• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed[W:1581]

Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I shouldn't have picked a safe majority. The majority is always safe. What about Jews? Muslims?

Say there's a small town with one or two convenience stores. Both have a no Jew or Muslim policy. Should the few Jews and Muslims in the town be forced to move in order to receive service?

Apparently you missed a previous post of mine in this thread. Here it is again. I'll bold the pertinent part.

Sorry but just because someone opens up a business does not mean that their rights to religion or free association goes away. I know that you wish it were otherwise but that is just not the case.

As for the business suffering, that's the owner of the businesses choice isn't it? I know this might be a foreign concept to some people but not everyone opens up a business just to make money.

As for my "braying" I'm sure that you're well aware that I personally support SSM...right? I've got the posting history to prove it both here and in other forums. For instance, ask Hicup (who is against SSM) how much we debated SSM in the past via a PM.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are actually people out there that support actual RIGHTS. Not emotional appeals or belief systems based on emotion. Gays have a right to marry. Companies have a right to associate with who they want. NO ONE has a right to force a service from ANYONE. And if that means defending a companies right to discriminate against gays, blacks, whites or whatever then yes, I will do so. I won't give them my business. But I sure as hell will defend their Rights. Because those Rights are the same ones that I have and no way in hell am I going to give up ANY Right. No matter how messed up that Right can be used for. The only way that a Right can be abridged is if it harms someone. And denying a service does not harm ANYONE.

Does that answer your question?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

well name one thing of value religion contributes in the 21st century

and i'm talking the bronze age book of fables known as the bible - what these small town yokels cling to - not pantheism, deism, jainism or hell, even nihilism might have more utility

There are plenty of examples of religion contributing to 21st century. The Egyptian revolution succeeded in large part thanks to the union of various faiths. Egyptian Muslims and Copts saw a necessity for the faithful to unite and put away religious differences and advocated for unity based on the peaceful aspects of their respective religion. This union was VERY similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960s where Catholics and Evangelicals advocated for equality.

We don't have to go that far to look at the value of religion though. In the US, religious organizations have helped millions of people through community outreach programs. The Nation of Islam has been particularly helpful in cleaning up many neighborhoods in the East Coast. Millions of Christians have used religion to overcome their drug addictions.

If you still disagree, you can look at the billions donated by Christians to foundations helping the most destitute countries in Africa. Some of which I've worked with in Latin America even though I consider myself an atheist. So I guess "one thing" of value that Christianity provides when some people aren't hell bent on discriminating is: unity.

It doesn't sound like much until you consider that the average person regardless of their faith can't be bothered to give 50 cents to a guy on the street. Religion provides a reason for people to do good things together. I'm not saying that people won't do good things regardless, but religion provides a group dynamic that compels people to engage in collective caritative activities. That is definitely one thing of great value.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

There was nothing illegal done or suggested by the pizza shop owners

this is why i asked a question and didnt say the pizza shop factually did anything, glad i could help you with your mistake. You're welcome.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Um...my point was that statistically, if they oppose SSM, they are likely to oppose gay rights across the board. Sodomy laws and SSM are not the same subject. Sending the gestapo to barge into bedrooms and make arrests for consensual sex is not at all the same level of intolerance as opposing marriage rights.

The reason most oppose both or neither is most either hate homosexuals or have no problem with it. Guess which the pizza owners fall into?

Apparently they have no problem with homosexuals since they have stated that if they come through the door wanting a pizza then they will sell them one with absolutely no problem in doing so. They just wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Its gay weddings that they are against. Not gays themselves.

And there's a difference between statistics and polls. ;) Polls might use statistics, but statistics do not use polls. Polls are mainly about peoples opinions. Statistics rely more on math and facts.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

There are plenty of examples of religion contributing to 21st century. The Egyptian revolution succeeded in large part thanks to the union of various faiths. Egyptian Muslims and Copts saw a necessity for the faithful to unite and put away religious differences and advocated for unity based on the peaceful aspects of their respective religion. This union was VERY similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960s where Catholics and Evangelicals advocated for equality.

