Should we boycott gay businesses?

Originally posted by dalek
All this from a public admission of love between 2 men or 2 women and the same legal rights as a man and woman doing the same?.

Don't forget people the majority of the gay and religous community will maintain their own personal views on this subject and move on and worry about where the next mortgage payment comes from.

It is only the extremists on both sides that makes the headlines and it's you guys that are eating up the media feed with a big spoon.

Theres bigger problems in the world at the momment.

This is really the only purely good post in this thread so far.

You're really reaching now. First you equate gays to pedophiles now polygamists. What's next? Beastiality?

Actually Polygamy is very relevant to this discussion and anyone that is for gay marriage and against polygamy is a hypocrite.

reply to post by thrustbucket
The Bible allows polygamy.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Aren't the gays being the Nazis by going after the Mormons?
No, they are the Jews rising up in the ghettos of Poland against the Christofascists.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

On the other hand, whites, conservatives, heterosexual, and religious groups have no backbone and will never band together to orchestrate boycotts. The media knows these groups are self indulging, and could care less what happens to their neighbor so long as they themselves are left alone.


No backbone? Please, do not lump all whites,conservatives, heterosexuals and religious groups into a "no backbone" catagory. The reason you dont see many organized boycotts from these said groups is they have less of the "demand our rights" platforms to rally behind. Blacks have the race issue, and Gays want their acceptance. Most of the groups you mention do not orchestrate boycotts because although they may not agree with the actions, they lack the driving inspiration (race discrimination, gay aceptance) to engage in these boycott actions. Ignorant statements like that are what fuel these duscussions into unintelligent bashing. Please, think before you type, and then re-read it before you post it.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Why can't people learn to live together?

Someone's sex life / preferences as long as it is with another consenting adult is nobody else's business.

Homosexual hatred is like a religion hatred, it's a ego power trip: ie: I have the answers on how everyone should live, everyone should be like me, heterosexual, christian, republic, middle class, etc etc etc.

Well there are many colors in the rainbow not just one.

Again I stress, one's sexual life is usually best kept private and nobody else's business.

Outword displays of overt sexuality in public are tasteless and offensive from either homosexual and heterosexual.

Why can't people be more kind, tolerant and have a little more dignity? Are we humans reverting back to a more animalistic state devoid of self control and decorum in public?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is the most simplest thing to do, even far more simpler than trying to change how people live their lives.

But for some reason, the simple is too simple for the simple minded.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Now they have a musical against Prop 8.

I posted a link to the musical here if anyone is interested.

If you don't think the gay movement is very very serious about destroying the opposition to Prop 8, I ask you this:

I think a lot of gay people are serious about destroying Prop 8. And I think they have every right to do so.

My point, therefore, is why shouldn't we supporters of Prop 8 do the same back to them?

If you want to, go for it. It's a free country.

Go to the list at SFGate, find out who supported Prop 8 in your town, and let them know you are purchasing at their store because they supported Prop 8.

Or, if you oppose Prop 8, you can boycott their stores and let them know that's why.

Maybe we should be more "pro-human". We're all in this together and the seperation of individuals that the PTB are employing, to keep us screwing with each other, is harming all of us. We put that crap behind us and WE have power.

Please pass that request on to the gay activists that shoved the little old lady around and then smashed the big cardboard cross she was carrying. I, for one, am tired of taking it on the chin for these antics against free Americans demonstrating for their point of view. The media was conspicuously neutral on that event, because they likely fear the backlash from the organized gay activist hate movement.

Originally posted by ProFiler.DSS

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Good ol Jeff was responsible for the line "separation of church and state," too. While we're at it, let's get rid of that. Ok?

That wouldn't be a good idea. If this had been applied in this case, the Mormon church funding Prop. 8 with money and manpower, we wouldn't be discussing this ridiculous premise.

Well, you already are aware of the separation of church and state arguement about keeping the state out of the church, not the other way around. So, that doesn't apply to the Mormon church involvement. They are, under the separation of church and state doctrine espoused by T.J., quite appropriately involved. However, I digress and am leading you off topic. My apology.

