AFA: Shops who display ‘We Don’t Discriminate’ stickers are bullying Christians[W:54]

ecofarm said:

I don't give a crap who puts up what symbols on their private property. And NEITHER DO YOU as long as it is Christian symbols.

Hypocrisy, served hot and fresh.

Click to expand...

Dang you folks are bitter.

Kicked any dogs lately?

LOL

ocean515 said:

LOL.

"Believe as I demand, or else"

Own it eace

Click to expand...

That's not what this is, but please have fun making yourself look foolish with each post. It's humorous to say the least.

Only a fool would believe that "we don't discriminate" translates to fascism.

Sounds like you're just upset your discrimination has consequences.

ocean515 said:

Kicked any dogs lately?

Click to expand...

*snicker*

wolfsgirl said:

The sticker campaign has been all over the local (Mississippi) news stations, in the local newspapers, and has been in national media. For a local business owner to not know about it, they would have to be living under a rock.

You are not required to put up the sticker if you don't want to. So you're in the clear there.

This whole sticker campaign was started in response to the new law passed in MS that allows businesses to discriminate based on their "religious beliefs". Why shouldn't businesses be allowed to put up a sign that says "if you're buying we're selling"?

Click to expand...

Despite the brain aneurisms from the chosen ones on this thread, I really don't care much about this sticker thing, except for what it represents. And this "fall in line with what we tell you" requirement or else is a dangerous thing. Again, I think if someone discriminates, they should be treated in the manner in which they deserve, good or bad.

Again, the only point I raise is this "not required" issue. If the majority of the businesses feel pressured to put these stickers up, what of those who don't know, or just frankly don't want to put stickers up? How will they be perceived?

We never want to go back to this sort of thing, whether it's Japanese, blacks, gays, Jews, or whatever, never ever:

ocean515 said:

Despite the brain aneurisms from the chosen ones on this thread, I really don't care much about this sticker thing, except for what it represents. And this "fall in line with what we tell you" requirement or else is a dangerous thing. Again, I think if someone discriminates, they should be treated in the manner in which they deserve, good or bad.

Again, the only point I raise is this "not required" issue. If the majority of the businesses feel pressured to put these stickers up, what of those who don't know, or just frankly don't want to put stickers up? How will they be perceived?

Click to expand...

No it represents citizens and business owners who disagree with the new laws that were just enacted. It represents businesses that are saying that they will not discriminate. That is all it represents. No one is forcing anyone to put up a sticker "or else". If a business doesn't want to put up a sticker that is up to them. If people choose not to shop in those stores that is up to them too. Considering that only about 500 of these stickers have been distributed in the ENTIRE state, there are far more stored without them than there are that have them.

TheNextEra said:

That's not what this is, but please have fun making yourself look foolish with each post. It's humorous to say the least.

Only a fool would believe that "we don't discriminate" translates to fascism.

Sounds like you're just upset your discrimination has consequences.

Click to expand...

Naw, not upset at. In fact, not in the slightest.

I can tell you it's amazing to view how wacked out you folks are though.

Geeze. Go drown some kittens will ya, perhaps it will improve your outlook on life.

ocean515 said:

Naw, not upset at. In fact, not in the slightest.

I can tell you it's amazing to view how wacked out you folks are though.

Geeze. Go drown some kittens will ya, perhaps it will improve your outlook on life.

Click to expand...

Yeah we're whacked out alright because we call you out on your idiotic comparisons and posts. :roll:

When you get done frothing at the mouth over your idiotic posts, maybe you should come back then.

ocean515 said:

Exactly. I agree.

My point in this matter relates to this "I don't discriminate" sticker because of what it represents.

Click to expand...

Putting a sticker in your window representing that "I don't discriminate" is really a bad thing.




In Mississippi this sign can be used by any business that wants to...





>>>>

wolfsgirl said:

No it represents citizens and business owners who disagree with the new laws that were just enacted. It represents businesses that are saying that they will not discriminate. That is all it represents. No one is forcing anyone to put up a sticker "or else". If a business doesn't want to put up a sticker that is up to them. If people choose not to shop in those stores that is up to them too. Considering that only about 500 of these stickers have been distributed in the ENTIRE state, there are far more stored without them than there are that have them.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to make a bigger issue of this than it is. I think this whole issue proves we've gotten way off track. We have governments passing ok to discriminate laws, and we have groups demanding business be closed if their concerns are not met, etc, etc.

I think this type of reaction/response is dangerous. That's the bottom line to my point about the stickers, just another stop down the slippery slope we stepped on to some time ago.

TheNextEra said:

Yeah we're whacked out alright because we call you out on your idiotic comparisons and posts. :roll:

When you get done frothing at the mouth over your idiotic posts, maybe you should come back then.

Click to expand...

:roll:

My, how self important you must think you are?