We don't have to go that far to look at the value of religion though. In the US, religious organizations have helped millions of people through community outreach programs. The Nation of Islam has been particularly helpful in cleaning up many neighborhoods in the East Coast. Millions of Christians have used religion to overcome their drug addictions.

If you still disagree, you can look at the billions donated by Christians to foundations helping the most destitute countries in Africa. Some of which I've worked with in Latin America even though I consider myself an atheist. So I guess "one thing" of value that Christianity provides when some people aren't hell bent on discriminating is: unity.

It doesn't sound like much until you consider that the average person regardless of their faith can't be bothered to give 50 cents to a guy on the street. Religion provides a reason for people to do good things together. I'm not saying that people won't do good things regardless, but religion provides a group dynamic that compels people to engage in caritative activities. That is definitely one thing of great value.

Well now you convinced me to not opposed the next "RFRA" in uganda. Oh wait, they passed a life sentence law on homosexuals, thanks to christian missionaries

Let's try to keep the focus in the eastern time zone at least. Uganda is not in the 21st century
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Well now you convinced me to not opposed the next "RFRA" in uganda. Oh wait, they passed a life sentence law on homosexuals, thanks to christian missionaries

Let's try to keep the focus in the eastern time zone at least. Uganda is not in the 21st century

I'm pretty sure I gave worldwide examples to back up my statement. Hell, I'm convinced I even MENTIONED the East Coast as part of my post. If you want to look at some of the terrible activities of some Christians to make your point, go for it. Just don't pretend that religion doesn't have any value today. That's patently false even to someone who has a long history of taking a whip to fundies.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

A correction to my previous post. The restaurant owner said they would not cater a gay wedding. Apparently there was no request to do such a thing - just a reporter asking if they would. So there was no discrimination because no action was taken.
It should be noted as well that the news show went trolling to find just such a business. I hope the reporter is proud of his own bigotry
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Note: Had to reduce what is quoted due
No prob

Discrimination once did cause harm to commerce across the US. It no longer does. There are far too many businesses and people for that to happen anymore. Not to mention the change in society.

The fact that an entire state (actually several states) just passed such laws showed that isn't true.

Yes it is. Or would you really want a coal power plant sitting right next to your house? How about a garbage dump that is privately ran? Or how about a steel factory? Bet you'd highly object to the harmful chemicals being spewed out right next to your house for health issues...and rightly so.

No, it's not. Arguing about what I don't *want* does not make it an environmental issue and as far as dangers substances being emitted, if there are laws that prohibit such emissions (which would be environmental laws) then there would be no such safety objection to living next door to such a facility. The reason for such zoning laws is to protect land values which is commerce, not safety.


When it comes to the US you would be wrong where it concerns the federal government. When the Constitution was originally written the only power the Feds had was to basically be an arbiter between states when it came to interstate commerce. That changed when the Constitution started to be re-interpreted.

As far as the States goes, only so far as it concerns harm.

SCOTUS was given the power to make such decisions by the constitution itself, so it is illogical to argue that their decision is unconstitutional. You are free to believe that the constitution must be interpreted in a certain way, but the constitution itself does not require original intent to play such an important and overriding role.

And wrt states, wrong. States have *always* had the power the regulate intrastate commerce for reasons other than safety. Again, zoning laws.

Tell me the "safety" concern with zoning laws that require homes to be on a plot of land of a minimum size (around me it's 1/4 acre) or the requirement to provide easements. (on edit: Minimum wage laws)

That wasn't the point of what I said. The whole "no harm no foul" in regards to your stance on MJ had to do with your belief that the government should not be regulating it because it doesn't harm anyone. Is that stance only applicable to something that you are for?

I don't have a no harm no foul stance on MJ nor do I believe that "no harm" is the only consideration (which should be clear by now). You're looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist. I have long held, and posted, that the govts power is not limited to protecting rights and people from harm. I believe that govts in general (and ours in particular, as enshrined in our constitution) have an legitimate interest in promoting commerce

Yet that is exactly what's happening by you wanting the government to enforce the affirmative action laws when it comes to forcing businesses to provide a service to someone that they do not want to.

