Ben & Jerry's BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until...

originally posted by: musicismagic
one should ask for cream, you know , the cream from her... and demand it be with real sugar, not an artificial sweetener.

We banned them a long time ago ....to many good ice creams out there to be political about it.
BTW their ice cream stinks! JMHO

a reply to: firefromabove

I prefer Häagen-Dazs so no big deal but Ben & Jerry's attempted interference in Australia would lead me to boycott their brand.

Sell you frozen fat but keep your holier than thou nose out of other peoples business.

a reply to: Spider879

Marriage is also a luxury, not a necessity. And yes, it is a mutually beneficial PR stunt. Pretty sure if you asked, they would serve you two scoops of Cherry Garcia anyway.

So?
They can keep their overpriced crap and I'll just go to DQ and get a banana split. Or a hot fudge sundae.....or...damn! 5:30 AM and I'm wanting ice cream.
[ looks in the freezer ] Maybe a coffee float?

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

People bitch about being denied two scoops of the same ice cream. Waaaaa. That's nothing compared to adults being denied the right to marry each other because of religious superstitious BS.

Marriage is "religious superstitious BS".

Gays had an opportunity to hit a home run on the marriage issue if they'd taken the position that the government should just stay out of it entirely, being a religious thing and all.

This is one of those instances where leftists would actually greatly benefit from limited government, but they can never admit that to anyone because it undermines the idea that the state is the solution for everything.

It shows gay rights folk care nothing for the rights of gay folk, and are simply using them to advance a political agenda.

a reply to: DJW001

Marriage is a contract, may not be necessary except in legal rights sphere with regards to property transfers and things of that nature... Having a ceremony maybe optional.

Legal marriage started with the Romans, I believe. It was due to all the land the nobles had.

For ages before it was the common man and women promising to be with each other, no church pomp, no documents, maybe a rough-crafted ring (if you were lucky).

In the current time, Legal Marriage is still about that, money, property and legal rights and insurance, and Federal/state taxation.

Ben and Jerry's tastes gross imo, as does most ice-cream except home-made. It's not ice-cream, it's frozen chemicals and some fruit in a carton.

I don't care who loves who, not my business especially with what they do in the bedroom. Have at it, but the grandstanding over issues which should be a private matter needs to stop. It makes them all look like fools.

I'd never eat their crap anyways.

a reply to: firefromabove

So it begins. The first shot has been fired.

a reply to: bally001

im on the the other side of the island Bally,its the same here,

Maybe B & J know the result of the next Australian election.

Ben and Jerry's always does stuff like this.

As much as the gay community wants their culture to have everything (and more) that the straight culture has, in my opinion, they will never be the same in regards to certain areas, marriage being one of them. Marriage is the union of two people becoming one flesh, as in offspring that have the combined genetics of both parents, which is currently only possible with two people of the opposite sex.

If you look at marriage as a legal union of two people's property, and that is not always the case in all marriages, there are any number of contractual agreements that could do that and no one will stop a gay couple from entering into a legal contract. If you look at relationships like they are business agreements, then a single person is like a sole proprietor, a couple is like a partnership, and a family is like a corporation.

However, for two people of the same sex to become one flesh, the technology isn't available to make that happen. So until they can combine the genetics of a same sex couple to create an offspring that is a whole human being, one flesh from the two, then a gay marriage will only be a legal agreement concerning the obligations and property in a personal relationship while a straight marriage would also include the combined genetics of two people that have a baby together (combining the genetics from their families as well).

ETA: I'd just like to point out that I personally don't have a problem accepting family relationships outside of blood, like in-laws or adopted children. If someone in my family were in a gay marriage with adopted children, they'd be included in the family tree - it wouldn't be complete without them. There are a number of unusual relationships in my family but they are still my kin.

Lactose "Intolerance".

hahahahahahahahahahaha

meh


Order two single scoops and then put them together yourself.

Problem solved.

a reply to: Cygnis

Legal marriage started with the Romans, I believe. It was due to all the land the nobles had.

Hi Cygnis great on the rest of your post but , factually wrong on this part^ the ancient Egyptians marriages were legally recognized contracts by the state, women could file for divorce and leave with whatever assets she bought into the marriage also ancient prenup was also a fact, I think something similar went for the Sumerians also but not too sure about that.

a reply to: firefromabove

See, I get the idea behind this, but I feel bad for their employees. They're going to deal with angry/annoyed customers over and over all because of this protest. I've had people get upset for asking for their ID's, I can only imagine how they'd be when you tell them they can't have two scoops of their favorite flavors. lol

a reply to: NthOther

There was some traction there, to remove all legal privileges of marriage. Guess who freaked out?

a reply to: firefromabove

Never heard of them, 3 shops in Perth where I live - who gives a toss what they demand

Are Ben and Jerry married? LOL

a reply to: firefromabove

oh look........ Ben & Jerrys are owned by Unilever

They claim the moral high ground - what hypocrisy!


en.wikipedia.org...

According to Amnesty International in 2016 Unilever palm oil provider Wilmar International profited from 8 to 14 year old child labor and forced labor. Some workers were extorted, threatened or not paid for work. Some workers suffered severe injuries from toxic banned chemical. In 2016 Singapore-based Wilmar International was world’s biggest palm oil grower.[1