:rock

ocean515 said:

I don't mean to make a bigger issue of this than it is. I think this whole issue proves we've gotten way off track. We have governments passing ok to discriminate laws, and we have groups demanding business be closed if their concerns are not met, etc, etc.

I think this type of reaction/response is dangerous. That's the bottom line to my point about the stickers, just another stop down the slippery slope we stepped on to some time ago.

Click to expand...

No one is demanding that businesses be closed. Customers ARE saying that if you discriminate we may not patronize your business. Consumers have the right to shop where they choose.

wolfsgirl said:

No one is demanding that businesses be closed. Customers ARE saying that if you discriminate we may not patronize your business. Consumers have the right to shop where they choose.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that customers have a right to shop where they choose. If some fool wants to discriminate, they should suffer the consequences. Tattooing the shop shouldn't be a necessary way to identify who those businesses are.

I think it's unfortunate these slippery slopes aren't seen for what they are.

Oh well, we view it differently. eace

ocean515 said:

I completely agree that customers have a right to shop where they choose. If some fool wants to discriminate, they should suffer the consequences. Tattooing the shop shouldn't be a necessary way to identify who those businesses are.

I think it's unfortunate these slippery slopes aren't seen for what they are.

Oh well, we view it differently. eace

Click to expand...

No one is tattooing any business. The businesses are CHOOSING to inform their customers that they do not discriminate.

The AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010. AFA's pronouncements should be taken accordingly.

Risky Thicket said:

The AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010. AFA's pronouncements should be taken accordingly.

Click to expand...

Risky...this story reminds me of my grandfather. I was raised by my mother's parents (long story - well sort of).

When I was a kid, my grandfather found out that black families might possibly be looking at homes to purchase in our neighborhood.

So being the good racist that he was, he organized a neighborhood meeting to WARN folks about what might happen to all by selling homes to black families. He ranted on about how selling to blacks would destroy the value of homes and impose hardships of selling any homes in the area - if just one black family made their way into the neighborhood.

Then he gets really creative in his paranoia. He starts calling neighbors who have "For Sell" signs up...and in "his black dialect voice"...makes inquiry about buying the home. If that neighbor invited him to look at the house....he went nuts. He'd then call back the person who invited him...and let them know how they were betraying their neighbors...and I think he even threatened some people. Then he would put notes on the front porches of everybody within a couple of blocks, which he intended to name WHO BETRAYED the neighborhood. :roll:

I think that my grandmother would have shot him if she could have gotten away with it.

Aside from the KKK or the like (something like StormFront) one would hope that there aren't an entire organization doing what my grandfather did... but apparently there are many. AFA is one obviously one of those organizations.

Oh, brother... :roll:

wolfsgirl said:

No one is tattooing any business. The businesses are CHOOSING to inform their customers that they do not discriminate.

Click to expand...

I think we are kind of pummeling this into oblivion.

So some final thoughts.

What exactly are they proclaiming with their declaration? That they don't discriminate? Against whom? Women? Blacks? Mexicans? Jews? Gays?

If every business in a strip mall has the proclamation, except one. What could that suggest about the one?

I don't know how else to explain the issue as I see it.

On the plus side, at least there have apparently been only 500 of these declaration stickers distributed. I hope the business community lets these things fade away as they should.

ocean515 said:

Again, the only point I raise is this "not required" issue. If the majority of the businesses feel pressured to put these stickers up, what of those who don't know, or just frankly don't want to put stickers up? How will they be perceived?

Click to expand...

What of them?

Nobody is doing anything to deliberately disadvantage those businesses.

If they aren't keeping their finger on the pulse of the market then they're really not great businesses and, frankly, deserve what they get.

If a business owner is still selling Chams shirts, Capezios, and parachute pants in 2014 "just because he wants to" or because he doesn't know that those things went out of fashion some time around 1986, whose fault is that?

It isn't society's responsibility to cater to business, it's business' responsibility to cater to the customer.

Doesn't matter whether we're talking about selling free range poultry, or supporting veterans, or putting a sticker in your window.

soot said:

What of them?

Nobody is doing anything to deliberately disadvantage those businesses.

If they aren't keeping their finger on the pulse of the market then they're really not great businesses and, frankly, deserve what they get.

If a business owner is still selling Chams shirts, Capezios, and parachute pants in 2014 "just because he wants to" or because he doesn't know that those things went out of fashion some time around 1986, whose fault is that?

It isn't society's responsibility to cater to business, it's business' responsibility to cater to the customer.

Doesn't matter whether we're talking about selling free range poultry, or supporting veterans, or putting a sticker in your window.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Again, the concept of slippery slope seems to have been effectively removed from a number of people.

So a business could be deemed unable to cater to the needs of a customer unless they succumb to pressure requiring them to physically signify support for a specific issue or cause?