Yeah but it isn't the other way around. You see the separation powers were never intended to keep religion out of politics but out of GOVERNMENT.

Here is the actual letter from Jefferson. You can see that his intention was to prevent the government from having anything to do with religion, not the other way around as you so claim.

www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Here is the actual letter from Jefferson. You can see that his intention was to prevent the government from having anything to do with religion, not the other way around as you so claim.

www.usconstitution.net...

Thanks Jim, I appreciate it I guess I misunderstood and I know the Jefferson mis representation well. I also want to commend you on your taking on all comers here. I know you haven't gotten more support but you hung in there and stood your ground well making intelligent informed response.

Good Job



[edit on 5-12-2008 by ProFiler.DSS]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

 

On the other hand, whites, conservatives, heterosexual, and religious groups have no backbone and will never band together to orchestrate boycotts. The media knows these groups are self indulging, and could care less what happens to their neighbor so long as they themselves are left alone.


No backbone? Please, do not lump all whites,conservatives, heterosexuals and religious groups into a "no backbone" catagory. The reason you dont see many organized boycotts from these said groups is they have less of the "demand our rights" platforms to rally behind. Blacks have the race issue, and Gays want their acceptance. Most of the groups you mention do not orchestrate boycotts because although they may not agree with the actions, they lack the driving inspiration (race discrimination, gay aceptance) to engage in these boycott actions. Ignorant statements like that are what fuel these duscussions into unintelligent bashing. Please, think before you type, and then re-read it before you post it.

I have laid down the challenge, please PROVE me wrong.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Should we boycott gay businesses?

I don't know any 'gay businesses' to boycott.

If I did - I wouldn't boycott unless I knew the owners either helped with the lunacy against the Mormons or if they were sympathetic to those terrorizing the Mormons.

Besides, if you boycotted them, you would be giving them free publicity!

A more effective strategy would be to stop doing business with companies that advertise in "gay publications". Of course, since I don't read any "gay publications", I would not know what advertisers support their propaganda.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I made an observation as a third party, through unbiased eyes. That is what I saw. If you do not agree with me I am fine with that, but when you have to insinuate I am stupid because of it, that only makes me think that in fact you are the person with the blinders on, and fail to see the world around you. You don't like the perspective someone else sees it in and therefore feel the need to employ Freudian defense mechanisms such as projection, (placing unacceptable impulses in yourself onto someone else; for example when one is losing an argument, they say something like, "your just stupid."), in order not to acknowledge that there may very well be another perspective besides your own.

So I ask; Please, if you disagree with me or any other member, state your disagreement and the reasons for such in a polite manner. There is no need to insinuate people are dumb, ignorant, or anything else just because their opinion does not conform to your own.

Have a Happy Holiday Season.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Should we boycott gay businesses?

I don't know any 'gay businesses' to boycott.

If I did - I wouldn't boycott unless I knew the owners either helped with the lunacy against the Mormons or if they were sympathetic to those terrorizing the Mormons.

Besides, if you boycotted them, you would be giving them free publicity!

A more effective strategy would be to stop doing business with companies that advertise in "gay publications". Of course, since I don't read any "gay publications", I would not know what advertisers support their propaganda.

The boycott would be low profile. It would be against anti-Prop 8 supporters. You don't have to make the news and make a march with this, just stop doing business with them, and let the pro-Prop 8 businesses know why you are now supporting their business.

reply to post by ProFiler.DSS


I was not pointing a finger at no-one and I was not implying that I thought anyone was a coward, or spineless. I was; however, implying that the media views it in that manner. I am sorry you misunderstood me. And I do not understand why you would insinuate I am a coward without knowing me, but that is in fact your prerogative to believe whatever you desire. Furthermore, I believe that if you had read my post I stated something along the lines of please state your disagreements and the reasons for such, which, at least by my understanding mean that I welcome reprisal just without the name calling that is kind of common here, as you have demonstrated yourself. And once again to cover the last part of your reply, I did not say that you or anyone was gutless or lacked backbone, I said THE MEDIA perceives it that way. So please I would ask that if you have the need to ridicule me, at least have the dignity to do it with honesty and not imply things that were not said or interpreted in a language outside of what I posted it in.

