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

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Which is perfectly legal and non discriminatory because that person's own actions caused them to loose the opportunity of purchasing your services, whatever they may be.

So, nothing wrong with that. A holes don't get served at very many places, nor should they.

I totally agree. However I did have one of them claim I was tossing them because I was racist and not because they were rude and obnoxious with the help. They called the cops and I ended up playing back the surveillance video of them throwing stuff at the counter guy. You still need to be aware that even tossing an a-hole can cause you troubles if the person wants to make a big deal about their poor behavior.

And that's one trouble with protected classes, if you do not accommodate them, quite often the come back with a discrimination accusation and this environment is where shills like Jessie Jackson makes thier money. It is very difficult for an employer to fire a protected class and one had best document poor work or rules violations or whatever the issue in detail to forestall the coming lawsuit.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yeah well jesus was talking about our relationship with god, as god's servants. not slavery by other humans. bit of a difference, i might add. it helps if you read the context of the setting.

I fixed that for you. Again, whenever you see the word servant in the Bible, it means slave.

Besides, here is the entire parable:
Luke 12:42-48
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Jesus may be referring to obeying god here, but he isn't exactly decrying the process of beating your slaves.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh lovely, so the pizza owner is a hypocrite. Why am I not surprised?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"My master is taking a long time in coming" = jesus is the master. the manager who is found beating the OTHER servants of the master (jesus), is the problem child in the verse.

it's a parable about not treating people badly, which is consistent with "loving your neighbor as yourself." if you love your neighbor as yourself, you certainly wouldn't want to be a slave by force or denied food/water/normal services society provides for everyone else.

a reply to: undo

Jesus held no illusions about slavery, yet did not decry the practice. In fact, in his parables he cast God as a slave-owner!

According to John 10:30, Jesus and God the Father are one. John 1:1-3, with verse 14 says that Jesus was with God from the beginning. In John 5:19, Jesus says that he does whatever God the Father does. Someone who takes these verses as Gospel Truth must believe some disturbing things:

Jesus was present and nodding in approval when God gave the command to take 32,000 virgins as plunder in Numbers 31
Jesus was present and gave a hearty “Amen” when God commanded Moses to enslave distant cities.
Jesus was present and gave his blessing for Moses’ soldiers to force their most beautiful captives into rape-marriages

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: undo

Jesus held no illusions about slavery, yet did not decry the practice. In fact, in his parables he cast God as a slave-owner!

oh i know that. it says we are servants/slaves of god, in the first book of the old testament. lol

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: undo

Jesus held no illusions about slavery, yet did not decry the practice. In fact, in his parables he cast God as a slave-owner!

Well, since Jesus din't exist, the guys who wrote the book ensured that obedience to them was one of the primary rules.


Heck, if I invented a religion, that'd be on the top of my list too!

a reply to: undo

The message I get from that is, "be prepared to be beat for misbehaving."

originally posted by: Expat888
they should suck it up and eat the losses their intolerance

Oh give me a break. They never refused service to anyone. I feel that if people are opposed to something (like a gay wedding) they shouldn't have to be afraid or ashamed of saying so without having idiots bash them and threaten their lives over it.

It's not like the gay couple who just wanted a cake, because that's all the bakers needed to do was bake a cake. The pizza shop owners here were asked if they'd physically go to the wedding and cater it, something I don't see they should be forced to do.

You sound like someone who'd send death threats judging by your atrocious comments.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

The message I get from that is, "be prepared to be beat for misbehaving."

but it's god doing the beating not your neighbor.

Does this law only apply to Christians or people of all religions? If the latter, this could be very interesting if it wasn't so obviously going to lead to religious wars and extremism.

As a Brit this seems stupid - the first ammedment was written to protect people from religion - i.e the church of england - not to grant religious people a law unto themselves.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

The message I get from that is, "be prepared to be beat for misbehaving."

but it's god doing the beating not your neighbor.

Looking at the way god "beats" people that doesn't sit too much better with me.

originally posted by: bastion
Does this law only apply to Christians or people of all religions? If the latter, this could be very interesting if it wasn't so obviously going to lead to religious wars and extremism.

As a Brit this seems stupid - the first ammedment was written to protect people from religion - i.e the church of england - not to grant religious people a law unto themselves.

The first amendment was to ensure that there was no state religion (like the C of E) and to ensure that everyone was free to practice their own religion as they see fit (no banning of Catholics from New England like the Puritans did). It is a lot more than just "protecting people from religion."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

The message I get from that is, "be prepared to be beat for misbehaving."

but it's god doing the beating not your neighbor.

Looking at the way god "beats" people that doesn't sit too much better with me.

example? if you mean old testament dude, there's more than one jehovah in the old testament. the sumerian texts pretty much prove that. if you mean jesus, oh, do tell? the beating of the money changers perhaps?

the concept of the manager beating the OTHER servants of god (meaning the manager is a servant of god as well), is meant to describe the improper use of social status. if you, as a servant of god, have more social status than another servant of god, you are all the more expected to be kind and charitable towards those other servants of god. since all of humankind are described as servants of god, that means treating all humankind with kindness. it's a parable.

In the history of the world, has a pizza place ever catered a wedding? Seriously, what a non-story this is that will get national attention.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
In the history of the world, has a pizza place ever catered a wedding? Seriously, what a non-story this is that will get national attention.

It was kind of a manufactured issue. Reporter babe goes to a pizza joint known for being very religious and asks some leading questions, one of which was "would they cater a gay wedding." They said that they would not refuse to serve a gay person, they would serve him the best pizza they could make. They just wouldn't want to cater a gay wedding--disagreeing with the act not the person--and then this whole hullaballo started over a non-event because it was all just a hypothetical.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: xuenchen

I own my own business and a sign is on the main door clearly announcing "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Been there 19 years and used on 3 clients for anger mamanagement issues.

Businesses should have the right to serve only who they want to. It might cause demise to the business but oh well, chance you take in business.

In the new "Amerika" you don't get to make that choice anymore! Try it and fail!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: bastion
Does this law only apply to Christians or people of all religions? If the latter, this could be very interesting if it wasn't so obviously going to lead to religious wars and extremism.

As a Brit this seems stupid - the first ammedment was written to protect people from religion - i.e the church of england - not to grant religious people a law unto themselves.

The first amendment was to ensure that there was no state religion (like the C of E) and to ensure that everyone was free to practice their own religion as they see fit (no banning of Catholics from New England like the Puritans did). It is a lot more than just "protecting people from religion."

And more specifically its part of the 1st amendment which means its a protected platform from which to criticize the government, redress the government.......which means the church's IRS conditional status is clearly and totally unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

You cant speak freely, petition the government by word or text, or assemble to do so if the IRS code prohibits, under 401 status, form doing so.

a reply to: jjkenobi

I just posted above that mine did. We also catered showers, receptions and various corporate events.