The cliff at the end of the slope is closer than some think.

ocean515 said:

Hmmm.

Again, the concept of slippery slope seems to have been effectively removed from a number of people.

So a business could be deemed unable to cater to the needs of a customer unless they succumb to pressure requiring them to physically signify support for a specific issue or cause?

The cliff at the end of the slope is closer than some think.

Click to expand...

So now the free-market is supposed to be a bad thing, one where consumers make the choice of the business from which they want to purchase goods and services?

Seems to me I remember when "free-market" was supported, especially when the AFA called for boycotts for companies that they deemed "gay friendly", such as:




Funny how the opinion of free-market changes.

>>>>

ocean515 said:

I think we are kind of pummeling this into oblivion.

So some final thoughts.

What exactly are they proclaiming with their declaration? That they don't discriminate? Against whom? Women? Blacks? Mexicans? Jews? Gays?

If every business in a strip mall has the proclamation, except one. What could that suggest about the one?

I don't know how else to explain the issue as I see it.

On the plus side, at least there have apparently been only 500 of these declaration stickers distributed. I hope the business community lets these things fade away as they should.

Click to expand...

They are declaring that if your money is green, they will serve you. Period.

If one mall decides not to have the sticker, then they decide not to have a sticker. Some people will choose not to shop there, some people will choose to shop there, some people won't care either way.

What do you think should happen? Businesses choose to put a sticker on their door, should they be banned from putting a sticker on their door?

WorldWatcher said:

So now the free-market is supposed to be a bad thing, one where consumers make the choice of the business from which they want to purchase goods and services?

Seems to me I remember when "free-market" was supported, especially when the AFA called for boycotts for companies that they deemed "gay friendly", such as:

7-Eleven,
Abercrombie & Fitch,
American Airlines,
American Girl,
Blockbuster Video,
Burger King,
Calvin Klein,
Carl's Jr.,
Clorox,
Comcast,
Crest,
Ford,
Hallmark Cards,
Hardee's,
Kmart,
Kraft Foods,
S. C. Johnson & Son,
Movie Gallery,
Microsoft,
MTV,
Paramount Pictures,
Time Warner,
Universal Studios,
DreamWorks,
Mary Kay,
NutriSystem,
Old Navy,
IKEA,
Sears,
Pampers,
Procter & Gamble,
Target,
Tide,
Walt Disney Company,
and PepsiCo.​

Funny how the opinion of free-market changes.

>>>>

Click to expand...

Funny how the big picture is so frequently ignored.

People should tell the AFA to pound sand. Seems to me they did.

On the other hand, business shouldn't be required to pledge allegiance.

wolfsgirl said:

They are declaring that if your money is green, they will serve you. Period.

If one mall decides not to have the sticker, then they decide not to have a sticker. Some people will choose not to shop there, some people will choose to shop there, some people won't care either way.

What do you think should happen? Businesses choose to put a sticker on their door, should they be banned from putting a sticker on their door?

Click to expand...

I think thought police shouldn't be successful and controlling commerce, and shouldn't be encouraged to think they can.

That's what I think.

ocean515 said:

Funny how the big picture is so frequently ignored.

People should tell the AFA to pound sand. Seems to me they did.

On the other hand, business shouldn't be required to pledge allegiance.

Click to expand...

No business is being required to "pledge allegiance" to anything. The stickers are being distributed by private organization and a business is free to put one in their window or not.


I think it's pretty hypocritical, in terms of "the big picture", though of the AFA to call for boycotts of American companies potentially reducing their sales and causing American's to lose their jobs and then refer to a sticker in the window voluntary sticker in a window proclaiming that all will be served equally as "bullying".


>>>>

ocean515 said:

Hmmm.

Again, the concept of slippery slope seems to have been effectively removed from a number of people.

So a business could be deemed unable to cater to the needs of a customer unless they succumb to pressure requiring them to physically signify support for a specific issue or cause?

The cliff at the end of the slope is closer than some think.

Click to expand...

The argument that's presented is indeed a slippery slope, but dangerous as well in that it, typically of the American socialist, ignores much of the issue.

It is not a matter of a business staying current, nor an identified niche market, but whether those businesses will be allowed unfettered access to that market? Let us say I form a PAC that is dead set against the color red, and we enact an internal bylaw that says we can create picket lines around any store selling anything red.

In this case, it is a gang of deluded bigots hiding behind a God who would have nothing to do with them, determining what a store can and can't do. If I want to run a bakery for only gay Chinese people with one leg shorter than the other who have killed a whale, I should be free to do so, and either score big or lose everything. If I want to create a business that sells to everyone but gay Chinese people with one leg shorter than the other who have killed a whale I should also be able to do so.

Perhaps a store in this town with a sign that read "We reserve the right not to sell to bigots" might wake them up. I would love to cover that lawsuit.