Pro Religious Freedom Act Indiana pizzeria that closed after threats gets $130K in support

[otherone]

That pizza looks like it has herpes. Or AIDS.

That's why it's "memories" pizza.

 

[mrsat_98]

Is this thread about the pizza place that would not serve gays that hit the media on April Fools Day ?

 

[milgram]

Why not just call their bluff? It seems like these customers don't really want service, they want scour the countryside for someone to sue.

"You want my Christian bookstore to cater your gay wedding? Uh, okay. How many copies of the Exhaustive Bible Concordance will you need?"

 

[PRB]

Oh, be quiet already. You people are absolutely pitiful. The evidence of your misdeeds on this site is overwhelming. OVERWHELMING. You people are as obvious as the nose on your face.

you can't answer a simple question once again.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

you can't answer a simple question once again.

You're denying. Once again. Evidence has been posted countless times.

Nice try at attempting to fool the people not familiar with your fake libertarianism and misdeeds here.

 

[juleswin]

That's because there is no religious justification for racism, only religious justification for being anti-gay marriage.

Ron Paul says you don't have rights because you belong to a group, you have rights because you are human, so why should being a member of a religious group grant you a special right to discriminate that I don't have as an atheist?

Btw to the people asking, Glen Beck set up or help set up the fundraiser for the pizza shop. And boy did they win the jackpot on this. Now I am wishing someone would send death threats my way.

 

[PRB]

You're denying. Once again. Evidence has been posted countless times.

Nice try at attempting to fool the people not familiar with your fake libertarianism and misdeeds here.

My question was specifically, IN THIS THREAD, WHAT POST DID I MAKE THAT WAS NOT LEGIT, AND WHY.

 

[PRB]

Ron Paul says you don't have rights because you belong to a group, you have rights because you are human, so why should being a member of a religious group grant you a special right to discriminate that I don't have as an atheist?

Again, Ron Paul is right, religious beliefs DON'T give you special rights. You CAN discriminate against gay people based on non-religious beliefs (or personal beliefs lacking religious connotation), at least in Indiana without gays being a protected group. You DON'T need to justify discrimination if it's legal, you CAN'T excuse discrimination if it's illegal. Religious arguments have more for PR than practical or legal arguments.

Like I said earlier, what determines if something is religious? Just by a person saying so and the IRS not challenging it. Legally, that's the only criteria.

Btw to the people asking, Glen Beck set up or help set up the fundraiser for the pizza shop. And boy did they win the jackpot on this. Now I am wishing someone would send death threats my way.

Try it, maybe you will get the money you're praying for.

 

[Deborah K]

Ron Paul says you don't have rights because you belong to a group, you have rights because you are human, so why should being a member of a religious group grant you a special right to discriminate that I don't have as an atheist?

It's not a "special right" to exercise your religious beliefs it's a Constitutional right. A person who identifies as a Christian, does so because they believe in Christ and follow his teachings as they are explained by Christ and his representatives in the New Testament. It clearly states in the N.T. (as well as the Old) that homosexual behavior is an abomination. If a pizzeria makes a decision to refuse services to a group of people who identify as homosexuals - based on their religious beliefs, the pizzaria can easily qualify it by referencing the Bible.

I'd like to make a few points about this:

First, there are many businesses of faith that will cater to gays, because they view the teachings of the Bible differently. As you have most assuredly witnessed in these very forums - not all people of faith interpret the Bible or view things in the same way.

Also, business owners are always vulnerable to public pressure, so if the overriding opinion in their community is that they are wrongheaded about an issue- they will end up going out of business.

Additionally, gays can easily set up their own pizzerias, etc. and cater to other gays if they wish. Almost all metropolis areas have gay communities which do just that. And so the issue of actual homosexual discrimination is extremely minimal and is being blown out of proportion. Imagine that.

And, as a side note: I think these state laws regarding freedom of religion show how the Constitution (which already protects freedom of religion) is slowly but surely being rendered irrelevant. The only way laws like these should be considered, is if the Fedgov is dismantled (yaye!) and state gov'ts put the Bill of Rights in each of their Constitutions.

And finally, if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My question was specifically, IN THIS THREAD, WHAT POST DID I MAKE THAT WAS NOT LEGIT, AND WHY.

I'm not exposing your misdeeds for your benefit. I am talking to others here.

 

[PRB]

I'm not exposing your misdeeds for your benefit. I am talking to others here.

You can make your excuses all you want, fact is, you don't know the answer. You're full of shit and lies and baseless accusations.

Can you concede in this thread I made no non-legit posts?

