It's Starting--> Indiana Christian Pizzeria ATTACKED by gay lobby

a reply to: xuenchen

Here in Britain, I am part of a family business. Under the law, we can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we please. We are a Christian family.

However, we do not exercise the right to refuse service to individuals, unless they come into our store and treat us badly, or unless either myself or my colleague and fellow technician have been poorly treated while on a callout, or booked job.

In short, we reserve the right to refuse service, but we do not see fit to do so on grounds relating to ANY factor, other than the behaviour of individual customers, toward our staff, or our business as a whole. My faith does not demand that I judge people in that way. In fact, it instructs me not to do so.

In my view, refusing service to gay people, simply because they happen to be homosexual, is amoral, and an unchristian thing to do.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I get the taking a stance for your beliefs but if you do so you better not cherry pick them.

How many of those kind of folks do you think violate a whole host of biblical beliefs on a daily basis without even thinking about it, only to quickly cry foul when someone else challenges a belief?

It really is lunacy. I wonder if their Bibles are full of crossed out and highlighted passages so they can conveniently keep track of what they choose to be outraged about while not being inconvenienced by the rest.

a reply to: Annee

In a way it does, as perhaps a couple of businesses will jump on the Bandwagon thinking they will get $200,000 if they behave as persecuted Christians.

a reply to: NavyDoc

This response is genuine, the anger is legitimate - not manufactured. Do you think gay people have not actually suffered worse than a few insults on yahoo through the ages? Even now in this modern, enlightened age?

Honestly?

No. the comments aren't nice. I'm sure that it's a little scary for the Pizza people. You can't count on everyone in a crowd behave. I think we've seen this played out over and over again - with other groups. Sometimes - even Christians can't seem to behave

However, the pizza people did say what they said - that wasn't misattributed or made up

People that keep saying the law should stand - and that the market will regulate human behavior?

Well - which do we prefer? Laws that keep us all artificially polite, respectful and behaving within the law - or do we really want a lawless society where angry mobs rule, people can discriminate at will - and the market determines who and what survives?

This law was intended to protect people who want to use their personal belief system to exact a kind of passive-aggressive punishment on people they just don't like

Laws that ask people to treat everyone equally will never force anyone to change their beliefs - they just make things safer and nicer all the way around. Too damn bad if a Christian person is forced to be nice - obviously Jesus himself can't get some people to see the light

Let's let the market decide...honestly

In all fairness, there are indeed atheists and atheist organizations who are just as rabid about pushing themselves and their philosophy as the rabid fundies.

Damn straight. Humans - what are ya gonna do?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you trying to suggest that verbal abuse isn't harmful? Because there is TONS of science that says that it certainly is VERY harmful. Do you not think that blacks during "separate but equal" weren't being harmed either?

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Apologies..... I assumed that you were talking about the bill.

I still love ya buddy!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: xuenchen

Here in Britain, I am part of a family business. Under the law, we can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we please. We are a Christian family.

However, we do not exercise the right to refuse service to individuals, unless they come into our store and treat us badly, or unless either myself or my colleague and fellow technician have been poorly treated while on a callout, or booked job.

In short, we reserve the right to refuse service, but we do not see fit to do so on grounds relating to ANY factor, other than the behaviour of individual customers, toward our staff, or our business as a whole. My faith does not demand that I judge people in that way. In fact, it instructs me not to do so.

In my view, refusing service to gay people, simply because they happen to be homosexual, is amoral, and an unchristian thing to do.

Sounds like you are a decent human being. It is more honorable to do the right thing because it is the right thing than doing it because you are forced to. Well done!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you trying to suggest that verbal abuse isn't harmful? Because there is TONS of science that says that it certainly is VERY harmful. Do you not think that blacks during "separate but equal" weren't being harmed either?

Is saying "Sorry I can't help you" verbal abuse?

Blacks under "separate but equal" were denied by the government--that was a governmental policy. We all agree that government shouldn't discriminate.

We are talking about non-government, non-taxpayer, non-essential services, private entities.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you trying to suggest that verbal abuse isn't harmful? Because there is TONS of science that says that it certainly is VERY harmful. Do you not think that blacks during "separate but equal" weren't being harmed either?

Is saying "Sorry I can't help you" verbal abuse?

I'm talking about saying "Sorry I can't help you, you are gay."

Blacks under "separate but equal" were denied by the government--that was a governmental policy. We all agree that government shouldn't discriminate.

We are talking about non-government, non-taxpayer, non-essential services, private entities.

That was the original purpose, but we both know that segregation wasn't just government offices. There were PLENTY of whites only businesses as well.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I work upon the principle that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. I have never, and will never, give a good God damn about how popular I am.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc

This response is genuine, the anger is legitimate - not manufactured. Do you think gay people have not actually suffered worse than a few insults on yahoo through the ages? Even now in this modern, enlightened age?

Honestly?

No. the comments aren't nice. I'm sure that it's a little scary for the Pizza people. You can't count on everyone in a crowd behave. I think we've seen this played out over and over again - with other groups. Sometimes - even Christians can't seem to behave

However, the pizza people did say what they said - that wasn't misattributed or made up

People that keep saying the law should stand - and that the market will regulate human behavior?

Well - which do we prefer? Laws that keep us all artificially polite, respectful and behaving within the law - or do we really want a lawless society where angry mobs rule, people can discriminate at will - and the market determines who and what survives?

