marriages?



These responses were completely irrelevant as it was a private venue that the couple chose to marry in. Which I will honestly not blame you entirely for, the OP used an extremely unreliable source to post the story. What's more is that they didn't know about the owners' views until they were found out to be a same-sex couple, so this makes your response all that more irrelevant. It's not like these people intentionally went to a place they knew was homophobic, it was discovered through interaction with the owners of the business.


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

From the current discussion at hand, I assumed it related to gay Christians. 



Fiona said:


> Its a belief people.
> 
> Them having their wedding there will not end their belief.
> 
> ...


Not everyone is nice and tolerant like you Fiona. If you and I were to get married, I'd make sure to google gay friendly institutions for us to get hitched. This is how much I care about you by putting five minutes google effort in avoiding bigoted institutions so as you won't have to face any hassles.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Again, it would help to actually read the stories here. They had no idea of the owners' views until after it was found out by the owners the couple were of the same sex. It was only then that the couple was refused service, and it was on the basis of their sexual orientation which is not only unlawful, it's a stupid business model.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Im done. 

This is like arguing with a wall. 

How anyone can be okay with the denial of equal treatment based solely on something as ridiculous as sexual orientation based on some random religious belief is beyond my comprehension apparently. 

I see the entire situation in black and white. 

Are they human? Yes. 

Are they wanting a wedding just like every other coupple that has been married there? Yes. 

Do they have all the proper paperwork? Yes. 

Do they have the funds? Yes. 

Is the place they chose a religious establishment? No. 

Then they should not be able to be turned away


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> These responses were completely irrelevant as it was a private venue that the couple chose to marry in. Which I will honestly not blame you entirely for, the OP used an extremely unreliable source to post the story. What's more is that they didn't know about the owners' views until they were found out to be a same-sex couple, so this makes your response all that more irrelevant. It's not like these people intentionally went to a place they knew was homophobic, it was discovered through interaction with the owners of the business.



We went off-topic a while ago. The discussion turned to me bringing up churches and Fiona stating that they should be able to get married there (I forgot how this started). Why do you bring this up again after Spock replied?



Canute87 said:


> You can't carry out an action contradictory to a belief and still maintain that belief.  That's hypocrisy.



Read this, FIona....



Spock said:


> From the current discussion at hand, I assumed it related to gay Christians.



It was.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> You can't carry out an action contradictory to a belief and still maintain that belief.  That's hypocrisy.



Yes but if your belief is denying equal treatment to others then that shouldnt be okay. 



Spock said:


> Not everyone is nice and tolerant like you Fiona. If you and I were to get married, I'd make sure to google gay friendly institutions for us to get hitched. This is how much I care about you by putting five minutes google effort in avoiding bigoted institutions so as you won't have to face any hassles.



Actually ( i am assuming you are a guy) we wouldnt receive any trouble anywhere because i am a girl  

But the very idea that someone has to google "Gay friendly" institutions is ridiculous. 

If two women or two men wish to be married then they shouldnt have to be afraid of being told no.


----------



## Canute87 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Yes but if your belief is denying equal treatment to others then that shouldnt be okay.



But the belief is something that is considered a sin by whatever teachings people have followed over the centuries it have been written.

A belief can't or rather shouldn't be tossed aside by modern society so quickly.  If that's the case every morale code being taught should be discarded because society no longer deems it of any value.

That's basically stepping all over the religious foundation.Twisting things to suit your own goals.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> But the belief is something that is considered a sin by whatever teachings people have followed over the centuries it have been written.
> 
> A belief can't or rather shouldn't be tossed aside by modern society so quickly.  If that's the case every morale code being taught should be discarded because society no longer deems it of any value.
> 
> That's basically stepping all over the religious foundation.Twisting things to suit your own goals.



I completely understand what you are saying believe me. 

But other than your belief there is no valid reason why they should not be able to be married. 

If someone doesnt share your belief you should not be able to force it on someone and deny them equality. 

And before you all jump down my throat and say "THATS IS WHAT YOU IS DOING" 

I know that is exactly what i am doing. 

I just simply believe that i am right and you are wrong. 

Hence the impass and pages upon pages of arguing. 

I dont believe that belief is enough to deny equality. Especially when those seeking equality dont share that belief. 

As someone who does not practice or believe in any religion specifically i wouldnt want to be treated differently because of that fact.


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Actually ( i am assuming you are a guy) we wouldnt receive any trouble anywhere because i am a girl
> 
> .



Your assumptions are wrong. Lets elope.



> But the very idea that someone has to google "Gay friendly" institutions is ridiculous.
> 
> If two women or two men wish to be married then they shouldnt have to be afraid of being told no


Why? Gay marriages are still pretty incipient in matter of national acceptance in the USA. It would seem ridiculous in couple of more years but right now...not really. 

Furthermore, marriage is a really important event, and painstakingly overwhelming in terms of planning. When it comes to gay people, you can double that. That's why searching for gay friendly institutions would be the most logical decision and it would save lots and lots of time and energy.