 

[PRB]

It's not a "special right" to exercise your religious beliefs it's a Constitutional right. A person who identifies as a Christian, does so because they believe in Christ and follow his teachings as they are explained by Christ and his representatives in the New Testament. It clearly states in the N.T. (as well as the Old) that homosexual behavior is an abomination. If a pizzeria makes a decision to refuse services to a group of people who identify as homosexuals - based on their religious beliefs, the pizzaria can easily qualify it by referencing the Bible.

I'd like to make a few points about this:

First, there are many businesses of faith that will cater to gays, because they view the teachings of the Bible differently. As you have most assuredly witnessed in these very forums - not all people of faith interpret the Bible or view things in the same way.

Also, business owners are always vulnerable to public pressure, so if the overriding opinion in their community is that they are wrongheaded about an issue- they will end up going out of business.

Additionally, gays can easily set up their own pizzerias, etc. and cater to other gays if they wish. Almost all metropolis areas have gay communities which do just that. And so the issue of actual homosexual discrimination is extremely minimal and is being blown out of proportion. Imagine that.

And, as a side note: I think these state laws regarding freedom of religion show how the Constitution (which already protects freedom of religion) is slowly but surely being rendered irrelevant. The only way laws like these should be considered, is if the Fedgov is dismantled (yaye!) and state gov'ts put the Bill of Rights in each of their Constitutions.

And finally, if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.

That doesn't answer her/his question.

Can an atheist make up his own excuses on why he doesn't want to serve gay people, and be protected under Indiana's law? After all, he can't claim it's religious of he spends the rest of his day insisting he's against religion and atheism isn't a religion.

 

[Deborah K]

That doesn't answer her/his question.

Can an atheist make up his own excuses on why he doesn't want to serve gay people, and be protected under Indiana's law? After all, he can't claim it's religious of he spends the rest of his day insisting he's against religion and atheism isn't a religion.

He was calling the right a "special right". I scrutinized that terminology because it isn't accurate. Let's leave the Indiana law out of it since religious freedom is already protected. Whether or not atheism is a religion is highly debatable, and is worth a discussion on its own merit, especially since Federal Court has ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion, and that atheism deserves the same protections as all other religions. So, it isn't really an applicable question.

In a truly free society, and putting aside his religious beliefs or lack thereof, if Juleswin, as a store owner, decided he didn't want to serve a certain group - say -the Klu Klux Klan, or a group of men from NAMBLA, or Gays, or Jocks, or whomever, don't you think he should have the right to deny them service if he wants to?

 

[PRB]

He was calling the right a "special right". I scrutinized that terminology because it isn't accurate. Let's leave the Indiana law out of it since religious freedom is already protected. Whether or not atheism is a religion is highly debatable, and is worth a discussion on its own merit, especially since Federal Court has ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion, and that atheism deserves the same protections as all other religions. So, it isn't really an applicable question.

The applicable question is : do atheists have a right to discriminate against gays based on their non-religious beliefs? Or are only discrimination based on religious beliefs of non-protcted groups allowed? My belief and understanding is, you do not need a religious argument to discriminate, am I right?

In a truly free society, and putting aside his religious beliefs or lack thereof, if Juleswin, as a store owner, decided he didn't want to serve a certain group - say -the Klu Klux Klan, or a group of men from NAMBLA, or Gays, or Jocks, or whomever, don't you think he should have the right to deny them service if he wants to?

Yes. But don't forget racial minorities too.

 

[Deborah K]

The applicable question is : do atheists have a right to discriminate against gays based on their non-religious beliefs? Or are only discrimination based on religious beliefs of non-protcted groups allowed? My belief and understanding is, you do not need a religious argument to discriminate, am I right?

In my mind, you are right. In the eyes of these stupid lawmakers - yeah - I guess you do need a religious argument to discriminate, but as I stated, a precedent has been set for atheism to have the same rights as the religious.

Yes. But don't forget racial minorities too.

Well as I stated before: if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.

Wouldn't this solve the problem?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Religious arguments have more for PR than practical or legal arguments.

Religious arguments can be quite practical. You can exempt yourself from war, vaccines, Obamacare, and a laundry list of other things.

You're full of shit and lies and baseless accusations.

LOL. The facts about your misdeeds are well established.

If anybody, or new DP members, want more info, then just let me know.

 

[DamianTV]

Should a gay owned pizza shop be forced to cater an event run by Focus on the Family?

+Rep for identifying FORCE as the source of the problem.