No, regulating (to promote commerce) consumers is not the same as regulating businesses. The latter has long been considered a legitimate exercise of govt power. The former has only been considered legitimate by totalitarian regimes.

But hey, lets use another example. Same question only in place of CT input the businesses that threatened to pull out of Indiana. Or those businesses that pulled their ads from Rush Limbaugh show due to his perceived racism? I could use many many MANY more examples. It all ends the same.

Businesses that make decisions based on the laws of a state is a legitimate exception as I explained earlier. So too are advertising decisions that can affect how a brand is perceived.

As for your point. It doesn't apply to today's society anymore.

The popularity of such laws prove you wrong and I've explained how even a small portion engaging in this discrimination can have a wide effect.


So....force servitude. No thanks. Some inconveniences are worth the Right to association. No matter what impact it may or may not have.

The balance between the powers of govt and the rights of individuals is a legitimate issue. Our founders chose to have such issues determined through a political process which is democratic in nature. It is not "slavery" (ie forced servitude) when the people support the law

It's democracy
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Apparently they have no problem with homosexuals since they have stated that if they come through the door wanting a pizza then they will sell them one with absolutely no problem in doing so. They just wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Its gay weddings that they are against. Not gays themselves.

And there's a difference between statistics and polls. ;) Polls might use statistics, but statistics do not use polls. Polls are mainly about peoples opinions. Statistics rely more on math and facts.

I believe i already accused them of lying on that, just like their attention whoring by going out of their way to bash gay weddings. I don't see anything of value in their antics.

christian persecution complex depends on making oneself the victim. Easiest way to do that is claim to "love the sinner, hate the sin," or claim to serve the non existent gay couples and just stop short at supporting the wedding. Reality is they hate sinner, or would not have opened their fat mouths to begin with. There's literally no purpose to what they did, other than to be pricks
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Apparently they have no problem with homosexuals since they have stated that if they come through the door wanting a pizza then they will sell them one with absolutely no problem in doing so. They just wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Its gay weddings that they are against. Not gays themselves.

And there's a difference between statistics and polls. ;) Polls might use statistics, but statistics do not use polls. Polls are mainly about peoples opinions. Statistics rely more on math and facts.

How would they know a customer was gay or lesbian? Should they be wearing rainbow pins or pink stars? I'll bet the pizza place has never encountered a bunch of Bears "
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I'm pretty sure I gave worldwide examples to back up my statement. Hell, I'm convinced I even MENTIONED the East Coast as part of my post. If you want to look at some of the terrible activities of some Christians to make your point, go for it. Just don't pretend that religion doesn't have any value today. That's patently false even to someone who has a long history of taking a whip to fundies.

I did read the addiction part but you know, you're kind of insulting them at the same time, by saying they're so weak willed, weak minded, that without the faerie sky god to pray for to help, they can't overcome their problems or do charitable acts

I believe also i saw a study not long ago revealing that atheists do more charity work, per capita, than theists
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

It should be noted as well that the news show went trolling to find just such a business. I hope the reporter is proud of his own bigotry

Sounds to me like a lot of deception in order to get the gay rights mob rolling again, get Hillary, Iran, and a host of other crap out of the limelight for a few days.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

How would they know a customer was gay or lesbian? Should they be wearing rainbow pins or pink stars? I'll bet the pizza place has never encountered a bunch of Bears "

Yeah that will never happen in a indiana town of 2000 lol

I bet there's not a single openly gay couple and these pizza freaks just felt like attacking gay marriage. Now they're claiming victimhood after 1 twitter threat from far away. You want to find a victim in that town, i pity the gay teens trapped there, not the loudmouth bigots
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I'm pretty sure I gave worldwide examples to back up my statement. Hell, I'm convinced I even MENTIONED the East Coast as part of my post. If you want to look at some of the terrible activities of some Christians to make your point, go for it. Just don't pretend that religion doesn't have any value today. That's patently false even to someone who has a long history of taking a whip to fundies.