 It would also expose us, should we get married, to less homophobes.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I completely understand what you are saying believe me.
> 
> But other than your belief there is no valid reason why they should not be able to be married.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately for you, you were born in the wrong generation.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> Your assumptions are wrong. Lets elope.



Lets hammer out the details then.

1) How do you feel about dogs? Specifically...

2) Do you like Doctor who? 

3) Do you like scary movies? 

4) Fav color?



Ayanli said:


> Unfortunately for you, you were born in the wrong generation.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Aug 11, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I have a black friend.



Granted that having homosexual friends doesn't mean I am incapable of saying something that offends homosexuals. But it also means that I am perfectly capable of making friends with homosexuals. Again, things aren't so black and white. So you have to wonder why I am against these homosexuals if I am not clearly a homophobe... and the answer - if you use your brain - is that I have nothing against homosexuals, but rather that I believe the hurt and suffering the COUPLE have had to endure is blown WAY FUCKING OUT OF PROPORTION. It's not as though they'll commit suicide now and really if they do, then they seriously need psychological support because in this day and age homosexuals are the most protected group of people in Western societies. The world has changed, the most persecuted people in the world are now religious people. And frankly, to me sexual orientation is no more or less special than belief in a deity.

In about 20-30 years, you'll look back at yourself wondering why you were being such a fucking left-wing twat.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


>



It's not a thinker.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> It's not a thinker.



See now i feel even dumber


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Lets hammer out the details then.





> 1) How do you feel about dogs? Specifically...


I love midget animals, however pugs are my favorite dog breed.



> 2) Do you like Doctor who?


No. I despise it.



> 3) Do you like scary movies?


I enjoy a good thriller. Unless this a trick question to see if I'd comfort you should you get jumpy? Rest assured. v_v



> 4) Fav color?


Orange

So are we compatible? Shall I be my outstanding google skills to use?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> But the belief is something that is considered a sin by whatever teachings people have followed over the centuries it have been written.
> 
> A belief can't or rather shouldn't be tossed aside by modern society so quickly.  If that's the case every morale code being taught should be discarded because society no longer deems it of any value.
> 
> That's basically stepping all over the religious foundation.Twisting things to suit your own goals.



Religion is practically all about twisting things to suit specific goals.



♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Granted that having homosexual friends doesn't mean I am incapable of saying something that offends homosexuals. But it also means that I am perfectly capable of making friends with homosexuals. Again, things aren't so black and white. So you have to wonder why I am against these homosexuals if I am not clearly a homophobe... and the answer - if you use your brain - is that I have nothing against homosexuals, but rather that I believe the hurt and suffering the COUPLE have had to endure is blown WAY FUCKING OUT OF PROPORTION. It's not as though they'll commit suicide now and really if they do, then they seriously need psychological support because in this day and age homosexuals are the most protected group of people in Western societies.



It wasn't blown out of proportion except by the Blaze that wished to characterize the gay movement in a light that you very clearly fell for. The couple are conducting themselves quite well and handling it appropriately, and it seems evident that the community at large is as well. 



> The world has changed, the most persecuted people in the world are now religious people.



Not even close to being true. Most people are religious. 



> And frankly, to me sexual orientation is no more or less special than belief in a deity.



Only a testament to your ignorance. 



> In about 20-30 years, you'll look back at yourself wondering why you were being such a fucking left-wing twat.



Not really. If the alternative is being anything like you I think I'd be much happier remaining a 'left-wing twat' than a half-literate know-nothing.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> No. I despise it.


----------



## Spock (Aug 11, 2013)

Rejected?! Unpossible. I used to be such a ladykiller.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Aug 11, 2013)

Fiona said:


> See now i feel even dumber



Meaning that mentality of yours will be heavily prevalent some time in the future, just not now.


----------



## Fiona (Aug 11, 2013)

Spock said:


> Rejected?! Unpossible. I used to be such a ladykiller.



Gotta get in dat Doc who

Bitches love Doc Who 


*Spoiler*: __ 



I read that whole thing in the voice of P-Diddy from Get Him to the Greek


----------



## Sarry (Aug 11, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Again, you guys know this business isn't a church, right?



Would it make it better if i said institutions instead?


----------



## Afalstein (Aug 11, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Sure. Adultery is still a sin. So is sex before marriage. And so to would be sodomy. Many things are a sin.
> 
> But people don't disallow people from marrying if they committed adultery or had sex before marriage. Or want to be swingers and keep adulterating during marriage.
> 
> And many such people still get church weddings .



Not everywhere, they don't.  Many churches won't marry adulterous couples, many more will excommunicate "swinging" couples, and others only marry  live-in partners as a way to end them "living in sin." 



Sunuvmann said:


> >Romans
> I for one completely discount anything written by Paul. He isn't a true disciple and really amounts to nothing more than a fanboy writing fanfiction.



Because Christianity is totally about deciding which parts of the Bible you believe in.



Saufsoldat said:


> Again, you guys know this business isn't a church, right?