When two people have sex, both parties must concent. If one party does not concent and sex is forced by either party, it is deemed Rape. Both parties must also retain the right to say No, thereby nullifying Force. The effort that is being made here is using Force By Law to legalize one party raping the other. This is DOUBLETHINK. Holding on to two opposing ideas within a statement. It would be like saying "it is okay for women to rape men, but men are prohibited from raping women". Rape is rape, and this is transactional rape, where gay is used as nothing more as an excuse and is the source of the Doublethink. Solar Powered Flashlight is typically also used as an example of Doublethink, where it is expected to work in the dark, but he dark is the only place the flashlight will not function. Solar Powered Flashlights are interpreted as "funny" because of how obvious the two opposing ideas are. What is really on the line here is the Right to Say No. When we turn Excuses in to Legal Reasons, we enable converting Rights into Priviledges. If people want to retain the Right to Say No, we must support both the positive and negative version of the Right. If I want to retain the Right to Say No to you, I must also support your Right to Say No to me as well. Rights are only limited in their Scope by the Equal Rights of others. And that is exactly what is not happening with that Law. What the Law is saying is Gays can Say No to whoever they want, but Businesses do NOT retain such Rights, thus, Rights in general are whittled away.

Make no mistake that this is not simply a Gay Rights issue. Gay is used as an excuse to use Legal Force to cause Compulsory Concent that only needs to be held by One Party at the expense of the other. jmdrake also got it right because he changed the context to a different situation. Should Gay business owners be Forced to do business with Straight people. But lets try several other situations. Should Black business owners be Forced to do business with White customers? Should White business owners be Forced to do business with Black customers? If a Muslim Female demands sex from a Buddhist Male, should the Buddhist Male be Forced into sex? Flip it to the opposite, where a Straight Pagan Asian Female be able to demand sex from a White Christian Female? Should a Business Owner be able to demand people give them money in exchange for a product or service the forced party does not want? Although Insurance probably comes to mind, think Pizza. Should the Gay owner of a Pizza Business be able to demand that everyone buy their Pizzas? Should a Christian Gay Female be able to demand Straight Hispanic Muslim Males buy their pizzas? By changing the Context, we see that this disparages upon the Right to Say No based on emotional bias to one of the excuses and only results in Less Rights for everyone. Validation is manufactured through the emotional bias one has on the Group Divider, Gay vs Straight, Male vs Female, Christian vs Muslim, simple Divide and Conquer by validating compulsion based on the Divider instead of the Unifier of Equal Rights. Bias is generated by the perceived Importance and Size of the dominant group or individual. The last thing this Law does is validats Govt Intervention and existence. It stems from the concept that Rights come from Govt, which is nothing more than more Group Think Validation. This group of people, because they are a part of a "Legitimate Govt" has more Rights than those who are not a part of the Govt, thus the "Superior Rights of Govt" can be damned and this Law is Invalid because it disparages the Rights of both Individuals and Groups in favor of one with Validation by Govt. The only solution we have is to support both the positive and negative form of the Right to Say No, which places a higher degree of value on Equal Rights instead of a selective group. When we both retain both forms of the Rights, Right to Say Yes, and Right to Say No, we create Equal Rights where one persons Rights are only limited by the Equal Rights of others.

Key Points:
- Right to Say No
- Doublethink
- Equal Rights

Compulsory Action is the Antithesis of Freedom. Cooperation and Mutual Concent are the foundations of Freedom; Compulsion is the foundation of Tyranny.

 

[jmdrake]

How many weddings (Gay, Hetro, or Dog) have pizza catered?

I have to wonder if these good folks check the sexual background of everyone they sell to..
Do they Cater Weddings for the previously divorced?

Just what other glutinous and hedonistic events are they willing to cater?

I hate hypocrisy more that just about anything else.

Weak analogy. You can be against something and not want to do an invasive background check. I'm against efforts to close the so called "gun show loophole" and make private gun owners do background checks but if I knew ahead of time that someone who wanted to buy a gun from me was a dangerous felon I wouldn't sell it to him. Similarly a pizza shop that doesn't want to cater a wedding for a same sex couple isn't being hypocritical for not "going the extra mile" and doing background checks on every wedding that calls. In fact if someone made an order for pizza for a wedding and didn't say "We're two ladies/dudes getting married" this probably would never be an issue. Pizza is not like a wedding cake where you have figurines of the couple on top. Whenever I've called to order pizza I just said what I wanted and where I wanted delivered. I didn't give the nature of the event let alone details about it.

 

[jmdrake]

Why not just call their bluff? It seems like these customers don't really want service, they want scour the countryside for someone to sue.

"You want my Christian bookstore to cater your gay wedding? Uh, okay. How many copies of the Exhaustive Bible Concordance will you need?"

That's not in your face enough. There Christian gays. In order to make the point you have to deliver copies of "pray the gay away." Another way to call the bluff is to simply make the order and donate half of the proceeds to James Dobson.

 

[PRB]

Religious arguments can be quite practical. You can exempt yourself from war, vaccines, Obamacare, and a laundry list of other things.

So you ARE saying that (self proclaimed) religious people have special rights, OK, you have a point, I'll take that.