This law was intended to protect people who want to use their personal belief system to exact a kind of passive-aggressive punishment on people they just don't like

Laws that ask people to treat everyone equally will never force anyone to change their beliefs - they just make things safer and nicer all the way around. Too damn bad if a Christian person is forced to be nice - obviously Jesus himself can't get some people to see the light

Let's let the market decide...honestly

In all fairness, there are indeed atheists and atheist organizations who are just as rabid about pushing themselves and their philosophy as the rabid fundies.

Damn straight. Humans - what are ya gonna do?

I see this often in certain areas where the cause of the day was founded on false premises and then they say, "well it's the thought that counts" when explaining their ire based on a falsehood--people in this very thread entered assuming that the people had actually discriminated.

I think it a very dangerous situation when we demand that the government punish thoughts and beliefs.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a lawless society. People are suggesting that private, non-governmental, non-taxpayer funded, non-essential services can be free to make their own decisions. That's not lawless nor "the law of the jungle."

You assume the law was intended to protect passive aggressive behavior but others just as passionately will say that the law was intended to let people make their own decisions and protect the rights of the individual against the state. IMHO, less coercion from the state the better.

Discrimination by the state is perfectly acceptable as long as it is discrimination people agree with. We have a whole plethora of discriminatory laws that people find perfectly justified. Are we not hypocrites when we let discrimination by the government stand but ban it by private citizens?

Yes, the market should decide, not government.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you trying to suggest that verbal abuse isn't harmful? Because there is TONS of science that says that it certainly is VERY harmful. Do you not think that blacks during "separate but equal" weren't being harmed either?

Is saying "Sorry I can't help you" verbal abuse?

I'm talking about saying "Sorry I can't help you, you are gay."

Blacks under "separate but equal" were denied by the government--that was a governmental policy. We all agree that government shouldn't discriminate.

We are talking about non-government, non-taxpayer, non-essential services, private entities.

That was the original purpose, but we both know that segregation wasn't just government offices. There were PLENTY of whites only businesses as well.

Private businesses were in the process of changing due to popular demand. Having large swaths of people pissed at you is bad for business.

The real civil rights importance was not at the Woolworth's Lunch counter but at the state house and the schoolhouse.

What damage that sorry "I can't help you, you gay" cause a person? And I don't just mean hurt feelings but real, actionable damage and how is that any worse than "I can't help you, you are not wearing a nice coat?" "No torn clothing" "No CCW."

Why is one set of hurt feelings more important than another--important enough to violate the freedom of association to eliminate?

a reply to: xuenchen

Seriously, do we all have to 'love' gays and agree with them??

its up to each individual... you can't tell people what they can or can't do but on the other hand, we dont really need this 'gay' agenda shoved everywhere and especially on the children

I get so conflicted in debates like this, because I fully believe that a business should have the rights to not do anything against their morals, but at the same time I hate seeing anybody being turned down because they are gay. And then I go look into comments pages on news articles, and I see the people commenting (especially on posts by certain news organizations) talking about "gay gestapos" or "gay fascists" and other things along this line that are coming for their rights. It just makes it hard for me to side with them. It disgusts me quite honestly.

I have several friends that are gay. They are not flamboyant, out there about it, or anything like that. They have been beaten up verbally, they've been abandoned by friends, they've been kicked off of school sports teams for no reason other than the fact that they let it slip out that they were gay. Having been bullied myself, and suffered from lack of self esteem...which is what happened to many gay people, you cannot say that verbal abuse, even online comment abuse doesn't hurt.

Closed !!

Yelp - Memories Pizza

a reply to: xuenchen

Why not? Why stay open and prove your convictions?

Why work when the ignorant will provide donations?

It's how churches get started. Hey maybe that's what god is "leading these folks to do"

/retch

a reply to: xuenchen

Not surprised, it prevents people from posting more reviews.

What is interesting is this, under 'more business info':

More business info

Takes Reservations No
Delivery No
Take-out No
Accepts Credit Cards No
Good For Dessert
Parking Street
Bike Parking No
Good for Kids No
Good for Groups No
Attire Casual
Ambience Touristy
Noise Level Very Loud
Alcohol No
Outdoor Seating No
Wi-Fi No
Has TV No
Waiter Service No
Caters No

Does anyone know how successful this business was? I get the feeling this was failing pizza joint, and the owner was trying to get media exposure by saying what she said.

Who orders pizzas for a wedding anyway? What kind of name is "Memories Pizza"?

This whole thing has a setup vibe to it ...

EDIT:

Oh, wait ... what?! They've raised $200,000 from crowd funding? This thing stinks...it reads like a publicity stunt. I bet they were drowning in debt or poor sales. This whole thing seems contrived to raise tensions further and spark a reaction from the LGBT community.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm a Yelper and an Urbanspooner.

What I find odd is that prior to TODAY, they only had TWO, count them -- TWO (2) reviews. One form 2012 and one from 2013. They sure sound like they were running a booming business over there. . .

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Private businesses were in the process of changing due to popular demand. Having large swaths of people pissed at you is bad for business.

*Looks at OP* Clearly.

The real civil rights importance was not at the Woolworth's Lunch counter but at the state house and the schoolhouse.

So the people having sit ins at white restaurants weren't important?

What damage that sorry "I can't help you, you gay" cause a person? And I don't just mean hurt feelings but real, actionable damage and how is that any worse than "I can't help you, you are not wearing a nice coat?" "No torn clothing" "No CCW."

Because the "you are gay" part of the expression is loaded with hate. It's hurtful to say that you aren't welcome because of something you don't have any control over. All your examples can be fixed by you leaving the place, correcting the deficiency, then reentering. You can't walk out of a restaurant, stop being gay, then walk back in.

Why is one set of hurt feelings more important than another--important enough to violate the freedom of association to eliminate?

Because being gay isn't a choice.