Lastly please understand this, I am not the person sitting behind a computer calling someone else a coward, I personally would do that to their face and not from 1500 miles away behind a computer screen. I did not say or even insinuate that I personally believed anything that you seem adamant about accusing me of, only that that was how I viewed the way the media saw it.

Again I am sorry for angering you so badly that you felt the need to call me a coward, for whatever it is worth to you, I apologize that you did not understand my post.

Also I am sorry I did not see anything on your link regarding a boycott of any sorts, could you please be specific as to which section you were referring to, there is a lot of information there and I do not have the time to click and review on every piece of it. Also, I made that challenge in the hopes that someone would actually accept it and do something to make the media see everyone's side and to treat all of the people fairly, whites, religious organizations, conservatives and heterosexuals as well as minorities, feminists and the gay community. Again I am sorry you did not understand it as it was intended.

Edited for additions

[edit on 12/6/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

First I want to say I am not anti-anything other than anti-predatory people.
Do you want to know why the media is pro-gay? I will tell you and even give some examples. The media is scared of them plain and simple. I do not mean scared personally I mean scared of their boycott. For this same reason the media is pro-black, pro-feminist and pro anything else they fear retribution from.

Now do you want to know why the media is anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-religious, and anti-heterosexual? For the exact opposite reason. They do not fear whites, conservatives, religious organizations, or heterosexuals.

The black race is a tight knit community as is the gay community and the feminist community. If you say something negative, whether it is true or not, they will within days have orchestrated a boycott of tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands. This means losses for their advertisers which in turn means they have to sell advertising slots at a lower price.

On the other hand, whites, conservatives, heterosexual, and religious groups have no backbone and will never band together to orchestrate boycotts. The media knows these groups are self indulging, and could care less what happens to their neighbor so long as they themselves are left alone. This group kind of resembles cowboys in that they function independently and do not rely of gang tactics or overwhelming force to get what they want. This is the white man's, conservative's, and heterosexual's downfall. The media is not stupid, they know who they have to listen to and who they don't, just like a child. They may give the babysitter that "who cares what you say" look, but that all changes when mommy and daddy walk in the front door. The white race accounts for a vast majority of the population, yet they have no strength, no cohesion, and no collective sense of self.

And before everyone here starts bashing me, understand this; I am not anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-anything except as I said anti-predatory people and I would definitely classify the media as predatory. I am; however, anti-media because I firmly believe they are the most biased people in the world and they do not care if your white, green, black, blue, straight, atheist, gay, or a prostitute on the street corner. They will prey upon those that allow them to do so, the black, gay, and feminist communities are brave enough to stand up to them, so they get fair to preferred treatment. If you think I am kidding, try to organize a media protest within the white community, if you are not laughed at, you will be ridiculed. The whites, conservatives, heterosexual, and religious organizations are so arrogant, they do not even see what lies right before their very eyes.

I would challenge anyone who reads this to try to organize a white, religious, conservative, or heterosexual protest or boycott and see just how far it goes. Please if anyone thinks they can pull this off, please report back to us on your success/failure.

This is just an observation from a nobody (not white, not black, not gay), trying to look at the picture in a non-biased analytical manner and sharing with you what I see.

I would like to apologize for this post, after re-reading it, I can certainly see why someone would feel that I am calling some group spineless or cowardly, this was meant as how I interpret the media as viewing these groups and is not a personal perspective. I am sorry I was not more specific with my intentions and as I said I can easily see how this could be taken as my own opinion on these groups, hence I apologize for my inadequacies in writing this post.

reply to post by ProFiler.DSS


You know what, you are i fact right in how you interpreted this post, after re-reading it tonight, I can easily see how you took it the way you did and I apologize for that. That was not how I intended for it to be taken, which is what I said to you in the first response. I view this as the attitude that the media holds towards these groups not my perspective. I can see through my own unskillful writing how this could be interpreted in exactly the manner in which you interpreted it.