When religion is good its great, when its bad, its awful.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Completely off topic but please - stop calling or labeling the bible a "bronze age book" as none of it was composed during that period (c. 3000 - 1200 BCE) and much of it was written down after the Iron Age (c. 1200 - 550 BCE)

Actually, some of the stories date back pretty far. Don't know if it goes as far back as the Bronze Age though
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Apparently you missed a previous post of mine in this thread.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your posts or follow your newsletter. And based on your expressed views, I think I'll pass.

Does that answer your question?

Actually, it does. Thank you. One thing's for sure, your ideal society would be the most segregated society on the planet. Without government intervention to protect gays and minorities from wanton discrimination, such people would be forced out of backwater conservative towns, even if they were born there. There would literally be 'No-Go Zones' sprinkled across the country for many people.

I would ask why you overwhelmingly favor the rights of businesses over the rights of people, but I frankly don't care.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I believe i already accused them of lying on that, just like their attention whoring by going out of their way to bash gay weddings. I don't see anything of value in their antics.

christian persecution complex depends on making oneself the victim. Easiest way to do that is claim to "love the sinner, hate the sin," or claim to serve the non existent gay couples and just stop short at supporting the wedding. Reality is they hate sinner, or would not have opened their fat mouths to begin with. There's literally no purpose to what they did, other than to be pricks

They didn't didn't go out of their way to do anything. The news station went out trolling to catch someone just like the pizza shop owners. That's the norm these days, trolling to find businesses that can be shut down for not caving into the homosexual agenda
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

A correction to my previous post. The restaurant owner said they would not cater a gay wedding. Apparently there was no request to do such a thing - just a reporter asking if they would. So there was no discrimination because no action was taken.

Sounds to me like a lot of deception in order to get the gay rights mob rolling again, get Hillary, Iran, and a host of other crap out of the limelight for a few days.


IIRC, the whole issue began because the owner tweeted a message that he would not cater a SSM
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I did read the addiction part but you know, you're kind of insulting them at the same time, by saying they're so weak willed, weak minded, that without the faerie sky god to pray for to help, they can't overcome their problems or do charitable acts

People deal with addiction in different ways. Some overwork themselves and become obsessive about a particular hobby. Others read their religious books or play music. That doesn't make them 'weak willed' or 'weak minded' as you falsely claimed that I said. I know this better than anyone in this forum except for maybe danarhea. Now, if you're going to be as dishonest as to put words that I never said in my post, at least get it right.

I believe also i saw a study not long ago revealing that atheists do more charity work, per capita, than theists

That's great, it doesn't change the fact that religion provides a group dynamic where people engage in charitable work.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

that is re-writing the definition that is not how it works. please see the definition of tolerance. if you don't like it complain to the dictionary companies.
that is why I laugh at people that claim to be tolerant yet spout such hate and vile at people that do not believe the way that they do.

because they are not the tolerant people that they claim to be.

FWIW, it's not what people 'believe' that is a problem - it's what they do. If the owners had said they're personally against SSM but would, of course, cater to anyone who is civil, pays the bills, etc. then I can't imagine they have a problem. I doubt if the owners "approve" of atheists, agnostics, or those 'in name only' Christians, but I bet they serve them without hesitation and would even cater a wedding for a heterosexual couple without inquiring about their state of salvation at that moment in time.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

An Indiana pizzeria remained closed on Wednesday, embroiled in a national debate after its owners said that they would not cater gay marriages due to their religious beliefs.

Read the article here: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but how many gay weddings are followed up by pizza parties? :roll:

My guess is that these people are declining to serve people who would never be their customers.

Shrug. And somewhere a pizza place is still in business because its owner doesn't publicly announce he's an objectively terrible human being.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

well name one thing of value religion contributes in the 21st century

and i'm talking the bronze age book of fables known as the bible - what these small town yokels cling to - not pantheism, deism, jainism or hell, even nihilism might have more utility

I can't believe I should have to give the equivalent of the "not all Muslims are terrorists" speech. Look at a map of where the most states that oppose ssm are clustered and you'll see it's highly regional. I know many religious people and most of them don't oppose gay people in the slightest, and in fact do a lot of aide and charity work. Often they make me feel like an objectively terrible human by comparison. And the few religious people I know who do oppose gays are originally from that cluster I just mentioned. It's easy to forget in these topics that the majority of Liberals/Democrats are in fact religious. The ongoing culture war is defined by culture and region. Religion is only one part of it.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