Yes.  But it is a business run by Christians who don't believe in homosexual marriage.  Hosting the marriage at their venue would be endorsing or at least tacit acceptance of it.  And the particular fear that religious groups have, with a story like this, is that such endorsement or acceptance will eventually be mandated.

When you think about it, what would be the interpretation if this couple that disagreed with homosexuality had permitted the marriage to be held at their venue?  "Oh, they rant and rave about how homosexuality is a sin, but they're willing to take their money when it's a business matter."


----------



## Lady Hinata (Aug 11, 2013)

> One angry e-mail said that the family is ?finished? and ?doomed.? ?You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f***er racist sons of b**ches from hell,? it read, with the writer later adding, ?F**k you, f**k your God, f**k your religion.? Another person who goes by the name ?Micky? wrote, ?Betty, you?re very old and almost dead. How do you both feel, knowing that America, and the world, will be a better place without you??



How rude. I hope they just keep it pushing and continue operating their business.


----------



## Xyloxi (Aug 12, 2013)

Ignoring the church orientated part of the discussion, why would someone want to get married at an institution which doesn't want or accept them? They're better off taking their money elsewhere instead which will accept them. This whole incident is purely for publicity and people using anonymity of the internet to overreact towards two people who have outdated views on sexual orientation. It would be reasonable for them to kick up a fuss if a remote hotel or the only hotel in a destination didn't allow homosexuals, but for a wedding venue, as Spock has shown there are plenty of alternative venues they can choose from.


----------



## Roman (Aug 12, 2013)

Afalstein said:


> Because Christianity is totally about deciding which parts of the Bible you believe in.



It kind of is now. A lot of Christians I've known said it's about personal choice and a matter of interpretation. Believing in everything leaves no room for interpretation and free will which is against what god wanted for them. According to those Christians I've known at any rate.



Afalstein said:


> Yes.  But it is a business run by Christians who don't believe in homosexual marriage.  Hosting the marriage at their venue would be endorsing or at least tacit acceptance of it.  And the particular fear that religious groups have, with a story like this, is that such endorsement or acceptance will eventually be mandated.
> 
> When you think about it, what would be the interpretation if this couple that disagreed with homosexuality had permitted the marriage to be held at their venue?  "Oh, they rant and rave about how homosexuality is a sin, but they're willing to take their money when it's a business matter."



Personal beliefs shouldn't interfere with business matters. You're providing a service to all people fairly and without discrimination if you're in a business. It's about letting go of personal bias and recognizing all people as human with equal needs and desires. If an opportunity to earn money comes by that would benefit all parties involved and most importantly hurt none, there's no reason not to take it. What they did was reject an opportunity to earn money and hurt those offering said opportunity.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 12, 2013)

Afalstein said:


> Because Christianity is totally about deciding which parts of the Bible you believe in.



Yes. It is.



			
				Xyloxi said:
			
		

> Ignoring the church orientated part of the discussion, why would someone want to get married at an institution which doesn't want or accept them? They're better off taking their money elsewhere instead which will accept them. This whole incident is purely for publicity and people using anonymity of the internet to overreact towards two people who have outdated views on sexual orientation. It would be reasonable for them to kick up a fuss if a remote hotel or the only hotel in a destination didn't allow homosexuals, but for a wedding venue, as Spock has shown there are plenty of alternative venues they can choose from.



This is why using unreliable sources damages a discussion. They didn't know the owners were homophobic until the former found out the latter were a homosexual couple. It was ONLY THEN were they turned away. They didn't go to a church, they didn't go to a business knowing what the owners' views on homosexuality are. They were met with those views when the owners discovered their status. Really, just for publicity? That's fucking stupid. What the couple did as a business is _unlawful._ Not only are they now facing consequence of bad PR, FYI, the couple isn't insisting the venue serve them although they are considering legal action. A few idiots isn't the face of this story because the couple and the community at large are handling it all quite well.


----------



## Savior (Aug 12, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yes. It is.



That's not what Christianity is about. 

According to Kaiba you can say you're a Christian but follow none of the teachings and it's how it should be.

That's some terrible logic.


----------



## Xiammes (Aug 12, 2013)

Someone has never heard of a denomination before, Christians fight all the time over the parts of the bible they adhere too.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 12, 2013)

Savior said:


> That's not what Christianity is about.
> 
> According to Kaiba you can say you're a Christian but follow none of the teachings and it's how it should be.
> 
> That's some terrible logic.



That's exactly what many Christians do.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 12, 2013)

Savior said:


> That's not what Christianity is about.
> 
> According to Kaiba you can say you're a Christian but follow none of the teachings and it's how it should be.
> 
> That's some terrible logic.



But, umm, that's exactly what christianity is nowadays. That's pretty much what any dogmatic religion is. Dogma doesn't change, but society does. People who follow their holy book to the letter are known as fundamentalists and they're usually violent, backwards barbarians.


----------



## Savior (Aug 12, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's exactly what many Christians do.



That makes it right? The majority is what matters now?


----------

