Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
As Christians are constantly being taken to court over denying gays cakes etc this coffee shop owner should be fined heavily
Well this was months ago and there has been no punishment. But it's apparently in the same state where a Christian got in trouble for not wanting to sell flowers to gays.
Originally posted by Surtur
This is from a few months ago:Gay Coffee Shop Owner Appears on Radio to Defend Kicking Out Christians
Though I am wondering where all the outrage from the left was over this?
Probably nowhere given that nobody hears about obscure stories like this anywhere other than niche youtube videos of people complaining about it.
As for the issue itself, I think people should have the right to refuse service to people if it's on legitimate grounds such as themselves or their staff having received verbal or physical abuse. A person stealing from or otherwise defrauding their business or doing something malicious to sabotage their business unfairly such as unwarranted bad reviews on sites like Trip Advisor.
Christians refusing gays due to beliefs or vice versa out of spite is just moronic, frankly.
Originally posted by jaden101
That gay guy really was an total dickhead in that video though. There's refusing people service and there's making a total cvnt of yourself doing it.
He's a whiny shitlord (not a comment towards his homosexuality), like the rest of the White youtube edge male ranters you often see in here.
Originally posted by jaden101
Probably nowhere given that nobody hears about obscure stories like this anywhere other than niche youtube videos of people complaining about it.As for the issue itself, I think people should have the right to refuse service to people if it's on legitimate grounds such as themselves or their staff having received verbal or physical abuse. A person stealing from or otherwise defrauding their business or doing something malicious to sabotage their business unfairly such as unwarranted bad reviews on sites like Trip Advisor.
Christians refusing gays due to beliefs or vice versa out of spite is just moronic, frankly.
I think you should be able to do it based on beliefs or just spite. It's your business. Serve who you do or do not want to serve.
They need to be allowed to make bad business decisions if they choose to do so.
And the fact the fringe only pick this up is the problem. This isn't even really something where it is a gray area. At one point the guy goes "How do I know if they picket at funerals?" lol.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think you should be able to do it based on beliefs or just spite. It's your business. Serve who you do or do not want to serve.They need to be allowed to make bad business decisions if they choose to do so.
I agree. They should be allowed to. If their business suffers as a result of their arsehole attitude then they'll reap what they sow.
Unfortunately as things stand there's enough people who agree with each to likely sustain those businesses. Frankly there's far too many arseholes who get far too upset about other people's life choices.
Originally posted by jaden101
Probably nowhere given that nobody hears about obscure stories like this anywhere other than niche youtube videos of people complaining about it.As for the issue itself, I think people should have the right to refuse service to people if it's on legitimate grounds such as themselves or their staff having received verbal or physical abuse. A person stealing from or otherwise defrauding their business or doing something malicious to sabotage their business unfairly such as unwarranted bad reviews on sites like Trip Advisor.
Christians refusing gays due to beliefs or vice versa out of spite is just moronic, frankly.
That is kind of Surt's point; when it's the christain being the dickhead it's national news. when they're the victim, it's a fringe story.
Originally posted by Silent Master
That is kind of Surt's point; when it's the christain being the dickhead it's national news. when they're the victim, it's a fringe story.
Probably because bigotry towards homosexuals happens a lot more often than bigotry towards Christians in our "great Christian nation", they're not comparable in scope; though some "massive phaggots" try to push that narrative. But I think you knew that and are just doing your usual thing.
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because bigotry towards homosexuals happens a lot more often than bigotry towards Christians in our "great Christian nation", they're not even comparable in scope. But I think you knew that and are just doing your usual.
Fair.
Until Christians are systematically hunted, tortured, and publicly killed for hundreds of years by the Gay Pope and his Righteous Fabulous Army, it won't be equal.
But we can go ahead and just say that shitty people being shitty people are shitty people.
I still think a gay man has the right to tell a Christian to GTFO of their business and that "Christian-folk aren't served around these parts, ya hear?"
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair.Until Christians are systematically hunted, tortured, and publicly killed for hundreds of years by the Gay Pope and his
RighteousFabulous Army, it won't be equal.But we can go ahead and just say that shitty people being shitty people are shitty people.
I still think a gay man has the right to tell a Christian to GTFO of their business and that "Christian-folk aren't served around these parts, ya hear?"
Lol and my question would be, what has to happen before they have earned the right to get stories like this noticed?
And holy shit seeing a liberal(not you) talk about the rarity of one thing to another here...knowing how they argue guns? Priceless.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol and my question would be, what has to happen before they have earned the right to get stories like this noticed?And holy shit seeing a liberal(not you) talk about the rarity of one thing to another here...knowing how they argue guns? Priceless.
Earned the right to get stories noticed?
Strange concept.
Originally posted by jaden101
Earned the right to get stories noticed?Strange concept.
Well the point was that one group isn't discriminated against as much as the other. The implication(I assume) being this justifies the lack of coverage. So my question would be...what exactly would be the benchmark? Would discrimination need to increase by 25% against Christians? Would it need to increase to the same level as gays? At exactly what point would the lack of coverage not be so justified?