IIRC, the whole issue began because the owner tweeted a message that he would not cater a SSM

Huh. How about that. So nothing has happened. I wonder if Muslim restaurant would cater a SSM.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

FWIW, it's not what people 'believe' that is a problem - it's what they do. If the owners had said they're personally against SSM but would, of course, cater to anyone who is civil, pays the bills, etc. then I can't imagine they have a problem. I doubt if the owners "approve" of atheists, agnostics, or those 'in name only' Christians, but I bet they serve them without hesitation and would even cater a wedding for a heterosexual couple without inquiring about their state of salvation at that moment in time.

tol·er·ance
/ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: tolerance

1. the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

please see the bolded part. you evidently don't know the definition of tolerance either.
you don't get to pick and choose which part of the word you like.
you don't get to re-write the definition of a word to justify your argument.

what does their spiritual life matter? sounds like a strawman to me.

the fact is people that say they are tolerant really aren't but it makes a good sound bite.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The fact that an entire state (actually several states) just passed such laws showed that isn't true.

Actually RFRA laws have been in effect for years in many states and even the federal level. This is not a new thing.

No, it's not. Arguing about what I don't *want* does not make it an environmental issue and as far as dangers substances being emitted, if there are laws that prohibit such emissions (which would be environmental laws) then there would be no such safety objection to living next door to such a facility. The reason for such zoning laws is to protect land values which is commerce, not safety.

Why Planning and Zoning?[/quote]

Read the part about zoning. You'll note that the main theme is about safety.

SCOTUS was given the power to make such decisions by the constitution itself, so it is illogical to argue that their decision is unconstitutional. You are free to believe that the constitution must be interpreted in a certain way, but the constitution itself does not require original intent to play such an important and overriding role.

So SCOTUS has never been wrong? They're always right in whether something is constitutional or not? Sorry, I doubt you believe that. As such its quite logical to argue that their decision can be or is unconstitutional.

Tell me the "safety" concern with zoning laws that require homes to be on a plot of land of a minimum size (around me it's 1/4 acre) or the requirement to provide easements.

That actually has to do with planning. Not zoning. And I believe those laws to be wrong also. Promoting commerce in this way is essentially demanding that you sell your property to meet X requirement size or else is against our property rights.

I don't have a no harm no foul stance on MJ nor do I believe that "no harm" is the only consideration (which should be clear by now). You're looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist. I have long held, and posted, that the govts power is not limited to protecting rights and people from harm. I believe that govts in general (and ours in particular, as enshrined in our constitution) have an legitimate interest in promoting commerce

I won't argue that they do have a legitimate interest in promoting commerce. However they do not have enough of a valid interest to deny peoples Rights.

No, regulating (to promote commerce) consumers is not the same as regulating businesses...........

But what I am saying is that by this type of "promoting commerce" it is also having the effect of getting rid of commerce. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Businesses that make decisions based on the laws of a state is a legitimate exception as I explained earlier....

Except we both know that none of those examples made those exceptions based on any law. They based it on feelings.

The popularity of such laws prove you wrong and I've explained....

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of a law does not legitimize a law. And I've explained how that is no longer true in today's society and population amount.

It's democracy

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. I much prefer our republic type system which is limited by peoples Rights. Even our founders were against democracy. There were no referendums in our Founders day. Indeed The People didn't even vote for who was President back then. The only thing that was voted for back then were State legislatures. The People didn't even get to vote who was sent to the Senate. Such has changed in today's society due to people not following the Constitution. And as such we see our Rights more restricted today than was restricted back then. With the exception of womens rights and slavery/jim crow we were far more free back then. People could own as much land as they wanted (hell..if a person had enough money they could own a whole town) or sell as much of it as they wanted. People could hunt as much as they wanted for food. People could carry guns in plain sight or concealed...all without having to get a permit or background check. And many many many MANY other things. And no, I'm not saying that life was better or perfect back then. But as far as Rights go, we had more freedom back then than we do now. Ironic considering slavery and all. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom