MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

This Anti-Gay Pizza Place Got Trashed on Yelp. Why Isn't That Enough?

Inviting the state to tread on anti-gay bakers is a pernicious distraction that betrays the principles of a free society.

PizzaDreamstimeMemories Pizza is a small pizza joint in Walkerton, Indiana. Its owners, the O'Connor family, are devout Christians. Their religious identity is so fundamental to the business they run that it requires them to decline commercial engagement with practices that violate their deeply-held beliefs. And so, when asked by local reporters whether they would cater a gay wedding, owner Kevin O'Connor's answer was no:

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” says Kevin O'Connor.

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The O'Connors say they just don't agree with gay marriages and wouldn't cater them if asked to.

The O'Connors' views are wrong in just about every way possible. First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice—as O'Connor would no doubt be forced to admit if anyone challenge him on his statement. "I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make.

Second, to the extent their religious views require them not to serve gay weddings, I would call those views unkind. Not violent, not anathema to civilization, but certainly unkind. I would question the wisdom of any teaching that required me to treat peaceful people in a deliberately un-neighborly way.

Third, I'm not particularly convinced that the teachings of Christ even require Christians to refuse to serve gay weddings. Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?

In any case, vast numbers of people are currently communicating to the O'Connor family that its policy is morally wrong. And they are doing so in a much less civil manner than I: the Yelp page for Memories Pizza now contains hundreds of negative reviews from supporters of gay equality. A typical review, from Sara H. of Leechburg, Pennsylvania, who has probably never eaten there:

Prejudice Pie- Topped with closemindedness and baked for 20 minutes until hot and greasy by professional assholes 

Bigotry Breadsticks- Golden brown breadsticks oozing with false belief that one has the right to judge others in place of God. Add cheese for just 50 cents more.

Want something cold to wash that down with? Have a nice tall glass of hatred. Sorry, we don't serve pride here because we'd never swallow THAT.

Reviewers also posted a lot of semi-pornographic and explicitly pornographic pictures. (You can find a collection of them here. NSFW!)

People certainly have the right to post those reviews (and Yelp has the right to remove them, leave them be, or do anything else with them). In fact, supporters of gay equality can do anything they want (short of violence) to combat the views of the O'Connors.

Because I want to engage—and perhaps alter—people's anti-gay views, I would question whether hurling gross insults at the misinformed is a good way to change their minds. Those who care more about dancing on the graves of their enemies will reach a different conclusion, I'm sure.

Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it. Why then is it necessary to also compel this business to engage in commercial activity it opposes? Is it really not enough for thousands of people to verbally attack the business, ruin its reputation, and flood its Yelp page with dirty pictures? Is it absolutely vital that the government also become involved?

Some will say yes. Some will say that discrimination is a great evil that must be stomped out at all costs, even via the blunt force of government. Some will raise the issue of historical discrimination against blacks and point out that it was necessary to involve the state to wipe away that stain. (Even though quite a lot of that discrimination was actually explicit government-enforced discrimination against blacks, just as quite a lot of the discrimination against gays is actually explicit government-enforced discrimination vis a vis marriage laws.) When the bigots have so much power, when discrimination is so entrenched, the government has to do something, they will say.

Fine.

You tell me: Who has the power here? Is it Memories Pizza? Or is it the thousands of people flooding the joint's Yelp page with hatred; the hundreds of celebrities, athletes, and businessmen denouncing the discriminators publicly; the dozens of corporations—including mega-corporations like Walmart—denouncing RFRAs and threatening vast economic boycotts against states that implement them (and in doing so, exercising First Amendment rights most liberals were terrified to extend to corporations); and the many government actors, both local and statewide, prepared to punish Memories Pizza and similar shops?

Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities—even unpopular minorities. This was true, and is still true, for gays who live in states where marriage equality does not exist. It's why, as Conor Friedersdorf argues in a terrific piece for The Atlantic, supporters of gay rights are picking the wrong targets when they go after RFRA states:

Now that public opinion has thankfully shifted, marriage traditionalists have thankfully been routed, gay marriage in all 50 states is thankfully inevitability, and its opponents are a waning minority incapable of imposing any cost on political opponents, elites who support gay marriage are suddenly very self-righteous and assertive. Now that those who would discriminate against gays are a powerless cultural minority that focuses its objectionable behavior in a tiny niche of the economy, elites have suddenly decided that using state power to punish them is a moral imperative. The timing suggests that this has as much to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity's love of bandwagons, and political positioning as it does with advancing gay rights, which have advanced thanks to persuasion, not coercion.

Going forward, non-bigoted Americans are inevitably going to reach different conclusions regarding the tensions among non-discrimination law, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience–thorny issues all (unless one just ignores the fact that there are multiple core rights at stake). So long as gay equality is the goal, a better focus for fury than religious liberty exceptions are unjust marriage laws in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Tennessee.

There's still a lot of work to be done before gay Americans will enjoy full legal equality. Inviting the state to tread on anti-gay bakers is a pernicious distraction that betrays the principles of a free society for no purpose other than spiking some cultural football.

Photo Credit: Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RBS||

    Why should I be beat over the head

    Hint, reason, hint, hint...

  • wareagle||

    backlash anyone?

  • Tony||

    Keep hoping.

  • ||

    I find it curious that Yelp entries are considered a sort of violence.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Have you read some of the stupid shit people write there? Yeah, it's mental assault, for sure.

  • Crazyotto||

    how true!

  • R C Dean||

    “That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?”

    I probably would have said that getting married is something they choose, etc. Put that way, I think its especially hard to argue with. Especially since the questions wasn't "Would you serve gay people" but "Would you cater a gay wedding".

  • WTF||

    Yeah, I don't get what is so awful about saying "I don't approve of gay marriage, so I wouldn't cater a gay wedding".

  • GILMORE||

    BECAUSE UGH OMG I DONT EVEN!?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Channeling Alyssa?

  • rocks||

    I don't get what is so awful about their take either. They expressed attitudes consistent with pure classical liberalism, where individuals are free to make their own choices and live with them and others are free to do the same. That is exactly what this pizza place said, they don't have a problem with gay people, they are free to make their choices and we are free to make our choices.

    You either fully support this principal or you don't. The details of what exact choices are immaterial. The principal exists whether people are practicing the choice to not like people who wear red shoes or not to serve gay people.

    "I would question whether hurling gross insults at the misinformed is a good way to change their minds."

    Calling them "misinformed" is forcing your opinion onto others. This pizza place is fully informed to the extent they need to be, which is to the extent they choose to be informed. Robby Soave is simply stating that his opinions are correct and their opinions are wrong. That is no better than the suffocating PC, trigger warning, micro-aggression bullshit of the left.

    I disagree with the pizza place, and if I lived their I might choose to not go there, but that is immaterial. They have a right to their choices as long as they don't hurt others, dead stop. And I will continue to defend their right to their choices against the majority. Robby, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • ||

    this principal principle

  • ||

    They are a public business taking advantage of everything their public setting offers...police and fire protection, roads, infrastructure. We all share I providing that infrastructure through taxes, therefore it is unfair and obviously unconstitutional to discriminate against someone who shares in that burden simply because a business owner hates them. It sounds like you want to go back to the good old days of Jim Crow. What if you needed emergency care and a hospital turned you away because they don't like you, or a pharmacy refused your cancer drugs because they don't like you. t's probably a good rule that if you hate people--any group of people--you should just not open a business.

  • ertdfg||

    OMG you can't have your wedding party there?!

    Sure you can have it at the place down the street; but you have to live KNOWING that someone somewhere does not approve of your event!

    That is clearly like Jim Crow; and any dissent with your view cannot be tolerated.
    You MUST silence all dissent!
    For freedom.. and tolerance... and diversity I think is in there too.

    I mean sure the outcome is the same for your event; but knowing there is a person out there who doesn't agree with you? INTOLERABLE!

    If you can't use the law to drive anyone who disagrees with you out of business; what good is freedom... right? RIGHT!

  • Spaceno42||

    Lizzy Warren is that you? I'm sure he pays his taxes so police, fire, roads, infrastructure...

    What a weak argument

  • SimonD||

    nice ad hominem attack there. If you don't do EXACTLY what I tell you, you must be punished!

    Do you think the 'public business' doesn't pay (probably more than) their share of the taxes that build the roads, and infrastructure, and police protection?

    What is 'obviously unconstitutional' is to force someone to celebrate (at gunpoint) an action (NOT a person) which they find unacceptable.

    For a hospital, there is a compelling societal interest for emergency health care. Do you REALLY think there is an inherent and inalienable right to pizza?

    Again, NO ONE is attempting to discriminate against a person or group of people. At worst, they are discriminating against an action.

  • Suicidy||

    Exactly. It's not as if they are refusing to feed anyone just for being gay, in a mad conspiracy with every other restaurant and grocery store on earth as part of a cunning plan to starve gays to death.

  • Kevin47||

    "They are a public business taking advantage of everything their public setting offers...police and fire protection, roads, infrastructure."

    So all the government has to do to strip away your rights is subsidize anything you use.

  • Suicidy||

    Given how much is paid to the government, I'm pretty sure then U sines is subsidizing government.

  • pavman||

    Your logic is completely backwards and sounds really marxist.

    They pay for those services through their lease agreement. They should be allowed to do business with whoever they please.

    Most business have a sign posted that the business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

    There's no requirement to engage in commerce. Public opinion picks winners and losers through the free market. Period.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Hey, 'kiss my ass', you really don't have a clue. Please just go away.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Your comment rocks, rocks.

  • Win Bear||

    You either fully support this principal or you don't.

    The problem is that many people support it only partially: they want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals and other groups churches traditionally persecuted, but they don't want others to have the freedom to discriminate against them.

    Social conservatives would have my wholehearted support if they proposed striking religion from non-discrimination legislation along with sexual orientation. But one without the other is hypocritical.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    I totally agree. Any group that uses the force of government to promote its agenda against any other citizen is anathema to freedom. Why can't we have the legislature take up poker instead of passing more fucking laws?

  • RoninX||

    Did you actually read the article?

    "Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it. Why then is it necessary to also compel this business to engage in commercial activity it opposes? Is it really not enough for thousands of people to verbally attack the business, ruin its reputation, and flood its Yelp page with dirty pictures? Is it absolutely vital that the government also become involved?"

    Soave is arguing *against* government intervention here.

  • Crazyotto||

    Well put! You are right you either agree with individual liberty or you agree with State sanctioned thought control. You can't pick and choose which topics you want to put in the Libertarian box. If their decision not to cater a gay wedding offends you don't buy their pizza. In my case I admire their chutzpah and standing on their principle that they will not catering to Gays that are so cheap they want to serve pizza at their wedding.

  • DarrenM||

    Yeah, I don't get what is so awful about saying "I don't approve of gay marriage, so I wouldn't cater a gay wedding".

    Because you must be assimilated. You have on rights to unapproved thoughts or opinions.

  • Major Pain||

    Yeah, I don't get what is so awful about saying "I don't approve of gay marriage, so I wouldn't cater a gay wedding".

    Well, let's see if this makes it clearer:

    "I don't approve of interracial marriage, so I wouldn't cater an interracial wedding".
    "I don't approve of heterosexual marriage, so I wouldn't cater a heterosexual wedding".
    "I don't approve of inter-religious marriage, so I wouldn't cater a multi-religion wedding".
    "I don't approve of Jews, so I wouldn't cater a Jewish wedding".
    "I don't approve of atheists, so I wouldn't cater an atheist wedding".
    "I don't approve of blacks, so I wouldn't cater a negro wedding".
    "I don't approve of cripples, so I wouldn't cater a wedding of physically handicapped individuals".

    The issue, it seems to me, is: If you are to offer services to the public, then it seems rather obvious that it is the public is who you should be serving.

    On the other hand, if you actually approve of shunning and shaming... sigh.

    [continued, stupid short Reason limits]

  • Major Pain||

    [continuation]

    As the Yelp reaction clearly indicates, should you decide to engage your prejudices as an active filter for your services, you're going to get filtered yourself by considerably more than just the specific class of people you choose to shame, shun and deny -- a bit of appropriate irony for one of the more pernicious ideas that has wormed its way into the mostly otherwise sane and sensible libertarian mindset of some people.

    Sure, you can say "well, the market will take care of that", but I would ask instead, should\ the market take care of that? Do we want nasty, bigoted people acting out their prejudices in the context of our nation's commerce?

    I really, really don't think we do. It's not just bad for the economy and courtesy and the general idea of people being treated equally in the public sphere -- it's also simply mean-spirited.

    You don't like gay? Don't be gay. Don't interfere with the lives of others -- not by commission, and not by omission. That is a much more important libertarian principle than "I'll do whatever the heck I want, even if it interferes with you."

    Your right to swing your fist ends at the face of the next person. All people have faces. There are no general classes to which you can take exception to, or you're not being libertarian, you've being a bigot.

  • T.A.L.L||

    Sadly your rant is exactly why things like this YELP outrage happens and why civil conversation about this issue is nearly impossible. If you understood WHY many conservative evangelical Christians feel they can not serve a same sex marriage ceremony you would understand that your comments here don't actually facilitate a solution.

  • Crazyotto||

    Lets see ....you privately own a business that trades currency for services. Are you are under a legal obligation to serve everyone who walks through the door despite your misgivings about their ability to live up to their end of the contract? I say you aren't. You don't have to serve people if they are naked, shoeless, drunk, shirtless, abusive, child molesters on and on. They could easily say they are not interested in catering all weddings. In reality who serves pizza at a wedding? So the question is are we really free to run a business as we see fit. Apparently not according to progressives and socialists we can discriminate against Christians but gays are off limits.

  • Sudden||

    I came here to write almost the exact same comment as Colonel R.C. of the OWGB. That's hwy he's colonel and I'm a lowly PFC.

    Also, those cursed Christians being so un-neighbourly what with their hypothetical denial to cater a gay wedding (hypothetical because what fabulous gay wedding is going to be catered with fucking pizza other than to force some Christian to violate his conscience and have to say 20 our fathers and 40 hail marys as penance). But do fake reviews from some whiney bitch in Pennslyvania claiming that the proprietors are bigoted mouth-breathing cretins possessing no value whatsoever get lampooned for being "un-neighborly"? Nah. Robby focuses only on the tactical and aesthetic problems with these mean-spirited faux-reviews while reserving his most morally judgemental language for those evil pizzamakers:

  • GILMORE||

    "their hypothetical denial"

    Which is the *worst kind*!!!

    (because its so easy to simply 'hypothetically lie', and pretend to have the 'popular' opinion, and just engage in discrimination on the DL)

  • MonsoonMoon||

    Can't tell if serious or really shallow thought.

  • jay_dubya||

    I thought Robby covered the Yelp commenters by saying they were dancing on the graves of their political opponents. Did you miss thay part?

  • ant1sthenes||

    At any rate, people can't choose what they want, but they can choose what they do. Being gay is about the former, a gay lifestyle is about the latter, and a gay marriage even moreso, insofar as that's a very planned-out sort of decision.

  • wareagle||

    Principles are hard. Principals not so much. It is beyond the grasp of (apparently) too many that you can defend someone's right to something while not agreeing with their exercise of it. Westboro may be the poster child for this. Every legal challenge has affirmed the church's right to free speech; that the speech is vile is immaterial.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if a gay baker refused to cater a breeder wedding? Is that OK? Does it go both ways?

  • radar||

    Exactly. Or, a different question - let's say a woman wants to get a cake in the shape of a big dick for a bachelorette party, and the baker refuses on the basis of good taste. I'm going to go ahead and assume that would be permissible.

    What about the same cake for a gay bachelor party? Is that allowed?

    Also, Robby, reprehensible? That's a bit much for simply declining to participate in the ceremony, isn't it? I'm not a believer myself, but while Jesus was happy to minister to whores and tax collectors, I don't think he was actively participating in their activities. They didn't say "God hates fags!", they didn't say they will not serve anyone who plays for the other team, they simply said they wouldn't cater their wedding.

  • WTF||

    In fact, they explicitly stated that they would not refuse service to a gay customer, they just wouldn't cater a gay wedding.

  • sarcasmic||

    And for that the punishment is death... by bunga-bunga!

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Prime Minister Berlusconi, is that you?

  • finerbiner||

    So what? This case does not encompass the whole of the situation. The law would allow them to not serve the gay couple.
    That is the point.
    People will discriminate if given the opportunity. The whole history of humanity proves this.

  • Major Pain||

    People will discriminate if given the opportunity. The whole history of humanity proves this.

    And here, they have the opportunity, and indeed that's exactly what they are doing.

    The questions boil down to "Should they be permitted to discriminate?" in the legal sense, and "Will such discrimination be tolerated?" in the social sense.

    I'm uncomfortable with a legal answer of "yes", but as the answer to the social question is "not by a very large number of people", I suspect the answer to the legal question doesn't actually matter. Bigots will be pilloried by the public. Bigots are the metaphorical sand in the equitable, courteous social interaction of the public at large. That's not a good thing to be in most cases, unless you're trying to right a wrong. That's not the case here.

  • ||

    The only one tiny bone I'll throw is if a pizza parlor (Irishmen making pizza? Armenians eating lasagne? What's this world coming to?) or bakery for that matter is regarded as the best in their town or area why should a client be denied access to it? It's not enough to go elsewhere if the places they choose is acknowledged as the best.

    And if the owners of a place have the best product, it's pretty shitty and sad at the same time they don't share their talent with ALL people.

    But what can you do? People do all sorts of crazy things. I'm not so sure compelling them to sell something to someone is the answer.

  • Charles Easterly||

    "People do all sorts of crazy things. I'm not so sure compelling them to sell something to someone is the answer."

    I agree, Rufus.
    If you had a business and you denied me service for your deeply held beliefs I would - gasp - respect your beliefs and go elsewhere, even if I had heard from everyone I trusted that you sold the best Cup o' Pizza on the planet.

    Now, if you insulted the Flying Spaghetti Monster we might have a problem....

  • ||

    FINALLY someone agrees with me.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    We are still upset about the Mourning Lynx...

  • Marshall Gill||

    We are still upset about the Mourning Lynx...

    In which alternate universe did I wake up? We are supposed to be skeptics, here,aren't we? Of everything? That Rufus decides to declare his wife's infidelity, today, didn't send up a red flag with more of you, really surprises me.

    Where, oh where, did my beloved commentariat of skeptics go? Even the totally debased Nutra-Sweet seemed to fall for it. WTF is the world coming to?

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Oh, I wouldn't. The conversation would go like this:

    RUFUS: I believe you are an abomination of nature and a blot on the human race, an ungodly actor and a perverse, destructive force in civilization and you must die or suppress yourself if God is to permit mankind to exist.

    ME: I would like to hire you to create the centerpiece for my big day.

  • SimonD||

    I agree as well. In fact, I'll take it a step farther.

    I have an idea, if you don't like it, open your own pizza parlor and cater whatever you want.

  • Brian D||

    With blackjack and hookers?

  • MonsoonMoon||

    All aboard Excelsior!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    For the exact came reason they are also denied access to the owner's master bathroom.

  • carol||

    I live in a small town in Florida. The catholic church in my town is freaking beautiful. Really, if I ever completely lost my mind and decided to get married again I would want to have the wedding at St. Anne's. Since they are (far and away) the most beautiful place to hold a wedding in town, and any other place than St. Anne's would just break my heart and ruin my entire wedding day, should they be forced to allow me to hold my big, fat Jewish wedding there?

  • ||

    /stops slipping condom on. Drops cigarette from lips. Removes Daffy Duck beak.

    You're...Jewish?

  • GILMORE||

    +1 Yenta

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    At least she's not Canadian.

  • MichaelL||

    Harsh!

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    RJF...that there is purty fuckin' funny. Maybe though you could have added spun his Daffy Duck beak...

  • MarkLastname||

    Judging by the trajectory of things, in a few years, they most likely will be required to.

  • MJGreen||

    Yep, that would suck. But life ain't fair. You can't always get what you want. There are assholes out there that you just have to live with.

    Adults are supposed to recognize these truths.

  • Suicidy||

    In my consulting business I turn down about 80% of referrals for all kinds of reasons. Usually because I perceive the potential client will be shrill, irrational, impatient, or engage in some kind of revisionist recollection if things do not go exactly according to plan. Or sometimes, even if they do. Careful screening has allowed me to work more closely and effectively with people I either enjoy, or at least tolerate working for. Now all this gay entitlement bullshit threatens to create a legal environment where I will no longer be able to choose with whom I transact business.

    All this because of the sexual proclivities of 1.5% of the population. Like AGW, this is just another means to destroy traditional christian values and beat down anyone who practices them.

  • ||

    All this because of the sexual proclivities of 1.5% of the population.

    Gays the only group protected by non-discrimination law folks!

    Like AGW, this is just another means to destroy traditional christian values and beat down anyone who practices them.

    Wait, AGW is a construction to destroy traditional Christian values!?

  • Suicidy||

    For progs, it's all just tools in the toolbox to get them their Marxism. Destroying religion is part of Marxism. AGW is one of their justifications to beat down private business with onerous regulations and punitive taxes. But every bit of it is part of the greater plan to create their 'worker's paradise'. They would scapegoat gays and exterminate them if it would advance their agenda and they thought they could get away with it.

    Is that a bit clearer?

  • SimonD||

    I wouldn't say it about destroying Christian values. I would say the LGBT stuff, and the environmentalist horsefeathers, and the Occupy bullcrap are all used by their movements' leaderships to attack American capitalist values.

    If you look, their prescriptions for whatever 'problem' they perceive is 'more laws, more control, more money for big gubmint

  • Suicidy||

    The problems are invented to increase government, which pushes farther into the marxist spectrum. And you have it backwards. More government is the goal. Their medicine is the point. Everything else is just window dressing and an excuse to get it. Which is why I brought AGW into the discussion. Same principle.

  • Suicidy||

    The problems are invented to increase government, which pushes farther into the marxist spectrum. And you have it backwards. More government is the goal. Their medicine is the point. Everything else is just window dressing and an excuse to get it. Which is why I brought AGW into the discussion. Same principle.

  • ||

    And if you get in a car accident and the emergency personnel dispatched from a private hospital don't like you, they should be able to let you die in the, road...makes sense, would you at least crawl over to the ditch before you die.

  • Kevin47||

    Or you can carve out an exception for emergency services pretty easily.

  • Suicidy||

    Exactly. Which is a law in some form everywhere in the US already.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    It's already the law throughout the US. So far, providing wedding pizzas is not. Oh, the travesty!

  • Suicidy||

    Exactly. Which is a law in some form everywhere in the US already.

  • Koko the Monkey||

    By necessity, emergency services are an exception in all sorts of areas of the law. They are allowed to bill you for services you never consented to, for example. So they make a poor analogy.

  • MichaelL||

    Since when is this a "don't like you" thing?! I suppose, since there is no way to tell if someone is gay at an accident scene, it likely has no bearing on the case. (other than everyone became a lot more aware, of the risk, at an accident scene to exposure to Hep-C [not only an AIDS thing]and HIV) Even if one could tell, I do not know one EMT or paramedic who would have such a callous attitude. Leave it to someone to say it is because we "don't like you"! As a doctor, I took care of all of the patients. But, the women who came to me for abortions were sent elsewhere, since it was against my religious convictions. It was not that I did not like my patients. I preferred to not be involved with abortion.

    And, as a Christian, I am instructed to love, even my enemies. And, gays are not, even, an "enemy", to me. In fact, I always felt gay guys meant less competition for us straight guys! LOL! That is, of course, nonsense, because I did not factor gay girls into the equation. And, in the end we are told to "love the sinner, hate the sin!"

  • Suicidy||

    And if the gay girls are hot, it is good to love them, or at least watch the love from the corner, with a video camera.

  • blcartwright||

    Withholding emergency medical care creates an easily recognizable harm, and thus a compelling interest for the state to intervene.

    If someone can't get their pizza party catered by shop A, and instead has to call shop B, they may have been offended, but where is the legally definable harm?

    Many laws require the plaintiff to show harm in order to obtain standing to file a suit in the first place. The two women from NY who's case brought down DOMA had to first show that they suffered from a higher federal tax rate. Groups that wanted to appeal court decisions in SSM were told they didn't have standing because they didn't show that someone else's ability to be married harmed them.

    However, many civil rights laws, especially in blue states, do not have this threshold. The require that any discrimination, no matter how trivial, be punished by the state.

    I'd argue that mucb of the animosity would be lost if we didn't allow the "I was offended" law suits and everyone would actually get along much better.

  • Brian D||

    People receiving emergency services is a compelling government interest. You getting a pizza is not.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    Pizza=EMS

    Gotcha.

    Fucking retard.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    Not to mention, where I worked, being an EMT entailed a DUTY TO ACT - if you don't like it, you don't become an EMT - it's an essential component of the position and of any agency you'll work at. I doubt there is a duty to act for pizza making.

  • ||

    I doubt there is a duty to act for pizza making.

    Well, goddammit, there OUGHT to be.

  • GILMORE||

    "Also, Robby, reprehensible? That's a bit much for simply declining to participate in the ceremony, isn't it?"

    Ostentatious moral denunciation is all the rage with the Kids These Days.

    They do it constantly.

  • Curt||

    re: whores and tax collectors...

    Not just was Jesus not actively participating in their activities, but he was trying to change them. If a religious caterer can be forced to participate in a gay wedding, can the bartender (while pouring drinks) lecture everyone about how homosexuality is a sin?

  • Ron||

    Should a bartender enable an alcoholic? No. Then should a person who believes something is a sin be required to enable that sin? Again no.

  • SimonD||

    He could pour sodas (as long as they aren't in cups bigger than 16 ounces).

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    So long as he is working for a private business and said business approves the lecturing, yes he may. Got a problem with that?

  • rocks||

    Or what about prostitutes in Nevada, should they be forced to service everyone? Or do they get a choice? What if one of them wants to deny service to a specific race or disabled people? Is that allowed? Or not?

    Or does the left and Robby believe in forced rape of prostitutes. It is either/or. You either support people's choice to decide who they want to serve, or you support forced rape of women.

    First principles suck don't they Robby.

  • ||

    A business is not a human being, the prostitutes human rights would outweigh her business obligations...why have you been turned down quite a few times, go ahead and tell them you'll sue anyways, maybe it will work.

  • Spaceno42||

    Actually prostitution is a business. Wait, so the prosititutes has human rights but a business owner doesn't right?

    What business obligations? Is he taking their money (In bags with $$) and than saying no I was just kidding.

    It's exactly the same trolly van troll

  • Suicidy||

    I smell much progtardery mmf rom Poguey.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    You miss the point, like many progs. A business IS a human being, or a collection of them. Stupid legal entities created on a piece of paper filed with the central-bureaucracy don't exist, people do. Businesses ARE people.

  • WTF||

    No. Because the gay baker outranks the breeders on the aggrieved victimhood scale.

  • Juice||

    +1 punch up

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    So is that a higher or lower number? I'm forgetting how this scale works already, dammit.

  • JW||

    sarc, don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows they're only florists and interior decorators.

  • Jan S.||

    Boy, the hairdressers just aren't getting ANY love...

  • JFree||

    Which begs the question. How on Earth do gays even FIND a wedding florist, cake baker, wedding planner, dress designer, etc who ISN'T gay so that they can be discriminated against on their wedding day?

  • Suicidy||

    It's hard work, but they have to try. So anyone with a shred of traditional values can be beaten into the ground and sued out of business. That is the progressive way.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    You left out photographers.....I'm spent now....

  • Kevin47||

    Actually, they are all lawyers, which is why they have been able to make everyone so miserable.

  • Andrew S.||

    Liberals always talk about "punching up" versus "punching down". I'm not sure of the order, but as I understand it...

    Black transgenders can insult anyone they want.
    Black females can insult anyone but black transgenders.
    White transgenders can insult anyone but black females and black transgenders.
    Black homosexual men can insult anyone but the above 3.

    After that, I'm not sure who's next, between white females, white gay men or black straight men.

    And obviously, straight white men can't have a bad thought about anyone without getting in trouble.

  • GILMORE||

    "straight white men can't have a bad thought about anyone without getting in trouble."

    THIS HAS BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT MINORITIES FROM POTENTIAL HARM

  • Jan S.||

    Actually, it would have to be "straight white men can't have a bad thought about anyone without getting in trouble."

  • XM||

    Too late, I'm a minority and I've been seriously harmed.

    I prefer cash payment.

  • carol||

    Are you putting male to female trans on the same level as female to male trans?

  • GILMORE||

    are we talking asian or hispanic trans?

  • MarkLastname||

    Or what about male-female trans attracted to women, vs. attracted to men? Which is more gay (and therefore more oppressed) than the other?

    We laugh now, but someday they'll have graphs of this shit being taught in schools. "Dad, my teacher failed me on the exam because I underestimated my privilege score again." "Don't worry about it, just take your cyanide pill and go to bed."

  • GILMORE||

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Thanks. I was looking for that chart.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Or what about male-female trans attracted to women

    I actually know one.

  • Pulseguy||

    I knew a woman who claimed to be straight that had a sexual compulsion/obsession about having sex with pregnant straight mothers. She came to see me as a client. I helped her out of her obsession, and she got a boyfriend. I said, 'wonderful. Where did you meet him?' At church it turned out. He is a Catholic priest. I said, 'hmmm, you do know priests aren't technically allowed to have relationships with women, so this might not go anywhere?' She said she knew but it was okay because he is black and from Africa. 'None of them are celibate' she says. They don't get it, don't believe it, and think they've died and gone to heaven (already) as they live in a great home and they can have sex with middle-class white women to their hearts content in N. A.

  • MarkLastname||

    Fun, looks like I better find the nearest seminary to join!

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    semenary....huh....huh....I get it....

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    semenary....huh....huh....I get it....

  • blcartwright||

    I know one, who is a prominent spokesperson for the trans movement. She went from a guy who liked women to a woman who liked women.

    Personally, if I always liked women, I wouldn't want to lose the package, but that may be just me.

  • Suicidy||

    I'll be glad when we have a cure for all this transtesticle bullshit in a few years.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Fucking hilarious....thanks

  • jmg09||

    Anyone? Not even Floridians?

  • ||

    "And obviously, straight white men can't have a bad thought about anyone without getting in trouble.

    What kind of trouble?

  • Zeb||

    Who are you asking?

    I'd say that they should do what they want. But refusing to cater the wedding would still be kind of dickinsh and unneighborly.

  • sarcasmic||

    It was a rhetorical question meant to point out the fact that this isn't a matter of principle, since the people who are shouting discrimination approve of discrimination depending upon who is doing it.

  • Suicidy||

    What about a pig that refuses to eat Jews?

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    That bacons the question...

  • Win Bear||

    What if a gay baker refused to cater a breeder wedding? Is that OK? Does it go both ways?

    The question is "what if a gay baker refused to cater a Christian wedding". And, no, it's probably not OK under current laws or these "religious freedom restoration" laws; that's what makes the Christian conservative position so hypocritical.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    What about a black barber asked to shave someones head so he looks tight for his SS neonazi white pride cross-burning?

  • Win Bear||

    Neo Nazis aren't a protected class under current law, so the black barber should be alright.

    Christians are a protected class under current law, so refusing them service is a violation of law.

  • ||

    It's enough in a sane society. But it's never enough once everyone is a victim and the only way to right it is through an all powerful and micro intrusive level state.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    +1 We're all victims now, right?

  • Winston||

    The timing suggests that this has as much to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity's love of bandwagons, and political positioning

    Shocking.

    gay equality is the goal
    Citation needed.

  • wareagle||

    the citation seems to prove itself every day. I call to the stand Brandon Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, forced out in large part over a campaign contribution in CA during an SSM referendum. He was on the anti- side.

    I call to the stand anyone who dares draw equivalence between marriage and civil unions, even though a good many hetero couples would do the latter as they are not religious. Hell, my first marriage was done by a judge. But the m-word is deeply coveted.

  • MarkLastname||

    I still don't seen why the state institution of marriage isn't abolished altogether. You don't need state approval (or even a judge) for baptisms, bar mitsvahs, etc., so why for matrimony?

    Why do progressives support the existence of marriage as anything other than a cultural/religious institution anyway? What I suspect to be the answer is chilling; that it has nothing to do with freedoms or rights but rather creating the perfect society, by their very particular definition of perfect, using the full force of the state.

  • JFree||

    The federal government first got involved in marriage in the 1920's (mandating that all states start issuing marriage licenses) because of a coalition of:
    1. recent Catholic immigrants who were stymied by the Catholic Church refusing to perform interdenominational weddings and clueless as to what either freedom of religion or the 1st amendment meant
    2. the KKK who wanted to protect Jim Crow from lusty white women seduced by black men and potentially giving birth to people whose race might become unknown over time
    3. progressives/eugenicists who wanted a legal basis to keep poor people from breeding

    Fortunately, the modern-day coalition of people who want government to remain involved in marriage is even uglier, stupider, and more repugnant than that first coalition. Proving that evolution rolls downhill or something.

  • ||

    I agree...why can't it be handled like a contract---if they choose.

  • Win Bear||

    Marriage or civil unions or whatever can't be handled like a contract because the federal government and state governments hand out lots of special rights for married couples, like immigration preferences, special tax treatments, special medical insurance rules, special inheritance rules, etc. That is, as long as these other areas of law haven't become libertarian and private, marriage/civil unions can't become a fully private affair either.

    However, what the federal and state governments could do is to simple remove the term "marriage" from the books and uniformly substitute "civil unions" as a special legal status available to any two consenting adults. That way, churches got to define "marriage" for themselves, and equal protection would be assured for all adults.

  • MarkLastname||

    I think that it would be quite easy to replace the functions of marriage with contracts. A prenup should (if judges actually invariably respected prenups) render the property issues settled; if a people want to mingle their property, they can do so the same way you'd do it outside of marriage like in any sort of partnership. Child rearing and custody agreements could also be arranged contractually, and if one refuses to be party to the contract one simply forfeits all custodial rights, and of course the contract would be nullified in cases of child abuse and such. All disputes could be handled civil courts like other civil matters. (As you could guess, I am basically in favor of abolishing family courts as well)

    Of course, as you mention, the hard part would be convincing the state to willingly give up all of its arbitrary functions in that domain of life.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Your ideas are right on, but as you state, the STATE (via individuals with a a bug up their arse) will never relinquish an opportunity to beat others into submission. I have never felt more like an anarchist than I have reading this thread......

  • Win Bear||

    I think that it would be quite easy to replace the functions of marriage with contracts.

    It's not just "arbitrary functions in that domain of life", special laws apply to married couples in lots of domains of life. The point is that in an otherwise libertarian world, it would be perfectly fine to say "handle your marriage with a private contract", but it's not fine given the massive set of laws we have right now.

  • Mr. Bourgeoisie||

    Make it stop... Please.

  • Winston||

    Abortion, Mexicans, Deep Dish, Circumcision, Cleveland Browns I see no difference between Tim Cook and Adam Lanza. What do I win?

  • wareagle||

    you win butt sex, the item you forget in the litany of Reason holy grails.

  • Winston||

    Well I thought that was already covered in Mr. Bourgeoisie's complaint...

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Forgot WEED!

  • Winston||

    I must have been smoking too much of it...

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Things are taking a sickening turn here. Memories Pizza isn't serving homos chopped up in their pizzas.

  • ||

    +1 Nilbog milk.

    http://bit.ly/19Gd2LZ

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Scott Tenorman Special Chili

  • Mickey Rat||

    I don't thin k Jesus was encouraging the prostitutes and tax collectors be prostitutes and continue to rip people off on their taxes (tax collectors were anahema because if the widespread corruption of the tax farming system). To take a current day example, that would suggest tolerance requires Reason to stop criticizing asset forfeiture.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I can't recall an instance of Jesus engaging a prostitute while she was having sex with or picking up a john, and certainly not aiding them in the process, yet Soave is trying to compare with catering a gay wedding. Strange, since he earlier notes the distinction that they are willing to serve gays who come into their restaurant (in other words, to engage with them).

  • Zeb||

    To be fair, there isn't usually actual sodomy going on in the ceremony or reception of a gay wedding (at least not in view of the caterers).

  • Auric Demonocles||

    1) I already preempted your pedantry:

    or picking up a john

    2) Gay marriage is a problem in itself according to their beliefs, not just the sodomy alone.

  • Zeb||

    OK, one more.

    The catering doesn't usually happen at the ceremony. The wedding is over before the reception. So they still aren't participating or encouraging anything. Just serving food to some people.

    Now I do think that anyone should be able to refuse to do anything for any reason they want. I just think the religion angle is a stupid, pointless distraction, as demonstrated by stupid, pointless arguments like this one.

  • MarkLastname||

    Partly true, and also probably why the leftists got so up in arms about it. Similar to the Hobby Lobby case. In truth, religion should have nothing to do with it; it's just simple individual rights, you should have the right to give or sell what you own to whoever you please for whatever reason, religious or otherwise. Perhaps it's because of the reference to religious liberties specifically that many people who fancy themselves liberals chose to fight against it even though by fighting against it they are actually taking the illiberal side.

    Though part of me thinks even if the law made no reference to religious liberties they would still fight against it just as ardently.

  • Zeb||

    I think that they would still be against it even if it gave everyone freedom to act on their conscience. It being about religion just gives them specific targets that they already have lots of preconceived opinions about.

  • Suicidy||

    Because our society is gummed up with nonsense bullshit created by progressives. Thats what every bit of this always comes down to. Just something else they can use as leverage for more Marxism. If it suited them to crucify gays by the roadside, and they could get away with it, they would do that too.

  • Win Bear||

    2) Gay marriage is a problem in itself according to their beliefs, not just the sodomy alone.

    Well, they'll have to get over that, because my church does perform gay marriages, and it doesn't give a f*ck what the federal government or the Catholic church have to say about it.

  • DrZaius||

    But it's cool that a condition of Utahs statehood was how they define marriage. And still is.

    And the word is "fuck". Just say it you fucking pussy.

  • Win Bear||

    The reason people write "f*ck" is not because they are pussies, it's because for several decades, newsgroups, forums, and other systems automatically censor messages containing the word "fuck". Just saying, you fucking ignorant noob.

  • RBS||

    The O'Connors' views are wrong in just about every way possible.

    Must placate the SJWs first.

  • ||

    Yes, only SJWs dislike people who hate homos....

  • RBS||

    It's a common theme with Robby's articles.

  • radar||

    True or false - declining to cater a gay wedding = "hatred"?

  • ||

    Their reason for declining is stupid and wrong.

  • radar||

    OK, but is it hatred?

  • Sudden||

    And if it is? WHo fucking cares? What, people aren't allowed to hate? Only certain people are allowed to hate? Only certain people are allowed to be hated?

    It's fucking thoughtcrime all the way down.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    If people are allowed to hate, are other people not allowed to care that they hate?

  • Sudden||

    When the entire apparatus of government and culture and the weight of multiple Fortune 500 companies are aligned on your side, I don't give a shit if John Q. Pizzamaker hates you politely declines to cater your wedding. When lowly old John Q. Pizzamaker is turned into a national avatar of crimethink for not supporting the lockstep agenda of the day that Walmart and Apple are pushing. His hate ceases to be something consequential. The hate directed at him though, the popular association, needs to be examined for the cultural tyranny it is.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    +1

  • wareagle||

    who was it that said you're not free unless you are free to be wrong?

  • ||

    Who said you're not free to be wrong? They are still wrong even if they are free to be. Which is what Robby said but apparently that makes him a SJW.

  • R C Dean||

    That's an Iron Law, wareagle.

    And the debate we're having is over whether you will in fact be allowed to be wrong about catering gay weddings.

  • Suicidy||

    Such tolerance.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course it is. You either completely support the gay agenda or you are motivated by hatred. Those are the only choices.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    It's weird, sarc, I don't "completely support the gay agenda" and yet no one around here ever says I hate homos. I wonder how that works.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you hate homos?

  • WTF||

    Because she's the worst.

  • Xeones||

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  • Suicidy||

    Last night. My shoulder was sore, and my back was acting up. So I gave the bitch the night off.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, you didn't tell us until just now that you hate homos, that's why.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    As I was told by a lesbian intent on lecturing me, discrimination is hate. Full stop, end of conversation.

  • Pulseguy||

    I have been to a few 'small' orgies, but none that I have been to have been gay orgies. Am I a hater?

  • MarkLastname||

    So did your lesbian friend regard lesbian bars not letting men in a form of hate then? or "But it's ok when we do it!"

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    And I TOLD them "I love boobs and eating pussy, so I must be a lesbian. Can I have a drink now?"

  • Zeb||

    "Hate" is thrown around way to freely. Very few bigots are actually hate the targets of their bigotry.

  • ||

    I guess I just don't see hate as as strong a word as other people here took it. Whatever.

  • R C Dean||

    "Hatred" has been defined down. There is no meaningful difference between mild distaste for somebody, and homicidal rage about them. Its all hatred, don't you see?

  • sarcasmic||

    Mild distaste for somebody means you may fly into a homicidal rage because you're consumed by hatred.

  • Zeb||

    I think of hate as an extremely strong word. If you hate someone, you would be happy to see them dead. So I don't care for the way it is used in things like "hate speech" and similar formulations. There is a whole lot of indifference, ignorance and bigotry in the world.

  • sarcasmic||

    So I don't care for the way it is used in things like "hate speech" and similar formulations.

    That's exactly why it is used in those formulations. It means the person who offended you did so with murderous intent, and you might as well be a victim of attempted murder. So the person who offended you needs to be punished like someone who attempted murder.

  • Zeb||

    It goes right along with labeling anyone who makes an off-color joke involving race a racist regardless of their actual views on race and human rights.

  • ||

    Well I don't see it anywhere close to that strong of a word.

  • R C Dean||

    Defined down it is, for you.

  • WTF||

    Did he actually say he "hated homos"?

  • ||

    It's hyperbole, but Robby is write that they are wrong. The day people stop believing homosexuality is wrong will be a good day.

  • Mike M.||

    Is it wrong to wonder how in the world a man could ever prefer another man's anus to a vagina?

  • ||

    I'm not curious at all but go right ahead. I mean I'm sure there are men out there who prefer a woman's anus to a vagina.

  • DarrenM||

    I mean I'm sure there are men out there who prefer a woman's anus to a vagina.

    Probably. And you think that's perfectly normal and acceptable and we are required to approve of it, right?

  • radar||

    "Man's"? Why would anyone prefer any anus to pussy? Who the hell wants to wash shit off his dick? That's always been the source of my belief that homosexuality is indeed genetic, because I can't fathom wanting to shove your cock into a tube of shit.

  • Mike M.||

    That's always been the source of my belief that homosexuality is indeed genetic, because I can't fathom wanting to shove your cock into a tube of shit.

    I sort of agree with this, but being the scientific-minded guy that I am, there's a serious conundrum that keeps gnawing at me: if homosexuality is indeed genetic, it should have been practically bred out of the human gene pool thousands of years ago.

    The idea that homosexual preference is genetic and yet remains as common as most people claim it is flies in the face of pretty much everything we know about biology, evolution, and natural selection.

  • mkreitler||

    Here's a theory for that:

    Research shows that most women prefer to mate with high-testosterone alpha males, but marry lower-testosterone men because they make better fathers.

    This means there's a biological advantage to having a continuum of male phenotypes, from low-testosterone to high.

    Given the imprecise nature of biological systems, if you want a continuum, you're probably going to have a bell curve of some sort. In this case, the "lower tail" of the bell curve consistently produces about 10% homosexual males, but that generates the most advantageous continuum overall.

    It's all speculation on my part, but makes sense (to me, at least).

  • Zeb||

    Not wrong. Just weird and pointless.

    I think that the answer is that it happens in exactly the same way most men prefer the vagina. It's not as if people sit down and weigh the merits of various orifices you might want to fuck before deciding on a sexual preference. You just start getting boners in certain situations and you figure out what does it for you pretty quickly.

  • radar||

    I'm getting a hilarious picture of someone sitting down with two pieces of paper, one marked ANUS and one marked VAGINA, with a "Pro" and "Con" column on each.

  • ||

    What, no MOUTH sheet?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Vagina is self lubricating and will mostly customize its fit to your member. So that's two vagina pro's.

  • Eyesee||

    Umm, sorry but typically it's cock, not anus were taking a preference for. Assholes are just useful in that they let sluts debase themselves into bitches.

  • GILMORE||

    two wongs dont make a white

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    *narrows gaze*

  • WTF||

    It's not just hyperbole, it's slanderous in that it's attributing thoughts and viewpoints to a man for which there is no evidence, simply to advance an agenda. And that is wrong.

  • ||

    If you think homosexuality is wrong, that gays shouldn't get married (completely ignoring whether the government recognizes it or not), then you are wrong. And whether it is described as hatred, or dislike or whatever I don't care. I don't care if their religion tells them to are not. They are free to be stupid and wrong and even hateful and to run their business that way but you don't have to defend their viewpoint to defend right to have a stupid viewpoint.

  • R C Dean||

    If you think homosexuality is wrong, that gays shouldn't get married

    You realize these are two different issues, and it is perfectly possible to believe that homosexuality is not wrong, but that marriage is an institution for one man to marry one woman, yes?

  • blcartwright||

    My wife has a 1st cousin who we are close to who is also a gay man. He called me up the other day to anguish over how Obama is such an idiot on foreign affairs, and is getting us in deep shit with this Iran deal.

    Then he called up my wife and lamented that we have much more important things to be worried about than who can get married.

  • WTF||

    Which has fuckall to do with what I said.

    but you don't have to defend their viewpoint to defend right to have a stupid viewpoint.

    I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to say here. Or what it has to do with my actual point.

  • DarrenM||

    Neither does he.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    the derp made his brain devolve into random electrical activity incapable of forming coherent sentences.

  • Suicidy||

    It exists. And one day it will be curable. Along with pedophilia, necrophilia, etc..

  • Win Bear||

    I think a cure for Catholicism, Southern Baptism, Calvinism, and Islam would be a lot more beneficial to society.

  • Suicidy||

    Yeah, that's the same thing......./end sarc

    Although eliminating Islam would bring world peace.

  • Azathoth!!||

    These will be 'cured' as well.

    Although I suspect not in the way you think.

  • MarkLastname||

    What would really be a good day is the day people stop giving a shit about what other people believe.

  • wareagle||

    I thought there was a principle wherein it was okay to dislike people who hate for whatever reason yet support their right to do so. The way the article is written, it has that "some of my best friends are...." tone before considering any broader principle.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    I also don't think opposition to gay marriage means you 'hate homos.' I've met many Christians who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons and don't really have any animosity towards gays.

    I still think they're wrong, I just think it's kind of a strawman to think they all hate gay people personally.

  • ||

    I agree hate is hyperbole but I disagree that they don't have any animosity. I mean what else is it? The religious reasons are just an excuse for the animosity.

  • radar||

    Or maybe they're sincere in their beliefs. Not knowing anything more about these people than their answer to a reporter's question, I don't see how you could draw conclusions either way.

  • ||

    They are sincere in their wrong beliefs. The very idea that homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin are wrong.

    Would it be any different if their religion said that black people are children of the devil and while they would serve a black person a pizza because "love the sinner, hate the sin" but won't serve their wedding because it would perpetuate the devil's genes?

  • GILMORE||

    Why should i care what your opinion of right and wrong are?

    As long as you keep the state out of it, you can pound sand and believe whatever the fuck you want.

  • ||

    I agree Gilmore.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Amen! I mean....FUCK YEAH!

  • John Titor||

    The very idea that homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin are wrong.

    Actually, since a 'sin' is constitutes any violation of the contract between God and human beings, and 'sins' are largely determined by the individual interpretations of religion and doctrine, you can't really declare the view of homosexuality as sin 'wrong'. It can't actually be 'wrong' to view it as a sin in the context of religious belief in orders from a higher power. To argue against it as a moral argument means to have to actually challenge the belief and ideology of the person themselves.

  • Suicidy||

    Just because you are spiritually dead, does not mean everyone else is. The irony here is that you are at least as judgmental, if not more so, in your atheism as they are in their christian beliefs.

  • Weygand||

    +1

  • Spaceno42||

    You do realize, that for strictly Christians the goal to having sex is to procreate.
    So if a homosexual has sex, since they (man/man woman/woman other/other) can't procreate it's viewed as wrong and a sin.

    That is where it comes from. So they are sincere in their beliefs as you are in your's that anyone that doesn't agree with you is just wrong.

  • Kevin47||

    "You do realize, that for strictly Christians the goal to having sex is to procreate."

    Um, no.

  • Win Bear||

    You do realize, that for strictly Christians the goal to having sex is to procreate.

    There are many forms of Christianity, not just the particularly stupid varieties found in the American and European South.

  • blcartwright||

    well, that's supposed to be the ultimate goal, but there's nothing wrong with having fun doing it.

    Through the intimacy, the two are becoming one. It's supposed to be about giving pleasure, and not receiving.

    Masturbation and casual sex are then viewed as wrong because they are focused on self gratification.

  • Win Bear||

    Like many things many Christian churches say, it is good advice; it becomes totalitarian when it is enforced through some form of punishment, whether by the church or by the state.

    In the end, Christian conservatives and progressives make the same mistake: they have ideas of what's good for people, many of which are correct, but then think that if people don't follow their ideas, they have the right to use force to make them do it. They come up with all sorts of excuses for the use of force, like that it's, on balance, still better than people making the wrong choice, or that people are linked in social networks and communities. But in the end, that kind of thinking is at the root of totalitarianism, and can be found in both fascist and communist regimes.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    I disagree. There are Christians who really do think something is sinful but don't hate the person committing the sin.

    You can believe gay marriage is immoral and therefore oppose it without hating gay people themselves. I also don't think religious reasons are an 'excuse' since it's hardly like anybody says 'I hate gays. Now I'm going to search for a religion that allows me to justify this feeling of hatred.'

  • Stormy Dragon||

    There are Christians who really do think something is sinful but don't hate the person committing the sin.

    Well, Christians who say that's what they believe, in any case.

  • blcartwright||

    It'[s one of the important things we are taught. Our nature leads to not act that way, the church has to correct us.

    So it gets down to "born that way" and "acts that way"

  • Win Bear||

    It'[s one of the important things we are taught. Our nature leads to not act that way, the church has to correct us.

    Really? I don't recall the New Testament saying anything about making it mandatory for the church to "correct" people. It's supposed to teach people, but people ultimately have free will and can make their own choice whether to follow those teachings or not, even in Catholicism. In protestantism, the churches usually don't even pretend that their answers are correct, they are advisory, and usually, you not only have to decide whether to sin or not, but you also have to figure out what is sinful and what is not.

  • Spooky||

    I don't recall the New Testament saying anything about making it mandatory for the church to "correct" people.

    Well then, you need to read it again:
    Matthew:18:17 "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"
    and
    1 Thessalonians 5:12 "But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction"

  • Win Bear||

    You aren't reading those verses correctly.

  • blcartwright||

    Maybe a poor choice of a word. I go to church every week and hear about the ideals that I should be striving for, in order to see things I may be getting wrong.

    I meant "correct us" in the sense of saying "what you are doing is wrong, this is the right way". I still have the free will to take that advice or not.

    By my original point was that one of the biggest points of Christianity are that people are born with a sinful nature of one type or another, and have to learn how to control our actions in a way that's best for ourselves and society.

    To this subject, yes I believe people are born with same sex attractions. I certainly know I was born to like girls. That is not the same as acting out on those attractions, where I deny myself nearly every day.

  • Win Bear||

    one of the biggest points of Christianity are that people are born with a sinful nature of one type or another, and have to learn how to control our actions in a way that's best for ourselves and society.

    Yeah, unfortunately, you're right: that is one of the biggest points of many Christian denominations, which makes them rather trivial as far as religions go. Jesus didn't need to be born to give people such a trivial insight that every religion in human history has recognized.

    To this subject, yes I believe people are born with same sex attractions. I certainly know I was born to like girls. That is not the same as acting out on those attractions, where I deny myself nearly every day.

    Homosexuals deny themselves every day as well, like any human being. What practicing homosexuals don't agree with is the Catholic church's belief that people should deny themselves all same sex activity. That is the choice that homosexuals make, and that is the choice that angers the Catholic church so much: a rejection of its authority. And let's be clear about it: it's the Catholic teaching on sex and sexuality that is, as a whole, perverse, abnormal, and contrary to the laws of nature (even if it contains some valid bits).

  • blcartwright||

    but a lot of the time the same sex crowd acts like they're the only ones being called to deny the flesh. It's a normal aspect of Christianity.

    True, Jesus didn't need to be born, and die, to teach us how to live Godly lives. The one thing He offers that other religions don't is forgiveness of our sins.

  • Win Bear||

    but a lot of the time the same sex crowd acts like they're the only ones being called to deny the flesh. It's a normal aspect of Christianity.

    Unlike the "opposite sex crowd", the "same-sex crowd" is being asked to be entirely celibate and refrain even from loving, monogamous relationships.

    And, no, that isn't a "normal aspect of Christianity"; only the Catholic church and a few other churches have some perverse obsession with butt sex and semen.

  • blcartwright||

    I would argue that the necessity to resist temptation is a core part of Christianity. I'm not focusing on same sex relations, I mean for anything. That's just a subset. I agree that some are more obsessed with it, but I agree with the other poster here that we need to realize that we are all sinners, that's theirs, but I have plenty of my own.

  • Win Bear||

    I would argue that the necessity to resist temptation is a core part of Christianity.

    The necessity to "resist temptation" is a core part of all religions. In fact, it's a core part of the human experience. Christianity has no monopoly on this trivial insight.

    I'm not focusing on same sex relations, I mean for anything.

    Same sex relations are no more a "temptation" than opposite sex relations or becoming a celibate priest is a "temptation". Human relations, as opposed to casual sex, are the result of love, friendship, and commitment. And any form of Christianity that considers love, friendship, and commitment sinful is a false version of Christianity.

  • oobins||

    Win Bear's crusade to make everyone hate Xtianity and love dick/ass. News at ll.

  • oobins||

    Stop talking about all Xtians if you're not an Xtian yourself, you're just making shit up now Winston.

    Also, I'm pretty sure you don't speak for every gay man on Earth.

    But don't let that stop your arrogant self's quest to make everyone hate Xtians and make everyone want the cock and the ass like you do.

  • oobins||

    More gay progressives here to heap scorn on Xtians, while pretending to care about liberty. Did Salon and Gawker close down and send Stormy Dragon and Win Bear over here to give us the gay progressive view?

  • SimonD||

    An honest Christian will also say that jealousy for the neighbor's new Lexus is every bit as sinful and immoral as gay marriage too. The point is that everyone is a sinner (including me), and all sins are equal. Hence, it would be hypocritical to 'hate' gays. However, that's not what the conversation is about.

  • GILMORE||

    "I disagree that they don't have any animosity."

    Do you believe in god?

    When you say, "No", does that mean you "hate god"?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    That's an entirely different meaning of "believe in". Or are you suggesting evangelical christians think homosexuals are imaginary?

  • GILMORE||

    You're out of your element, Donny.

  • Pulseguy||

    Yes, they do. In the sense they think people can choose exactly what they want to be. Therefore the idea of pre-ordained homosexuality is imaginary to them.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I find religious objections to secular marriage to be rather silly. As long as no one is making your church do gay weddings, what's it to you?

  • John Titor||

    The 'm-word' tends to be elevated to a rather absurd level. Ideally the state should just drop all marriage licensing and only provide 'civil unions'. Probably avoid a lot of bullshit with that.

  • Zeb||

    Yes. I think that would be far better.

    If you want to say you are married, do that. If you want to have the civil arrangement that gives you the legal rights and duties that traditionally go with marriage, get a civil union.

  • KDN||

    I've been advocating exactly that position my entire adult life.

    My anecdotal evidence is that the traditional marriage folks were for more likely to accept it as a compromise than the equal rights crowd was, and still are. I take from my experience that the former is arguing their position in good faith more than the latter is, but YMMV.

  • Suicidy||

    Yes, that would simplify things. But the prigs will not like it because then they can't use marriage as a wedge issue to bully christians, whom they hate so much.

  • Zeb||

    Well, except for the ones that are Christians. But those other Christians are the wrong kind of Christians.

  • MarkLastname||

    This I suppose is the sharpest point of hypocrisy in that camp. Someone's church believes marriage is a certain way, it is defined as such, regardless of what the government says. So if the government says gay marriage is marriage, what difference would it make to that church? When the state says marriage, by definition, they do not mean it ins the same sacramental sense as the church when it says marriage.

    Of course if I were gay and foolish enough to want to marry I would still be indifferent to the whole thing, because, once again, it makes no actual difference whether the government says I'm married or not. It only matters for tax purposes and such. If the imprimatur of the state really will influence your marriage, then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. The entire issue, imo, should arouse much less excitement than it does; it's basically about paperwork.

    Some might say 'oh, but it's symbolic.' Bah. Marriage in the 21st century, a symbol without substance.

  • blcartwright||

    It will make a difference when the gay couple comes to your church and demands that your pastor marries them there, and the government then threatens to fine and or imprison the pastor who says no, while taking away the church's tax-exempt status and labeling them a hate organization.

  • Seamus||

    I agree hate is hyperbole but I disagree that they don't have any animosity. I mean what else is it? The religious reasons are just an excuse for the animosity.

    And this, boys and girls, is how you fail an intellectual Turing test.

    (Cue up appropriate observations about Turing's sexual orientation.)

  • MarkLastname||

    So I guess that means women who frequent Curves, or don't oppose its banishment by the state can be accurately described as man-hating bigots?

    And I assume you will wag your finger just as vigorously at them.

  • Win Bear||

    He may wag something else at them, assuming he is not gay.

  • ||

    Just thinking here. Is it wrong if a restaurant owned by Hindus won't serve hamburgers? Is it wrong that kosher delis won't put bacon on my sandwich?

    When the fuck did people decide that every single person on planet fucking earth had to like each other?

  • Derpetologist||

    Subway in Not-So-Great Britain got rid of bacon and ham after Muslim protests:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-meat.html

  • WTF||

    Subway sucks anyway. Hardly any meat on their shitty sandwiches.

  • kilroy||

    That's fucking insane.

  • Suicidy||

    And also owed them their labor.

  • Calidissident||

    Wouldn't it be placating the SoCons for Robby to refuse to express his views on their beliefs and actions to avoid offending them?

  • Derpetologist||

    Please, please people! Let's focus on the important question:

    Is the pizza deep dish?

  • ||

    It's one or the other, but it can't be pizza AND deep dish.

  • radar||

    It's pizza in small town Indiana - I don't think it's too difficult to assume that their wares are perhaps a slight cut above the Tombstone in your grocer's freezer, if that.

  • WTF||

    My wife has family in Indiana. The pizza is not....great, to say the least.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Depends how close your are to Pizza Mecca (Chicago).

    DEEP DISH LIFE!

    *throws pizza gang sign*

  • MarkLastname||

    I actually only eat deep dish pizza after going to Italy; the reason being, American thin crust pizza just seems like a cheap shit imitation of actual Italian pizza, and it makes me sad and nostalgic, whereas deep dish doesn't even try to be the genuine article, which reprieves it.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    Chicago thincrust is where it's at. Cut into little squares instead of slices. Pat's Pizza on Clark is the best.

  • ||

    I'm still waiting for that imminent case where someone goes into a Muslim bakery and demands that they be baked a cake in the image of Mohammed.

    I'm stashing up the popcorn and beer just for that occasion.

  • Winston||

    They don't have power or something...

  • ||

    Just forget about the cake in the image of Mohammed. The victim crowd will just weasel their way out of that too easy.

    So let's just do this. A gay couple goes into Muslim bakery and demands a gay wedding cake, complete with two guys kissing on top.

    What happens?

  • ||

    The gays win.

    In the progressive hierarchy of victimhood, gayness is much higher than being a Muslim.

  • WTF||

    I don't know, the progs don't criticize Muslims for their anti-gay activities.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    I disagree. In recent years, Muslims have become a serious victim group for the left. I think they might be above gays in the prog-hierarchy at this point.

  • ||

    We'll see, and not soon enough.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, you're allowed to avoid social signalling if you think it might get you blown up or beheaded. Of course, you're most certainly not allowed to suggest that you are doing so because you are worried about being blown up or beheaded, because that would be bigoted. If you can concoct a valid rationalization for your action, you're a Progressive hero, like whatever genius invented the "punching down" concept.

  • MarkLastname||

    It depends on how dark the Muslim is.

  • ||

    You dumbasses need to clarify whether the Muslims are from the West Bank, Gaza or somewhere else. Those from the first two locales are much higher on the victim hood hierarchy than the latter.

  • Win Bear||

    What if "intersectionality" is involved?

  • WTF||

    That there is what you call an SJW conundrum.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Best SJW conundrum: a prostitute who refuses to service black clients.

  • Kevin47||

    What conundrum? They want to arrest the Johns anyway. Best to arrest white people only.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    What if the Muslim bakery proudly proclaims they bake only halal cakes?

    Do the two male dolls on top make it non-halal?

  • ||

    Fuck the dolls, I just want a fucking gay cake and I want it baked my Muslims! Damnit!

    Surely we can find someone to do this...

  • WTF||

    Phrasing!

  • seguin||

    Farsing!

  • Enough About Palin||

    Why are you refuerring to the HyR commentariat as "my Muslims"? Was there a mass-conversion or something?

  • WTF||

    It's because "my niggas" is not PC.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    My word!

  • The Other Kevin||

    How about a "je sus charlie" cake?

  • JW||

    Ahem.

    JW|3.31.15 @ 1:40PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    You'd think this is a problem that could have easily been solved with Yelp reviews.

  • Catatafish||

    No one likes a Nostradamus, JW. ;)

  • JW||

    Quatrains are just how I roll.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Something, something Red Duke...something out of the East?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Our society has changed in the way it treats minorities, including gays. The government gets way too much credit for that. Too many people think, for instance, that the Civil Rights Act ended unequal treatment of blacks in restaurants etc. I say that was happening anyway because the attitudes of the people were changing. If the people had been dead set against equal treatment there would have been no amount of force the government could have used to make it happen in a meaningful way.

    People have to realize that such changes don't take place overnight, and some folks will never go along with it no matter what you do to them. The world isn't perfect, and using government force in a futile attempt to make it so is not the answer.

  • ||

    What happens when white's are a minority? I think this is supposed to happen in another 20 years or so.

    I mean right now, worldwide, aren't whites already a minority?

  • WTF||

    It doesn't matter, women are actually a majority, yet they get minority victim-group treatment. It's not about numbers, it's all about imaginary "privilege".

  • ||

    All white males should just get T-shirts that say 'I'm priveleged, now shut the fuck up and give me what I want!'.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    It's cause they're all fembots living in a manbot's manputer's world.

  • DesigNate||

    Are whites going to be a minority, or are there just going to be more minority groups than whites? Cause that's two different things.

  • KDN||

    It'll never happen. By the time whites are actually a minority society will adjust to eliminate Hispanics as a subcategory.

  • WTF||

    Yup. People forget that in the mid-1800s Irish and Italians were not considered "white", which seems odd to us now. The same thing will happen to Hispanics.

  • Seamus||

    Riiight. That's why Constantine Brumidi, who painted the frescoes in the U.S. Capitol, was regarded as non-white, and therefore wasn't eligible for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. It's also why the appointment of non-white John England (born in Ireland) as Catholic bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, was such a poke in the eye to the white Southerners. If only Charles Carroll of Carrollton hadn't been of Irish ethnicity, he might have risen in Maryland society to levels that would permit him to be, maybe even a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

  • MarkLastname||

    Zimbabwe may give us a clue as to how that'll pan out.

  • Derpetologist||

    OK, I got burned for posting a satire story in the other thread. Here's a real one from the CS Monitor:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/U.....ns-on-cake

    According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase “God hates gays” and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an “X” crossing them out.

    "After I read it, I was like 'No way.' " Silva told USA Today. " ‘We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’ ”
  • Catatafish||

    "This is not a situation where a business owner denied service to somebody," Ms. Leong told USA Today. "She offered to accommodate him to the extent that she could. In fact, requiring her to write that message would infringe on her own free speech rights.”

    I see a ridiculously subjective values analysis here. Who is Ms. Leong to say that the refusal to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple by a Christian baker is not the extent of their own "accommodation?"

  • Puddin' Stick||

    It's a public accommodation and Ms. Leong should be compelled to make the cake since her rights ended when she opened a business to the public.

    /Tony

  • MarkLastname||

    "You didn't build that."

  • Homple||

    In past times hatred was quite diffused because there were so many socially acceptable targets, negroes, homosexuals, hop heads, papists and so forth. Political correctness had severely limited the list of approved targets without diminishing the apparently widespread and congenital need to despise and vilify some identifiable group of outsiders.

    Hence the concentrated fire on Christian fundies.

  • wareagle||

    and white males.

  • sarcasmic||

    and smokers

  • Catatafish||

    and gunowners

  • John||

    Yes. And the irony of that is, the very people who despite never taking an unpopular opinion in their lives but still priding themselves on fighting for the little guy, are the very ones who are most eager to join the mob.

  • Derpetologist||

    Rich people, Republicans, fat people

  • Homple||

    True, I left some out. Maybe there is the same number of targets as before just different ones.

  • MarkLastname||

    I'd say that sums it up. As I see it, history is more cyclical than progressive. Bigotry has not been defeated, people are almost as bigoted today as they were many decades ago, but just against different groups. No age recognizes its own bigotries as bigotries, only those of former ages.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Not fat people anymore. They're victims of the food companies and Trevor Noah got in trouble partially from jokes about fat chicks.

  • sarcasmic||

    Food deserts!

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Fat chicks= can't hate, have gland issues can't blame their fatness on them.
    Fat dudes= wreckers and kulaks who can't control their appetites and ate taking food out of the mouths of poor 3rd world kids...

  • Sudden||

    Hop heads were hated for good reason. They're bitter people.

    *awaits Swiss Servator's arrival*

  • Puddin' Stick||

    That actually made me laugh...

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    *narrows gaze, 1 day late*

  • grrizzly||

    This is the best Stock Photos could do for "gay pizza"

    Protip: turn off SafeSearch.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    What is the gayest pizza? Hawaiian? Fruity with a little pork?

    *Taps on mic, hello?*

  • Hamster of Doom||

    But turn on your webcam first. That face you'll make, when you see the search returns? Priceless.

  • ||

    I've heard tales of a pizza delivery porn where the pizza boy leaves instead of giving the woman his sausage. The video then turns into a food stomping porn of some sort with another person (not sure if it's straight or lesbian porn) licking cheese and sauce from between the first's toes.

    If anyone can find this video I will be forever in your debt.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    I prefer the ones where the pizza delivery boy puts his schlong through a hole in the middle of the pizza.

  • ||

    Everyone thinks they're Rosa Parks now.

  • Mike M.||

    In the era of the dismal Obama economy, victimhood is one of our only remaining growth sectors.

  • John||

    It is not enough because the point isn't to ensure gay people can buy pizzas or get along in society like everyone else. The point is to crush anyone who has an unapproved thought. Not going to the place and trashing it on Yelp doesn't prevent these people from thinking like they do or punish them severely enough for not stopping. Only government enforced bankruptcy can do that.

  • Andrew S.||

    (I have way too many prog friends)

    A friend of mine posted about this. I said this is the way things SHOULD work; they express their opinion, and others, on the basis of this, can decide whether or not to do business with them. This is what he responded with, word-for-word:

    There's a difference between prejudice happening, and official sanction under color of law.

    Official sanction is tantamount to establishing a state religion, because it privileges one party's beliefs.

    I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that, because it's so mind-numbingly ridiculous.

  • wareagle||

    I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that

    unfriend comes to mind

  • Catatafish||

    But having a government agency force someone to do something against their religious conscience under threat of fine or imprisonment, that in no way could be interpreted as privileging "one party's beliefs."

  • ||

    Classic case of cognitive dissonance is what it sounds like to me, because it actually sounds like he is advocating that the government does not favor one group over another. Which is exactly the opposite of what progs advocate.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a variation on "not giving is taking, not tsking is giving" mentality. How do you normally respond to that?

  • Andrew S.||

    Whisky, in large quantities.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    That's why the good Lord invented marijuana, boys and girls.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Fair enough.

  • MJGreen||

    Requiring the state to provide a compelling interest before interfering with someone's religious practices = official sanction and establishing a state religion?

  • The Laconic Esq||

    Official sanction is tantamount to establishing a state religion

    Er... which religion?

  • R C Dean||

    Official sanction is tantamount to establishing a state religion, because it privileges one party's beliefs.

    Exactly. And imposing official sanctions on people, by way of fines etc. for not baking gay wedding cakes, is privileging one party's beliefs.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Tell everyone he is a closet Islamophobe and shun him.

    He is hinting in a roundabout way that the fact that government not only itself fails to punish people for practicing Islam, but also will not tolerate a lawsuit against someone for practicing Islam, is essentially official sanction of Islam. Since the implied remedy would be banning Islam to avoid establishing a state religion by allowing one to be practiced without punishment, his words are obviously a dog whistle for his fellow Muslim haters.

  • MarkLastname||

    How is the government sanctioning the making or not making of Pizza? Not shutting them down privileges their beliefs?

    Why doesn't this also apply to all other organizations? By 'sanctioning' the existence of churches that hold this view and vet their members based on it? By this reasoning, by not summarily executing all 'bigots', is the state not sanctioning their existence, and therefore sanctioning the prejudice?

    Hearing about other people's facebook friendtards makes me glad I don't have friends. :)

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?

    And sold them pizza?

  • John||

    That is the other thing about this. There have been gay weddings going on for years. And I bet you anything no one ever refused to serve them. People only started refusing to do it when gay marriage became this way to force acceptance of gays on everyone.

  • ||

    I still maintain this is not a gay thing. It's an SJW and proggie thing. The progs love to hijack the cause of any group that they can and turn it into a political weapon. They do not give a fuck how much it helps or hurts that group as long as it gives progs more power.

  • John||

    I totally agree.

  • ||

    That being said, it would be nice for some gays to stand up and say 'Stop helping us, you fuckheads, we didn't ask you', like some blacks are starting to do.

  • radar||

    Eh, while it would be nice it's hard to demand that some people apologize for the actions of their brethren, just as I don't blame normal Christians for not taking a loud stance ripping the likes of Jimmy Swaggert (or whoever the big TV preachers are these days).

  • ||

    Yeah, except that I'm not demanding they do anything, just saying it would be nice to hear, since the proggies are famous for hurting people in the name of helping them.

  • John||

    Gays need to. It is not going to end well for them if they continue to throw their lot in with these fascists.

  • ||

    It never ends well for most people who throw their lot in with the fascist or commies, or this hybrid of awful things named progressive. When they get all the power they want, they won't hesitate to put a jackboot on the face of any one group or the other.

  • DarrenM||

    Gays need to. It is not going to end well for them if they continue to throw their lot in with these fascists.

    Speaking of which, didn't gays support Hitler at one time, before he no longer needed them? How did that turn out?

  • grrizzly||

    That being said, it would be nice for some gays to stand up and say 'Stop helping us, you fuckheads, we didn't ask you', like some blacks are starting to do.

    There's nobody gay progs hate more than gay Republicans (that's how any gay person pushing back would be described). The gay prog attack would provide a perfect excuse for the rest of the progs to ignore any disagreement voiced by gays.

  • ||

    Too obvious in the way they treat women. They really do have a war on women, if the woman is not on the plantation where she belongs and repeating their talking points word for word.

  • ||

    A straight friend of mine saw The Road To Serfdom, made a face like she'd seen a ghost and breathlessly asked "Oh Jesse, you're not a *LOG CABIN* gay are you!?"

  • SugarFree||

    "Have you ever had sex in a cabin?"

  • BuSab Agent||

    Hmm lumberjacks....

  • MarkLastname||

    I hate it when they make that face. I'd bet my life it's the exact same look a medieval Christian would make upon seeing a heretical book they were sure the censors had decreed to be burnt.

    I'm also quite certain that a typical prog would be less put off by seeing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on a book shelf that seeing a book by, say, Christina Summers or Thomas Sowell.

  • Sudden||

    And the proggies absolutely love the gheyz and the trannies as their political weapon of choice because it so neatly goes against their most hated among groups: white cishetero christian men.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Well proggie women don't like sex (rape yanno) so proggie men MUST be gay or they go crazy from lack of sex.

  • GILMORE||

    "Hyperion|2015/04/01 15:01:20|#5196964

    I still maintain this is not a gay thing. It's an SJW and proggie thing. "

    Exactly.

    There's no massive group of gays crying foul because 'someone, somewhere' wont make them a fucking pizza.

    Its the SJW Borg-Mind. And going after some random @#$*& pizza joint which has zero actual impact on the lives on anyone is entirely their steez.

    No = ignore Apple for their business in Abu Dhabi.... crush small town pizza guy! because he's not politically correct and theres zero cost associated with destroying his life.

    I think the ostentatious moral pinata-bashing is fucking retarded

  • ||

    The SJWs and progs don't care how much they hurt the groups they are using to gain political power, that is the really bad thing. In the end, all necks look alike to a jackboot.

  • ||

    But I do think the SJWs, while not at all harmless, are mostly a bunch of immature and insecure whiners just wanting some attention. The progs, though, they are the real danger. They are using SJWs in the same way they do everyone else, but their end game, well we've seen it enough times before in history, we know where that leads to.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    SJWs are signaling their position in the social hierarchy.

    It's kind of like driving a fancy car, drinking fine wine, or going to a "good" school.

  • MarkLastname||

    Tis the war itself they crave, not the victory.

  • JFree||

    It may purely an SJW/prog thing. But I have not actually heard one single gay actually voice support for getting government out of marriage. 15 years ago or so, most gays I know weren't even interested in gay marriage (state-sponsored or no). But 100% of them went completely willingly over to the agenda that developed.

    So yes - it IS a gay thing now not just SJW/progs taking advantage of a stupid sheeplike identity demographic.

  • MarkLastname||

    I think it may be an issue of validation. They feel that their marriage isn't "real" until the government says it is. They need to be convinced that, as in the case of any other sacrament, it's either real or it isn't, regardless of what the state says, so the state may as well say nothing at all.

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    There are plenty of gays that still are opposed to marriage, the hardcore Queer types that see marriage as a hetero institution that they want nothing to do with.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Not forcing acceptance. Forcing celebration.

  • ||

    Yes, and told them to go and sin no more. Not call down the Roman guards to crucify them.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Constructed them a house, baked a pizza, and then gay married them.

  • WTF||

    The people called Romans they go house? What's this then?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Golden brown breadsticks oozing with false belief that one has the right to judge others in place of God.

    But it's OK to judge people for judging.

  • ||

    We're just intolerant of intolerance.

    /proggies

  • ManocentricMaleocracy||

    Unless it's Moslems being intolerance, then they are intolerant of your intolerance of muzzie intolerance.

  • radar||

    Let's not lose sight of what's truly important here - those Yelp commenters really, REALLY are impressed with the amazing work they're doing for human rights by writing a bunch of fake reviews no one in Walkerton, Indiana is going to give a shit about. SHOWED YOU YOKELS, HUH?!?!?!

  • John||

    That is right, people who have never been to the place are slamming it for the cause.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    And they will tell their grandchildren (or more likely, their 23 cats) that they fought heroically for civil rights just like Martin Luther King jr.

  • GILMORE||

    Where exactly does the throat-clearing stop in this post?

    Does my refusal to DJ at bar-mitsvahs make me an "anti-semite"?

    or do I (or anyone) have the right to not engage in business for my own fucking reasons, whatever those reasons are?

    (the main reason being = kids fucking suck - but that's besides the point)

    So what if Pizza guy doesn't want to cater to gay weddings? Its not anyone's "business" but his.

  • JW||

    I'm more concerned about anyone who would want a pizzeria to cater their wedding.

  • GILMORE||

    you never know. it could be *really good pizza*

  • WTF||

    Not in Indiana.

  • SugarFree||

    I've had good pizza in Indiana. Roca-Bar and Torino's on Evansville are both good cracker-crust style pizzerias.

  • GILMORE||

    "cracker-crust style pizzerias.'

    I changed my mind = Nuke Indiana

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Not in Indiana.

    I dunno, they're right next to Illinois so I'm sure some Chicagoans must have moved there over the years and are now baking delicious deep-dish pizza there...

  • Suicidy||

    I think Indiana had Rocky Roccoco pizza there. Rocky's is pretty good.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Tikets to Wrestlemania!!!"

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And so, when asked by local reporters whether they would cater a gay wedding

    I believe the correct answer here is "who the hell serves pizza at a wedding?"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Gays looking for a lawsuit?

  • GILMORE||

    PRE-PAID HONEYMOON!!

  • Sudden||

    And the survey will definitely not say: the gays

  • MarkLastname||

    I actually went to an Indiana wedding once. Believe me, pizza is urbane for those hicks. (It was cowboy themed, needless to say)

  • Marty Comanche||

    Don't these politically motivated reviews violate Yelp's TOS? When I commented in support of an anti-Obamacare diner in Ohio or wherever, I was informed that that was the case and my 5-star review was removed.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    This is different. Gay pizza is important.

  • Marty Comanche||

    Not just gay pizza. Gay marriage pizza. I can understand why they would want to draw limits given the large numbers of weddings they're asked to cater every day.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    +1 of the greatest issue of our era.

  • MarkLastname||

    You should just thank Obama he didn't drone your house for trying to deny those 400 million poor people their health care and kill them, you sack of shit!

  • Suicidy||

    They just used that policy to strike down your public approval of those criticizing the Dear Leader.

  • Sudden||

    Because I want to engage—and perhaps alter—people's anti-gay views, I would question whether hurling gross insults at the misinformed is a good way to change their minds.

    Yes, their views can be considered nothing other than anti-gay and misinformed. It's not that the gay thing goes against some larger codex upon which they've based their lives and their conception of what is moral and what is sinful. All that don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal stuff was just the fluff to distract you from their real goal: targeting teh gheyz. Why must you make it your goal to change someone's mind about gay? Why can't you just let different people hold different beliefs about morality and sin as long as their not hurting anyone in the process? It's crimethink all the way down. Fucking cosmos.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's not that the gay thing goes against some larger codex upon which they've based their lives and their conception of what is moral and what is sinful.

    A larger codex upon which people have based their lives and their conception of what is moral and what is sinful can still be anti-gay and misinformed.

  • Sudden||

    Anti-gay, sure. Albeit that the anti-gay bit is a minor player in that larger codex and falls within a far more comprehensive rubric of sexual morality contained within the scriptures (however silly some of that may be). Misinformed? I'm unable to find whatever fundamental part of the position is built upon misinformation. Is Robby claiming they are misinformed on the morality of teh ghey as Jebus saw it? Is he claiming that they're perception of gheys is misinformed?

    It still gets back to the basic idea that what these pizza making chaps think is crimethink and that, while cosmos like Robby may wish to allow him his free association rights that the rest of the SJW would gladly stamp out, he still supports the theory of eliminating crimethink altogether, so long as not by govt coercion.

  • Charles Easterly||

    When every one of us is forced to work for anyone and everyone we don't want to work for, then will we know equality.

    Perhaps I am less perceptive than usual, Mr. Soave, but what am I missing?

    On another note, your title "Anti-Gay Pizza Place..." is at odds with the O'Connor's statement that "if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service."

  • Aloysious||

    Not a whole lot of "Live and let live" on either side of this.

  • Andrew S.||

    It's because this ever-changing world in which we live in makes me give up and cry.

  • Aloysious||

    People I know wonder why I keep myself to myself. This story is a good example of why.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    We're looking to buy land. This one property has six acres, the only house on a dead-end road. The realtor just warned us that it is well-nigh inaccessible in bad winters and I said, "SOLD."

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Did that 18 years ago. Still loving every minute of it. Hamsters like the wilds. We still hit the big cities like Chicago and Miami. Make runs into Columbus 3 or 4 times a month. But always feel far more free and left alone to certain great devices here in the Ohio wood.

  • Suicidy||

    then the EPA must put a stop to all that. You must be forced into a high rise apartment in the city like the rest of the drones.

  • Sudden||

    I dunno, the guy that will serve a gay in his restaurant but merely declines to hypothetically cater the wedding that goes against his deeply held beliefs seems to be pretty live and let live to me.

  • R C Dean||

    Me, too.

    How is he not saying "Hey, y'all go do your gay wedding thing without me."?

  • ant1sthenes||

    The notion of "live and let live" being a two-way street is hard for a lot of people to take, progs most of all.

  • Suicidy||

    Since we all appear to understand this is basically a prig created problem, can we finally all get together and wipe out the progtards? I'll bring punch and pie if we do. There is a lot of room in those landfills for them.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    "Live and let live" denies me my right to engage in commerce and derives from a selective application of rights.

    /Tony

  • MJGreen||

    Sara H. of Leechburg will be the host of The Daily Show by 2017.

  • ||

    Why do I feel like we're the only adults at a lynch mob, desparately arguing that the accused deserve a fair trial, even if we think they're guilty?

    I've been in this situation before. Having fought for a particular principle, and then won, and then had to restrain all the late-coming posers who jumped on the bandwagon, who are so eager to prove how much they support the cause (unlike people who fought it from the beginning), that they are screaming for a lynching.

    These people signalling like crazy, I GUARENTEE YOU, are NOT the people who have been fighting for marriage equality for 30 years. They are all the people who just switched positions five minutes ago and this is their first opportunity to show the world that they are on the "right" side.

  • ||

    Because Hazel no one watched The Ox Bow Incident to learn:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/

  • ||

    And do you know why? Because they are fucking cowards. They were afraid to be pro-gay-marriage then, and they are afraid people will think they are anti-gay-marriage now.

    Cowards get together in packs and demand lynchings. COWARDs jump on bandwagons that are already full. Cowards switch sides when it is clear who has already won. And when they do it, cowards cover up the fact that they were on the wrong side by being going to the extreme. They have to make sure nobody remembers their former position by being super-fanatical about their new one. Because they are fucking cowards.

  • Marty Comanche||

    I nominate Hazel for sheriff.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I think the cowards are joined by little piss-ants who are desperately trying to add some "meaning" to their useless lives. I'm not a Doonesbury fan but Trudeau hit a theme several years ago that made a lot of sense: a character's father, nettled by his sudden interest in "The Greatest Generation", accused him of having "hedgerow envy". In other words, the son felt jealous of the attention his dad got for having lived through the Depression and WW2. I think today's SJWs frantically search for ever tinier slights to whinge about so that they can engage in a "civil rights crusade" just like their heroes from the 60s.

  • ||

    Yes, that's definitely true. So many people have grown up hearing about how awesome the 60s were (which is largely because the baby boomers control the media, and those were their golden years), that they feel saddened that they missed out on it. So they are looking for a cause to latch onto that makes them feel like they are part of a great hisorical movement.

  • MarkLastname||

    The younger ones (the ones my age) don't realize that in fifty years their own grand children will be calling them bigots for some belief they hold and cursing their existence just like they do their forebears, without a second thought. I will relish that day.

  • Spooky||

    Hans Fiene at The Federalist calls it "Selma Envy":
    "My generation willfully ignores the real debate about gay rights and religious freedom because we want halos without sacrifice."

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/.....elma-envy/

  • radar||

    But the intensity of their emoting is what counts, Hazel. They're signalling so hard that they look like a crackhead doing semaphore. Everyone knows that your own value as a human being is dependent on how vociferously you mime what all right-thinking people are supposed to believe.

  • ||

    It's like the SJW corollary to born again Christians annoying the rest of the congregation.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If you can't show how you're being cursed by the witches, it probably means you're the witch. Though that probably applies more to the cult of victimhood than the social signalling.

  • ||

    Can we at least have the decency to wait until Jesus resurrects on Easter before we insert His name everywhere?

    How rude.

  • Zeb||

    I think that already happened.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Memories Pizza is a small pizza joint in Walkerton, Indiana. Its owners, the O'Connor family, are devout Christians...And so, when asked by local reporters whether they would cater a gay wedding..."

    This whole thing is clearly a witch-hunt.

  • GILMORE||

    No, really - they looked up "Anti-Gay Pizza" under A in the yellow-pages.

    A journalist totally didn't go out of their way to find someone to say the "wrong thing" and then highlight that for their own purposes.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They should have learned a little better from Jesus about how to dodge rhetorical traps from Pharisees.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the latter being sinful people of out time?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it."

    Reprehensible? That's a bit of a stretch.

  • SIV||

    Whoa...

    In fact, supporters of gay equality can do anything they want (short of violence) to combat the views of the O'Connors.

    Anything short of violence? Vandalism? Libel? Fraud? Theft?

    Pretty aggressive treatment Robbie endorses for the crime of stating they wouldn't want to participate in some hypothetical wedding.

  • Sudden||

    Crimethink must be punished by enabling an angry mob to trample the rights of dissidents.

  • MarkLastname||

    Revolution is not a dinner party! Or a gay pizza party apparently.

  • GILMORE||

    libertarians = plotting to take over the world so they can....

    ....use mob peer-pressure to crush dissenting views, no matter how inconsequential?

    yeah - when did that happen?

  • DesigNate||

    All those other things you mentioned could be taken as a form of violence (read: aggression).

  • SIV||

    Shouldn't you be telling us again what an insightful commenter Bo is?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What's more funny, this pathetic grade school 'you complimented a person we don't like' or the fact he has the wrong guy ( you're thinking Citizen Nothing)

  • ||

    Oh, who cares about gay pizzas, since I've never got my flying car, I want one of these, in orange and black.

    Hondajet

  • Zeb||

    Third, I'm not particularly convinced that the teachings of Christ even require Christians to refuse to serve gay weddings. Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?

    This is pretty much what I think whenever I hear about this crap. What religion forbids you to server food to people incident to a gay wedding (which you presumably don't consider an actual wedding)? Seems like it should be largely a non-issue.

    I, of course, think that people should be free to refuse to do anything on any basis. Religious freedom is important, but I think you can't have true religious freedom as part of general freedom. Everyone should be free to refuse service to anyone on any basis. Making this about religious belief is stupid and annoying.

  • Winston||

    I think you can't have true religious freedom as part of general freedom.

    Typo?

  • R C Dean||

    I would have said you can't have true general freedom without religious freedom.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah. "Except as part of general freedom."

    And it goes the other way too. Obviously religious freedom is part of general freedom.

    The reason why I put it the way I do is that religious freedom, if it takes the form of special exceptions for the religious (as in RFRA type laws) is that it isn't protecting individual rights, but is creating special privileges for people who belong to certain religions or have certain religious beliefs. If religious people have the right to refuse to do certain things, then everyone has the right to refuse to do those things.
    It's good that some people's rights are getting a bit more respect, I suppose. But it is absolutely terrible that everyone else just gets a big "fuck you".
    Laws should be applied equally to everyone. If the civil rights laws violate anyone's rights, the proper response is to get rid of the law entirely, not to carve out special exceptions and privileges.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Why do you want weary black travelers to not be able to find hotels?

  • ant1sthenes||

    "If religious people have the right to refuse to do certain things, then everyone has the right to refuse to do those things."

    I don't know about everyone. I think there's something to be said for exempting someone on the basis of a sincere conscientious objection (whether or not "religious"), for the same reason as we might exempt a person with a disability or under duress or who, for some other reason, would be uniquely burdened by a law that is still fine in the general case.

  • Zeb||

    A lot of what it comes down to for me is that if you give special exceptions for religion, you give people a tool to extend privileges to their favored constituencies. Someone in government has to determine what is sincere religious belief or conscientious objection. And we all know that when an opportunity to abuse something like that exists, someone will abuse it.
    And I think that an appropriate level respect for people's rights wouldn't require any special accommodation for religious beliefs and practices. As long as what you are doing doesn't harm other people or their property, you should be able to do it, whether or not it is required by your religion. And if something does harm people, it is bad whether or not your religion requires it and should't be tolerated.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The same one that may make religious caterer think twice about serving a pornography convention. You do not want to associated with the message of the event.

    The fact that you do not like someone objecting to that message is your problem.

  • Zeb||

    I didn't ask about thinking twice or sending the wrong message. I asked what religion specifically requires that its adherents refuse to serve food to people after a gay wedding? I don't think it is at all relevant to any argument about the law. I'm just curious. I hope more people come around to being OK with gay marriage, etc. But I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything they object to, whether the objection is religious or otherwise.

    I don't really care that some people object to gay weddings. And I think that regardless of religion everyone should do what they want.

    What I do have a problem for is making religious people a special, privileged class while telling everyone else to get fucked. If a law violates people's rights, the law should go. Period.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Zeb, we're not gathered here today to talk about special rights for SoCons, we're here to pile on SJWs. You know, like everyday. So either join us enthusiastically or shut up!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I asked what religion specifically requires that its adherents refuse to serve food to people after a gay wedding?

    I mean, you're not going to find that prohibition in any ancient text. Just as you're not going to find a prohibition on hijacking commercial airliners. Hell, even arson isn't specifically outlawed by the Bible, but believers seem to get the idea that they shouldn't be doing it.

    The question, for Christians generally and Catholics in particular, is whether there's proximate cooperation with evil. That's not allowed, but remote cooperation with evil is. Sometimes it's tough to parse the proximate/remote line, and in those cases the advice is not to tiptoe to the line and see what you can get away with.

    So I wouldn't definitively say that catering a gay wedding reception is immoral, but I can see how someone would reason himself into believing it is, using the same tools we apply in other moral decision-making processes.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Came this today. The meat of the article is a list of "could so-and-so refuse to do.." That is the can of worms we opened. Because after the "fixed" legislation is passed, I predict a steady stream of people picking fights and trying to sue.

  • ||

    Contribution to the starving lawyer fund.

  • ||

    It's fascinating that the the lynch mobs and people doing the condemning for their cause are all progs and not 'Teabaggers'.

    Progressives have no honor or sense of fairness. The other day I was listening to some talking heads on the radio about students voting AGAINST going on strike. But a few ignored the vote and prevented students from going to class. The university responded by shutting down classes. So a few assholes who couldn't accept a vote (I thought socialists respected the democratic process and its outcome!) effectively stole a day of education from students and the school shuts it down? This is where the coward part Hazel was discussing up thread. Most people on the panel acknowledged this was an outrage and that the culprits should be dealt with.

    But not the prog on the panel. She who constantly rails about injustices and fairness demanded the school find a way to 'compromise' with the idiot students who FREELY CHOSE to act in such a boorish manner. Imagine that. Compromise at all costs is her position. Reward the derelicts.

    I scarce could believe what I was listening to.

    And yes, she ran for the NDP here in Montreal.

  • ||

    She who constantly rails about injustices and fairness demanded the school find a way to 'compromise'

    Translated into proglodyte, 'compromise' means 'agree with us, or else!'

  • ||

    As an entrepreneur, I'm still waiting on the gay couple, who rather than take people to court, turn around and OPEN THEIR OWN FUCKING PIZZA JOINT OR BAKERY.

    The story would be along the lines of 'we got tired of being denied a product for being gay. So we decided to open our own business. We serve the gayest pizza in the land!'

    That sort of thing.

  • SugarFree||

    We serve the gayest pizza in the land!'

    So they would open a CPK franchise?

  • ||

    CPK?

    What's that?

    Speak CANADIAN, Sug.

  • RBS||

    CPK

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    If deep-dish isn't pizza, California Pizza Kitchen definitely isn't pizza.

  • ||

    Weigel'd again?

  • GILMORE||

    You're just saying that because he called Weigel "astute"

    (shudders)

  • ||

    Anna is that you?

  • GILMORE||

  • WTF||

    He doesn't even have a Masters degree in journalism from Columbia.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    your not qualified to have an opinion unless you have a masters degree in journalism from Columbia, obvi.

  • RBS||

    It's not so much that he's a shitty writer it's his hyperbole laden posts that annoy me. Which apparently is not something I'm allowed to complain about when it comes to this particular issue.

  • RAHeinlein||

    +1, and essentially the same hyperbole-laden post over, and over, and over....

  • kilroy||

    It's deeply evil.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I blame Gawker. Ok, they didn't invent that sort of style, but they did run it into the ground and turn it into the baseline for internet writing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    His views reflect pretty standard libertarian views of the 'Cosmo' variety. Standard stuff for Reason, Cato, Volokh, etc.

    Perhaps you'd get more out of a blog like First Things?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Awesome, let slip the mask.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You should use the libertarians are just people who want to get stoned line, it's got a long pedigree

  • ||

    Not sure if has been posted here or not, but this is a good read illustrating how some on radical leftist campuses are starting to realize they have created a nightmare:

    Campus Left Implosion

    Ok, it's the Weekly Standard, which is overall, pretty awful, but I found it interesting.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's the kind of insanity we haven't seen in America since the bad old days of the early 1970s.

    As annoying this all is, comparing it to the 70s is rather ridiculous. Nobody's killing each other over the current issues.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'll give Marx one thing. The 70s was the tragedy, this is the farce.

  • MarkLastname||

    Partly because that would presuppose conflict, and unlike in the 70s there's only one side today.

  • creech||

    This should be Exhibit One on why more of these laws need to be passed so the bigots, etc. can be smoked out and all the "offended" can boycott, shun, excoriate them.

  • Sudden||

    It also helps for me to know where in Indiana to get a pizza and piss off all the right people at the same time.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Swarm humiliation at its most egregious and I'll bet the majority of those Yelpers have never sucked the genitals of the same sex not even once.

  • ||

    Look, if you want to be a good SJW, you don't decide what to be outraged about, you wait for your orders about what to be outraged about. Or else, we'll cut gruel rations again, got it?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    More like flock-outrage or no upvotes. Though, the gruel thing was adorbs.

  • ||

    Not giving a comrade the mandatory upvote is akin to sacrilege.

    I mean how easy can it be? I post latest talking point from the masters, you upvote.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok, but let's be fair. Sucking genitals should only result in yelps in you're doing it wrong.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    That triggered a wince but I digress... you present a hard truth there.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    you present a hard truth there.

    Uh, HM....better check that.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Just rub it out, brah. Heroic Mulatto promises not to post a video of it.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Unless your talking about yelps of ecstasy

  • racer X||

    Reporters asking small business owners this tired hypothetical "would you perform [fillintheblank] services to a gay wedding" is so tedious.

    Small business owners not having a good answer to this tired hypothetical is even more tedious.

  • ||

    Male reporter: Would you bake me a gay pizza?

    Male pizzaria owner: Would you give me some head?

    Male reporter: What?... uh, I'm straight, why would you ask me that?

    Male pizzaria owner: I'm straight too, so would you like that pizza before or after blowing me?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The rubber meets the brain and the results will be far less than socially-superior.

  • Mr. Bourgeoisie||

    I LOL.

  • ||

    Funny.

    That'll learn 'em.

  • JFree||

    Well finally! Now that the source of evil has been discovered, the Million Trannies March to Walkerton can commence.

  • ||

    Which hunts are just not what they used to be. No one gets burnt at the stake anymore. We have to bring that back.

  • MarkLastname||

    Why use a stake when you can just burn'em in their own pizza oven. It's right there, may as well use it!

    Ew, that comment just reminded me of a Korean movie I watched that I've been trying to forget for years.

  • QuadGunner||

    "Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities—even unpopular minorities."

    WTF? The MOST vital function? Really?

  • Mike M.||

    It's clearly spelled out right there in the 28th Amendment.

  • GILMORE||

    Someone, somewhere is going to interpret this line as,

    "And therefore, Government should be forcing these people to make pizza for everyone"

  • JW||

    Just thinking out loud, would a "meat-lovers" pizza technically be gay?

  • GILMORE||

    Its not gay as long as you're on top or you have your eyes closed. So, no.

  • JW||

    "The Power Bottom"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It's to protect rights, and majorities don't really need it that much.

  • R C Dean||

    You are aware, of course, that this planet has governments (and not just a few) that are held by minorities (I'm thinking mostly various Muslim countries, where Shia or Sunni governments lord it over majorities of the other sect) that systematically violate the rights of majorities?

    Government's only legitimate function is to protect the rights of everyone, equally, without favor.

    You racist little fascist, you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course it's for everyone's rights, the point was that in a democracy majorities don't need much protection of their rights. Because, you know, they're majorities.

    But I like your Offended White Guy Brigades charge of anti white racism. You get those anti white racists, Col!

  • R C Dean||

    the point was that in a democracy majorities don't need much protection of their rights

    You mean like when that lily-white mayor got his door kicked down and his dog shot?

  • Zeb||

    Sure. But why not just say "everyone's rights"?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wait, you're saying that government is something a majority creates to protect other people from itself? If that's the case, shouldn't our defense spending mostly be on buying tanks and planes and shit for Iran and North Korea and whatnot? I assume the white man will be buying his own air force and navy in this scenario, of course.

  • ||

    Yes, you fool. Do majorities need protection?

  • Winston||

    South Africa under Apartheid?

  • ||

    Fair enough. "The powerless" or "the unpopular" is a better word to use here than "minority".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You racist little fascist, you...

  • R C Dean||

    "The powerless" or "the unpopular" is a better word to use here than "minority".

    Sure. Especially once you realize that, relative to the State, we are all powerless, and are all at risk of being unpopular.

    Just stick to the principle that the state exists to protect everyone's rights, without favor, and you can avoid heading down this road, which we all know where it leads.

  • ||

    In a state where the unpopular can be oppressed, People will do whatever they have to to avoid being unpopular. Especially never ever saying anything unpopular.
    In a state where the unpopular are oppressed, nobody will ever challenge the state.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, is 'minorities' a synonym for 'persons' now?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The commentariat here leans so far to the right that in this thread Robby's comment that while it's their right discriminating against gays is wrong starts a big debate, and one where more people weigh in against his comment than for. Sheesh.

  • GILMORE||

    please re-write that in English and resubmit for review.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Looks like the temp trolling agency doesn't even require GEDs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Should it be IN ALL CAPS like so many if yours?

  • Zeb||

    Bo, you need a brain cleanse. I suggest that you take a few weeks off from the internet and go to Big Sur and drop acid with someone who believes in God. Or possibly Agile Cyborg.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And why is that Zeb? Were there more people angry at Soave for saying that or not?

  • JFree||

    Well maybe it is because any libertarian who is rationalizing/justifying a mob has pretty much thrown all ideas of the individual in the toilet. No matter how hip the mob is

  • Zeb||

    It's all a rich tapestry. Dig it.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I don't believe in God, Zeb. But I do drop acid and shrooms and I do play scrabble with my Pentecostal mom every Thursday morning and I just made a super fucking awesome supper for the most fundamentally-religious Christian parents you've ever met last Sunday. Peace out, brother.

  • Zeb||

    The God bit was a reference to something someone told Frank Zappa once. And it couldn't hurt, with or without a god.

  • GILMORE||

    You can't clean what you ain't got

  • ||

    I think the more accurate interpretation is that those who support gay marriage but dislike public accommodation law just stopped joining in on these particular threads because the results are utterly predictable. Not all that long ago these would be some of the most heated threads, but now people are tired, so it just becomes a circle jerk of people justifying why they think gay people shouldn't get married.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I hope you're right about that Jessie.

  • RBS||

    I just came to complain about Robby.

  • GILMORE||

    " a circle jerk of people justifying why they think gay people shouldn't get married."

    Are you kidding?

    gay people can, should, will get married. And i don't see a whole lot of disagreement or even concern about that particular issue here.

    Its about the *pizza*, man. THE PIZZA

  • MarkLastname||

    Um, nobody should get married.

  • GILMORE||

    Spoken like a married man

  • Derpetologist||

    I have met several people who have flat out told me the reason they oppose homosexuality is because they think gay sex icky and weird.

    Well, I think mayo is icky and weird and I'm amazed it even exists. But you don't see me trying to outlaw Miracle Whip.

    It is incredible how many people believe an opinion turns into a law of nature if they shout it loud enough. "I don't do it, so nobody else should either!"

    I would prefer if the govt stayed out the marriage business altogether, but I don't have a problem with gay couples getting marriage licenses. I do oppose forcing businesses to serve gay weddings. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service for any reason.

  • Derpetologist||

    Whatever, just put it in the back of the fridge or cover it with a towel so I don't have to look at it.

  • ||

    Miracle Whip is NOT mayo.

    I would like to second this.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Miracle Whip is NOT mayo."

    It is not even a foodstuff.

  • blcartwright||

    check the ingredients, they are extremely similar in composition. IIRC it might be as simple as mayo has some mustard in it.

  • MarkLastname||

    I on the other hand view gay marriage as going in the exact wrong direction. Instead we need to work toward abolishing straight marriage. Then I won't need to worry about ever accidentally living with a woman for long enough for a judge to rule it a common law marriage and make me pay her alimony, as can happened already in the US.

  • ||

    That's not how common law marriages work in any of the very few states that even have it in the first place (6 I think). Only place I know of where the government can declare you married without your consent is some Canadian states.

    Here in Texas for example the couple has to openly and publicly declare that they are married for a prolonged duration for the government to even accept that they are common law married.

  • GILMORE||

    "they oppose homosexuality

    This to me reads like someone saying they "oppose the moon"

    its not really a matter of opinion. it just is.

  • ||

    Well I'm certainly not going to anymore.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    a circle jerk of people justifying why they think gay people shouldn't get married.

    You mystify me. Yes, a lot of Reason threads on occasion lean slightly right but for the most part you'll find a high tolerance for gay marriage all over this fucking site, brah. High tolerance and even goddamn approval doesn't mean a hop, skip, and a non-thinking jump.

  • ||

    I don't disagree about H&R in general, but the gay marriage threads/public accommodation lawsuit threads swung hard to the right beginning a year or two ago when folks started deciding anyone who could be convinced had been convinced and stopped getting into 200 post arguments that swallowed their own tail over it.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Hard right? I think you need to get out more and experience real hard right, jesse brah. The vast majority of these people are the farthest thing from hard right with a few exceptions- which in my opinion adds to the discussion in much the way a couple of the hard lefties do in spite of some of these bros getting squeaky about it.

  • ||

    Not hard right, hard to the right, as in they suddenly skewed rightward when the pro-gay-marriage folks stopped coming out in force.

    Believe me, I grew up in an evangelical household with the American Family Association's spittle-flecked newsletter delivered monthly. While I may disagree with some of their arguments, there isn't a lot of Matt McLaughlin action and very little Scott Lively nonsense going on here.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    You ever suck a cock and enjoyed it?

  • MarkLastname||

    If opposing the idea that the state exists to protect the rights of 'minorities', as opposed to to protect the rights of people, is a 'right wing' notion, well then call me a fucking right winger I guess. Call me selfish, but I think, being a straight white male, I have a right to apprehensive at the notion that the state which has near total power over me exists to protect some other groups of people from me. Because apparently my majorityness makes me invincible?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Uh this is bullshit...

    Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities
  • vidyohs||

    @Robby Soave
    "Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?"

    What did you mean by the word engage? Did Jesus talk to prostitutes? Yes. Did Jesus hire prostitutes, I don't know but the assumption is, no. Same question regarding tax collectors.

    "Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities—even unpopular minorities."

    I am sure that a lot of constitutional experts will be startled to learn that. I know I was.

  • MJGreen||

    He broke bread with them, did he not? That's arguably a bigger deal than serving a customer.

  • Mickey Rat||

    He had dinner with them, not attended a 1000th john served party or celebrated how much they scammed James the olive farmer on his property taxes.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Hey, I'd break bread with a Satanist, but I'm not going to a black mass. And I know there are a lot of people who have zero animosity for the religious, but who would feel deeply uncomfortable at the thought of actually going to church or participating in a religious ritual of any sort. They might not call it a "religious" opposition, but I think it probably comes from a similar place in the psyche.

    I'm guess that they would feel the same sense of discomfort at going to a hyper-religious wedding ceremony. There isn't a damn thing wrong with that, and bullying them into going with threats of being financially ruined is fucking nasty.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know about anyone else, but the only reason I'd avoid a religious ritual is because I don't take it seriously and wouldn't want to ruin it for people by laughing at an inappropriate moment or something. I generally find the whole thing pretty interesting.

  • Abe Froman||

    Well, I don't think Jesus was ever engaged to a prostitute.

  • TexasRasta||

    "Third, I'm not particularly convinced that the teachings of Christ even require Christians to refuse to serve gay weddings. Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?"

    That is not up to you, nor your interpretation of the Christian religion and more importantly not for a court to get in the middle of one's beliefs. You should have the freedom to believe in whatever you want anyway you want, to include being a pastafarian. You get into the weeds with what you would have one believe or should believe or what they need to believe to be part of any particular religious organization

  • Tberger||

    On a side note, Who serves pizza at a wedding and if they do why didn't they invite me? I imagine a pizza catered wedding plays the Chicken Dance at least three times and gives guest complementary skee-ball tokens.

  • Azathoth!!||

    First let's get the important truth out of the way.

    Robby, no one has done anything. This was a hypothetical question. H-y-po-thetical. So you can relax, evil is still at bay.

    But now let's understand what this really says--not one florist, catering business, reception hall, church or large restaurant in the area ABC57 covers will say no to a gay wedding. Not one. And since we've not heard from any other news sources about the bigots doing victory dances through the streets of Indianapolis, maybe that extends to all of Indiana.

    How about that?

  • GILMORE||

    HOW DARE YOU BELITTLE THIS MANUFACTURED CRISIS

  • Zeb||

    Yeah. This is a whole lot of nothing. The only story is all of the people freaking out about nothing.

    It's kind of depressing that there has been such enormous progress on respecting the rights of gays and women and racial minorities, yet all anyone seems to want to to is complain about more and more trivial shit.

  • GILMORE||

    "all anyone seems to want to to is complain about more and more trivial shit."

    And amazingly, they get louder and more hysterical the more trivial the issues become.

  • misthiocracy||

    They claim that they're not simply getting bad reviews, but also are getting threats of violence.

  • GILMORE||

    Also = what does a motherfucker have to do to get a little April Fools action up in here?

  • Tony||

    It would be a lot easier to have a real conversation about stuff like this if most of you weren't obviously homophobic conservative assholes.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Do you support the government fining, handcuffing, or incarcerating a gay baker because he refuses to bake a cake that says God Hates Fags?

  • Tony||

    Nope.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    So the free association trumps - for private entities - anti-discrimination laws of all types even employment laws. That whole set of laws are just a steaming pile that needs to go.

  • GILMORE||

    Tony, you say the sweetest things.... its amazing that you aren't more widely loved and admired.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    And yet you keep coming back for more of our hateful, anti-war, anti-aggression company, week after week.

    I think someone has a secret that he needs to get off his chest!

  • ||

    Unwaveringly, you are, by far, the most openly and blatantly homo-odius person on the forum.

    Others may fear and you may profess love, but you follow that profession with the presumption of inferiority and actions symbolic of a firm belief in their social dysfunction.

  • ||

    We're not homophobic assholes (except for maybe Notorious GKC, and possibly John). We're just not hypersensitive dweebs who spend all day worrying about how to phrase a joke correctly so as not to offend the delicate feelings of the local social justice fairies. It's YOU guys who are deathly afraid of making accidental microaggressions. We, on the other hand, expect others to be adults.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    And both of those guys add a fucking LOT of great content into these binary fields of blowing hay. Except for the fact that I'm still slightly pissed at GKC for trying some strange intervention one night a few months back while I was tripping. I never went back to that thread. I'm not even sure it happened tho I think it did. It seemed surreal. I mean, everything seemed surreal but THAT thread in particular was extra-surreal because I just visualized GKC getting all fucking worried and shit over a dude who is essentially a head. But peace out, love for all.

  • Tony||

    As should be obvious, I'm not hypersensitive either. I agree that comedy should be left alone by the PC police.

    But as I said earlier, the reason liberals are focused on things like microaggressions is because they moved on from the debate being had here (whether gay people should be equal citizens) decades ago. You're welcome to catch up and add your no doubt valuable contribution to the microaggression conversation.

  • ||

    No they haven't. The reason liberals/progressives are focused on microaggressions is because they are trying to on-up each other on the moral purity scale.
    Since they don't actually have any contact with anyone outside their coterie, they have run out of actual bigotry, and need to find some micro-bigotry to condemn, to make themselves feel superior to everyone else.

  • Prof. Mondo||

    "social justice fairies"

    ISWYDT.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I asked Bo and the sweet lad hasn't answered. So I'll ask my good friend, Lefty Tony. Have you sucked a cock and enjoyed it?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I'm trying to get a fucking question answered here by the homosexual activist group and not a single fucking two of them is answering... Jesus fucking Christ,!

  • Tony||

    Yes.

  • GILMORE||

    AC = Tony is a gay

    the confusion is understandable... he reads like a humorless, divorced, menopausal soviet woman.

  • MarkLastname||

    Conversation = believe what I believe!

    Homophobic = doesn't support the eradication of homophobes

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Next up, Soave explains why slavery is bad, and why anyone who supports slavery is wrong.

    This is why Reason needs to bring back its left-column blurbs that always got a half dozen clicks apiece. Robby could've written that very solid headline--which anyone who believes in voluntary interaction agrees with--and then spent his afternoon hitting on the interns. Or debating the analytic/synthetic distinction with that obnoxious objectivist who's on staff.

    [quote] Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities—even unpopular minorities. [/quote]

    And here I thought governments were there to fund operas and ensure that men with the last name of Biden didn't have to dig ditches.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I understand this fits nowhere on the gay pizza thing but I think the labia is beautiful. A Crimson topaz reminds me of my favorites labias.

  • MarkLastname||

    Whose labias would those be?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I fuck a couple of ladies so I have to ask them for permission to post but I did post my wife's ass a month back because she said it was cool because I like the dudes here. My wife has sweet young 30 year-old boy in Chicago she fucks.

  • MarkLastname||

    Huh, what a coincidence, I'm 30 and live in Chicago...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Black labias are the best. Great with kids

  • GILMORE||

    and so easy to train

  • Empress Trudy||

    Brownshirts aren't happy until someone is killed and the business is on fire.

  • TimothyLane||

    Note that, by your own admission, Memories Pizza would not discriminate against homosexuals even if by chance they actually knew their prospective customers were homosexual. Thus, they are not "anti-gay"; that is simply a smear you and your fellow homofascists use to justify seeking to destroy them for the crime of adhering to the Biblical standard of marriage. I would think libertarians believe in "live and let live" -- but not when sexual license faces disapproval. This is why many conservatives today think that libertarians are mostly libertines seeking a good excuse for a life of self-indulgence. And in some cases they're right.

  • Abe Froman||

    I would have thought that someone who writes for Reason would understand that rights proceed from property. You own yourself, therefore you have certain rights that proceed from that ownership. You own your home, therefore you can deny entry to anyone, unless they've convinced a judge to issue a warrant. You own a business, therefore no one can force you to serve them. Inventing the concept of a "public accommodation" is a non-sequitur. Private individuals or private corporations own businesses. Business are private property. They can, or should, be able to deny service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Just as anyone can deny entry to their home for any reason or no reason at all.

  • SomebodySmart||

    …if queers can't get served at a bar, they cannot open their own bar and serve queers, because they did not get picked by the bureaucrats to have a limited-issue license. The solution being offered is to force the selectees of limited-issue licenses to serve the queers. A better solution is to repeal the license laws.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    So has anyone here including all the gay rights people sucked a cock?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    So here's my question.

    Are ACTUAL gay people pissed at these backstreet nowheresville homophobic types?

    OR, is this a massive flock of straight people who have horrible jobs and prog vanilla minds with absolutely fucking nothing to do but get on board popular binary boats led by bright charlatans who make a shit ton of money off links?

  • ||

    Almost certainly the latter.

    I suspect that actual gay people identify way to much with being an outcast to really want to inflict that on anyone, even a religious bigot.

  • lap83||

    "prog vanilla minds"

    dammit, stop making progs sound tasty

  • Tom RKBA||

    "The O'Connors' views are wrong in just about every way possible. First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice—as O'Connor would no doubt be forced to admit if anyone challenge him on his statement. "I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make."

    This is not correct. For some, their homosexuality is not a choice, but for others it is. According to an undergrad class, "Human Sexuality", some people go in and out of homosexuality/bisexuality. Claiming otherwise--that it is not a choice--is simply not true.

  • MarkLastname||

    Wait, why would anyone eat a pizza made by a bunch of potato-eaters?

  • DMMc||

    These folks have done exactly right. They are not judging, they have just stated they disagree with but will serve the LGBT community up to the point that they are asked to participate in actions they feel go against their beliefs. That is their right.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I haven't read all 440 comments, but I imagine that they're all deploring the excessive attention Reason is giving the issue.

    I would suspect that the reporters sought out this pizza guy in an attempt to find out if there were actually anyone prepared to exercise their RFRA rights, thus supposedly proving the need to repeal or amend the law.

    If that was the reporter's point, it backfired since the establishment experienced plenty of non-governmental backlash.

    But I'm also interested in all the "I'm not a conservative Christian but if I were I would cater a gay wedding" stuff.

    "Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?"

    Sure, He sat down with them and ate with them and ministered to them.

    But if he catered an orgy at a brothel, the Scriptures fail to record it.

    Nor is there any mention of Him serving drinks at a "Hurrah for Taxes" rally.

    See the distinction between reaching out to people as individuals, on the one hand, and enabling their behavior, on the other hand?

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Would we be having this ZOMG!!! moment if the situation were being framed around business owners saying they wouldn't go above and beyond for, say, a party at a strip club?

    Strip clubs are businesses that are legal, but generally opposed by various members in communities-some, to the point of trying to get them shut down by the local government. Is another business being "hateful" to the strip club if they say they won't cater an event in the club?

    If not, why is it different IRT gay marriage?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Because strip clubs are icky and reinforce patriarchy and rape culture.

    It's like you didn't read the progressive manual or something.

  • MarkLastname||

    To be fair, they change the manual every week and put the old one on the burn list along with anyone who read it.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    It's like you didn't read the progressive manual or something.

    Ahhh....See, I knew someone could cis-splain it for me!

    And, no, I didn't. I avoided it like the Plague.

  • ||

    As long as every little sensitive group hires lawyers(insensitive, of course) to take up their cause so that there is a law to make sure that every little avenue is covered to prevent discrimination against them, there will be this sort of "bickering". The more laws there are will always cause more confusion and the call for even more laws to make sure all the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" crossed. This then brings out all of the morons(and I think the TV station is the biggest one, here) who end up being more self-righteous than those who have been baited into the conversation. It also awakens idiots like Tim Cook.

  • MJBinAL||

    "First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice"

    Being gay is not a choice, BUT engaging in homosexual acts IS a choice, just as engaging in heterosexual acts is a choice. If you are believe that the bible condemns, and therefore God condemns, homosexual acts, that does not mean that those inclined to homosexuality are condemned.

    People, ALL people are subject to temptation, in fact, virtue has no meaning except as the resistance to temptation. Resistance to; homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, stealing, or whatever YOUR particular weakness is. We are all "born" with one or more (usually more) inclinations toward sinful behavior. Being "born that way" is not a excuse, as we are all, in one way or another, "born that way".

    Of course, it is also important to remember that we never know the state of someone's soul, and if you are a Christian, you know that another has the responsibility to judge the "quick and the dead". We are only allowed to judge actions, not people.

    This is also why Christianity is fully compatible with Libertarian views, it is not our job to judge others, God has that covered. On the other hand, our freedom to avoid what we believe to be sinful acts, or to avoid participation in them must be respected as well.

    This is the problem with the current "Gay Rights" movement, they demand not the tolerance they should be given, but approval. And that demand for approval violates the rights of others.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Right on!

  • Tony||

    I do not understand the insistence of some Christians to advertise the fact that they were virgins till marriage (and no masturbation!). TMI dude.

    Demanding that you change your mind does not violate your rights. It's called free speech. And I do demand it, for your own sake. History is not kind to bigots.

  • Kevin47||

    "Demanding that you change your mind does not violate your rights. It's called free speech. And I do demand it, for your own sake. History is not kind to bigots."

    This is the most incoherent thing I have read on this topic.

  • MarkLastname||

    Who before 1900 would not today be regarded as a bigot? You're older than me so it's strange I'm bursting your bubble here, but in the end, posterity will condemn us all as bigots, including you. Cultural norms change and they do so perennially; you, Tony, have not reached the end of history in your views, and for all time those sacred opinions in you head will not be surpassed. No, in fact, times will change so fast your great grand children will condemn you as a bigot just as surely as anyone else, just as you condemn the mores of your great grand parents. What you think distinguishes you from the 'bigots' will be as inconsequential to history as the distinction between tories and whigs, guelphs and ghibellines.

  • Tony||

    Jefferson is not primarily regarded as a bigot despite enslaving black people. George Wallace is primarily regarded as a bigot despite being ever so much kinder to them. It kind of does matter which side you're on relative to historical context.

  • Avnatanyel||

    Why would the dead care about how the living view them, Tony? Do you not understand what death is?

    Whinge all you like like. It's your support for violence that is the problem.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "We are only allowed to judge actions, not people."

    Yes, but gay rights supporters insist that you cannot separate a homosexual person from their activities. Criticizing homosexual behavior is the same as criticizing the person. Which is why they think Jesus associating with sinners is some sort of killer argument.

  • ace_m82||

    The O'Connors' views are wrong in just about every way possible. First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice—as O'Connor would no doubt be forced to admit if anyone challenge him on his statement. "I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make.

    Begging the question. You assumed the answer and then arrived at it.

  • SomebodySmart||

    "First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice—as O'Connor would no doubt be forced to admit if anyone challenge him on his statement."
    When pro-homo liberals accuse me of secretly being a queer myself, (that's how they try to intimidate people into pretending to think it's okay to be a queer) when in fact I am a man married to a woman and we have children; by estoppel they say that a fag can marry a woman and they can have children. Queers chose not to do so. Queers chose to live a queer lifestyle.

    Technically, they're not violating anybody's rights by having a gay old time, so we have to tolerate them; but this does not give anybody a right to force anybody else to feign acceptance of queers. Let the queers set up businesses and serve and employ all the queers they want.

    Anti-discrimination laws are unfair to the many legitimate persons looking for jobs, if employers are forced to hire queers.

  • Tony||

    Ron Paul 2020!

  • JPyrate||

    "And so, when asked by local reporters whether they would cater a gay wedding, owner Kevin O'Connor's answer was no."

    "The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service."

    Here is a hint. THEY ARE A FUCKING PIZZA JOINT NOT A CATERING COMPANY !!!

    /sigh

  • ||

    It's called make your own news! Most of the commenters here will never even hear about that news station, again. Sigh, also! And we both know, O'Connor will never even think of going into catering from here on out!

  • JPyrate||

    Honestly I would rather run a pizza joint. Catering is a rough gig. You are right about them not even considering doing any sort of catering business.

  • ||

    And when anyone asks you for your opinion, you just tell them it's none of their business! I'm sure he knows that, now!

  • SomebodySmart||

    A wedding photographer produces professional ART. The job of the photographer is to produce art in good taste. Of course, each person has a different opinion of what is in good or bad taste. Forcing a photographer to produce photos that are in bad taste is unjust. Further, you and I can look the other way when the sickos are making out, but the photographer is forced to zoom in. And make no mistake about the choice part: If it wasn't their choice, then what was it, a shotgun wedding?

  • Joao||

    Having read the article, and many of the comments, might I point out that for Memories Pizza, it is a matter of degrees. They would serve anyone pizza, even a gay, married couple. However, catering an event involves much more than the usual good product and service that they would provide everyone. It means being involved closely with provisioning a celebration of something that they consider disgusting and unnatural.

    2 Points:

    Conscientious Objection anyone?

    The Yelp comments only prove how Libertarians ought no be as pro-gay as they are. And they are. 2 Words: Civil Unions

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    Which just goes to show you - stupidity can be tolerated, but the only sane response to Enlightenment™ is a punch in the face.

  • Arthur45||

    For some reason Soave seems to think discrimination is some sort of horrible sin and that everyone should accept everything as good and lovely. The long history of mankind, and sheer logic, tells you what everyone already knows : homosexual behavior is, at the very least, illogical and pointless behavior , and at worst a dispicable insult to the opposite sex. It doesn't require any enormous intellect to observe what tens of thousands of years of evolution by Nature has created - two genders that are ideally suited for procreation
    and mutual compatbility.This means that homosexual is abnormal behavior as well - no human society has ever failed to reject the behavior. The behavior is not genetically driven - if that were so, then there would be no homosexuals around today (gee, what a shame) , as the offending gene would have been removed from the genetic pool.The author also has this strange belief that if someone is peaceful and not physically beating up his neighbors, he should be accepted by one and all. .The question of whether the behavior was chosen (more or less invountarily) is of little relevance. People like this writer are doing his homosexual friends no favors by defending their pointless and illogical behavior. They are, in a very real sense, by rejecting women, throwing their lives away. And looking stupid in the process. It is quite impossible for a man to romantically love another man.

  • blcartwright||

    I just got hammered by some guys on Twitter

    Guy1, a proud liberal, tweets - People are so much fun. This woman wouldn't cater a gay wedding, but "We're not discriminating against anyone." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....er-new-law

    I came back with - OK, she's an idiot, but if allowed to do that, would it actually place any substantial burden on anyone seeking a pizza caterer?

    To which he replied - Well, that depends on how far away the next-closest pizza caterer is, right? Anything, I think this is more about feelings

    BINGO! He admitted it was about feelings more than substance!

    So I hit him with - right - should it be illegal to hurt someone's feelings? I want people to be served, but also favor free association on both sides

    So far fairly reasonable, but one of my other SJW type friends came in to say I was saying all kinds of things I wasn't saying

    Guy 2 - wow, the point is not "how hard is it to call another pizza shop?"

    Uh, why not? Otherwise they're using the power of the govt to bully people into complying.

    Guy 3 - being discriminated against is a burden. It's pretty simple.

    me - it's not a burden if it's easy to tell the guy FU and go someplace else.

    him - I like that the discriminating class gets to tell the discriminated that their being ostracized is not a burden

    him - Anyway, I get that you don't care if gays are discriminated against. Many compassionate people do. I'm out.

  • GILMORE||

    "I just got hammered by some guys"

    .... sigh....

    so you want pepperoni on that?

  • blcartwright||

    whatever. (phrasing)

    I made a comment. The OP was gracious enough and seemed to concede, another jumps in to tell me how I want people to be denied service, and the third finds my views shocking and unfollows me.

    However, that only two people noticed and cared enough to jump in, and only five unfollowed (if I presume that all of them were due to this topic) then maybe I wasn't that much of a neanderthal

  • MarkLastname||

    "discriminating class"
    Tell this fucktard there is no discriminating class, only discriminating individuals or organizations of individuals. If he disagrees with this notion, ask him if he'd like to stand trial for everything anyone with the same hair color as him as ever done.

  • Vernon_da_Noodler||

    As a small business owner, I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone! I don't care about their race, religion, political views, sexual orientation, or the way that they present themselves.

    I WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY SERVICE OR SALES TO ANYBODY THAT I DO NOT W ANT TO DEAL WITH!!!

  • Kevin47||

    This has to be good for business. Think anyone in Walkerton is looking at that page and not vowing to spend every possible dime at that place?

    Also, if the goal of the Yelp campaign was to make persuadable people hate gay people, mission accomplished.

    But otherwise I agree with the article.

  • StMack||

    "Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities"

    BULLSHIT.

    Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of individuals.

  • ||

    How right you are! And the minorities believe the former!

  • blcartwright||

    So my Twitter buddy came to the conclusion I want discrimination.

    Truth is, I want to see everybody, with any substantial burdens, be served by somebody. He wants to see everybody served by everybody.

    I reason there's no harm if the discrimination is trivial, where a person can easily go elsewhere to be served, while he wants conformity - any discrimination is by definition harmful.

    I reckon the less we use govt to try to force people to do something they don't want to do (less - only in the situation the market hadn't resolved) then the less antagonism is created between people.

    When one guy said he was unfollowing me (looks like it was 5 total of 1045 that did) I replied "freedom of association at work"

  • blcartwright||

    *WITHOUT* any substantial burdens

  • Tony||

    Wow suddenly we went full redstate retard. Did Drudge post a link?

  • GILMORE||

    "Tony|4.1.15 @ 7:22PM|#

    Wow suddenly we went full redstate retard. "

    You DO live in Oklahoma already. Did something change?

  • Spaceno42||

    "Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it. "

    Sorry you lost me here. Reprehensible? Why? He didn't curse them out or wish they were all dead. He didn't say he won't serve them. Just not cater a wedding.

    If that's reprehensible, than everyone has problems.

    What happened to when a business got to chose who they wanted to do business? The government shouldn't play favorites -agreed. But as a private business, I guess they have no rights now.

  • Spaceno42||

    "Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it. "

    Sorry you lost me here. Reprehensible? Why? He didn't curse them out or wish they were all dead. He didn't say he won't serve them. Just not cater a wedding.

    If that's reprehensible, than everyone has problems.

    What happened to when a business got to chose who they wanted to do business? The government shouldn't play favorites -agreed. But as a private business, I guess they have no rights now.

  • Spaceno42||

    "Regardless, here we have a clear case of a business expressing a reprehensible view and being swiftly, severely punished for it. "

    Sorry you lost me here. Reprehensible? Why? He didn't curse them out or wish they were all dead. He didn't say he won't serve them. Just not cater a wedding.

    If that's reprehensible, than everyone has problems.

    What happened to when a business got to chose who they wanted to do business? The government shouldn't play favorites -agreed. But as a private business, I guess they have no rights now.

  • antodav||

    The business owners were not "anti-gay", based on statements quoted in this article. They weren't seeking to refuse service to gays as a whole; they simply refused to cater a gay wedding, which is their right. Comparing that service (for money) to the works/miracles of Jesus is deeply flawed. Opposition to gay marriage may be unpopular, but I refuse to take for granted that being against it & being "anti-gay" are the same. It is perfectly fine & possible to fundamentally oppose radical re-definition of a core social institution without direct antipathy/hatred towards those participating in it. Liberalism conflates all opposition to its agenda w/bigotry & hatred, & that's wrong.

    That said, of course the article's point is government involvement to compel these individuals to serve someone against their will—for whatever reason—is unnecessary & immoral. So, however, were actions of a cybermob engaged basically in terrorism & a smear campaign to discredit someone they disagreed with, who hadn't actually done anything wrong. Do they think by posting vulgarity & obscenity to get their point across they're in any way obtaining the moral high ground? Or do they just not care, & are taking advantage of the situation to bash beliefs of others? No one ever taught them manners, civility, or respect for differences of opinion. They shouldn't expect to be treated any other way than how they choose to treat others.

  • GILMORE||

    "they simply refused to cater a gay wedding"

    Actually that's not true either.

    they just answered a hypothetical question with a politically-incorrect answer,

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I really am not grokking all the hostility going Robby's way. Not a fan of the gay rights crusade, but if he is I don't see why he should change his opinion about eradicating alternate viewpoints -- it's much better than the "pox on both your houses" nonsense coming from Gillespie.

    I will say that it is fairly uncharitable towards actual Christian views on gays as individuals and just a touch over-zealous about inculcating "anti-gay" views in the populace, but what else is new in the wide world of sports.

  • GILMORE||

    "I really am not grokking all the hostility going Robby's way'

    I can't speak for anyone else....

    but I personally think the moral-preening that occupies the majority of the beginning of the post (what i called "throat clearing" above) is just bloody ridiculous.

    He seems to climb over himself desperately attempting to assure readers that "these views are wrong in every dimension" and "even God disagrees with them" and that "short of violence" they apparently deserve whatever horrors the Mob wreaks upon them....

    (*for having impolitic views* - not actually having ever been asked to cater gay-weddings, mind you)

    ...all before getting around to the weak-sauce acknowledgement that the first amendment is on their side.... and only then, with the bizarre assertion that the "role of government is to protect *minorities*"....

    basically, he seems to hold libertarian ideals in pretty low-regard -

    or is at least incapable of articulating a clear perspective on why people are completely entitled to their respective views, but that we should always first be vigilant against the force of government being wielded to effect 'social change'.

    If anything, he just sounds like he's echoing this bullshit social-justice attitude which is ubiquitous in internet media...and people here just generally @#*&@ hate it. Apparently he never got the memo.

  • RAHeinlein||

    This. And, he is far too new a writer to be this lazy...if he had real convictions regarding Freedom of Association he would write a piece on that subject rather than incessantly copying other sources with SJW caveats.

  • GILMORE||

    "if he had real convictions regarding Freedom of Association he would write a piece on that subject '

    Yes.

    This was something i was going to note - that he seemed to need to refer to a defense made by Conor Friedersdorf rather than make the case *himself*. Which one is the libertarian publication again.... The Atlantic, or Reason?

    not that conor is a bad person to cite at all.... but it seems pretty weak if the bulk of Robby's own effort is spent throwing bones to the SJW crowd, then only tacks on the "Libertarian 1st Amendment Defense" as an afterthought, citing 'someone else'.

    one of my own 'editors' once threw something back in my face when i tried sourcing an argument to The Economist, and he went ballistic on me = ""THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS CITE *US* - Not the other way around. Do it again.""

  • oobins||

    You don't understand why Rico Suave's petty Male Feminist/SJW undertones and overcoats might be obnoxious to some? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the drift over the past 18 mos or so here, where the only liberty supported is the liberty to suck cock and fuck ass, while getting rich.

  • Kain Anderson||

    The point of freedom is I don't have to participate in things I don't want to participate in. In this case the owners have parsed freedom vs. discrimination correctly. I should NOT be able to discriminate against someone walking into my store to buy something and leave with it. I SHOULD be able to decline to participate in a potential buyers event.

    If the KKK comes into my store and asks me to cater their annual march of hate around the city square I should be able to decline. If the local chapter of Baal asks me to cater their seasonal sacrifice and orgy, I should be able to decline. Likewise, I should be able to decline a gay wedding. I think that's the line that's getting missed in this discussion. I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against a person coming into my establishment to get services, but I sure as heck have the right to discriminate against actually participating in your event regardless of what it is.

    If we start forcing establishments to participate in events against their conscience, where does it end? What if the local BDSM group asks me, as an interior decorator, to spruce up their dungeon and then sues me because I declined based on religious views? Minorities, or any group for the matter, shouldn't have the right to force me to participate in an event for them. If you want to get technical, if I'm a huge Republican donor I shouldn't have to cater a Democrat fundraiser event.

  • ||

    Nobody is saying you should have to cater a KKK rally.

    The progressives are pretty clear on the point that they don't give a shit about fairness or equality. They are totally fine with only forcing you to cater events that THEY want you to cater.

  • ||

    Nobody is saying you should have to cater a KKK rally.

    The progressives are pretty clear on the point that they don't give a shit about fairness or equality. They are totally fine with only forcing you to cater events that THEY want you to cater.

  • Ymmarta||

    Christians can hang out with sinners; they just can't give approval to their sexual behavior.

  • Win Bear||

    Personally, I think neither sexual orientation nor religion should be covered by non-discrimination laws, but if something that is usually as arbitrary, violent, and irrational as religion is covered, then the people traditionally persecuted by major religions also should be covered as well.

  • oobins||

    We get it, Gay Bear Winthrop. You hate Christians, and you love the cock and ass. Good for you. But what happened to personal liberty? Just for ass/cock lovers?

  • ThomasD||

    "I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make."

    Sounds like? No, I know what that statement sounds like.

    Either intellectually dishonest; or just small minded and illogical. You can be only one Mr. Soave.

    Because a person who might have sexual desire for members of the same sex could choose not to act upon those and instead channel his/her desires to a member of the opposite sex, thereby being a heterosexual.

    Unless you are the sort to think that anyone who has ever considered homicide to be an actual murdered, that is.

    So, either you could not reason your way to that rather obvious set of circumstances, or you could but for rhetorical purposes chose to avoid the obvious.

    Doesn't really matter though, either way you have rendered yourself rather diminished in credibility.

  • Win Bear||

    Because a person who might have sexual desire for members of the same sex could choose not to act upon those and instead channel his/her desires to a member of the opposite sex, thereby being a heterosexual.

    Who you have sex with doesn't define your sexual orientation; your sexual orientation is defined by who you desire to have sex with. There are plenty of homosexuals who are in heterosexual marriages.

  • ThomasD||

    "your sexual orientation is defined by who you desire to have sex with."

    While you are certainly free to believe in any manner of thoughtcrimes, this is not the way Christianity views the subject. And the question of liberty is not limited to what you are willing to believe, it goes straight to the sincere beliefs of those others.

    But by all means, keep scrupulously missing the point, it only shows that you know you have no answer.

  • Win Bear||

    While you are certainly free to believe in any manner of thoughtcrimes, this is not the way Christianity views the subject.

    First of all, Christians are all over the place on gay sex and gay marriage. My Christian church actually performs gay marriages. Anybody who presumes to speak for "Christianity" in general is a charlatan (yes, that means you).

    Furthermore, the fact that, say, Catholicism makes a distinction between the act and the desire doesn't alter the definition of "sexual orientation". The notion of "sexual orientation" exists independent of Catholicism or Christianity, and it is based on desire, not action. The term for people who commit the act is "MSM" (men having sex with men).

    But by all means, keep scrupulously missing the point, it only shows that you know you have no answer.

    It's you who is missing the point. And, no, I don't have any "answers". I don't see what kind of "answer" is needed. The RFRA is irrelevant from a libertarian point of view because the justifications for the RFRA are hypocritical.

  • ThomasD||

    " Christians are all over the place on gay sex and gay marriage."

    Well, yes, but that is an explicit admission that some do not hold to your understanding.

    Yet you say it as if it somehow negates those individuals' beliefs.

    The point of religious freedom is to accommodate, not deny. As is the point with all forms of libertarianism.

    And why this hang up on Catholicism? When faced with the fact that some others define sexuality based upon actions you have no credible response, other than to perpetually re-assert your own personal beliefs and pretend that others simply cannot be legitimate.

    That is the point you keep missing.

    Get over yourself.

  • oobins||

    Gay Brute Winnie has a gaping-asshole-sized Hypocrisy Spot where Xtians are concerned. Liberty for ass sex, but kill the Xtians!

  • wwhorton||

    https://youtu.be/Emdzsz_XvfA

    Seriously, though, all of this well-intentioned championing of marriage equality isn't going to result in more freedom. It's not even going to result in the freedom that homosexuals or transgenders or Martians or who the fuck ever wants. Instead of getting the government out of the business of determining who can and can't call themselves married, the government is expanding its monopoly.

    No one wins here. People aren't pushing for rights to be restored, they're pushing for rights to be granted, and when that happens only the state wins.

  • DrZaius||

    Holy shit, leave work and 500 comments later.

  • Koko the Monkey||

    Third, I'm not particularly convinced that the teachings of Christ even require Christians to refuse to serve gay weddings. Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors—the sinful people of his time?

    He talked to them, yes. But he didn't make the bed for the prostitutes to fuck their johns on, and didn't participate in the tax collection either.

    This distinction seems to be lost on many of the pro-SSM (and effectively pro-anti-discrim laws) people. It's one thing for a hamburger cook to be forced to cook a hamburger for a homosexual at a diner, quite another for a photographer to be forced to participate in a gay wedding. The latter is central to what the person considers immoral.

  • ||

    Some people also can't seem to grasp the difference between selling a gay person one of 100 identical cakes, and preparing a customized cake specifically for their wedding.

  • Selderane||

    Especially when said photographer or cake maker feels that marriage is a sacrament before God!

  • Win Bear||

    It's one thing for a hamburger cook to be forced to cook a hamburger for a homosexual at a diner, quite another for a photographer to be forced to participate in a gay wedding. The latter is central to what the person considers immoral.

    But as a protestant photographer, I'm still forced to participate in a Catholic wedding under current anti-discrimination laws even though I consider Catholicism to be immoral.

  • ThomasD||

    Really? Who forced you into such an arrangement? When? And how did you try to fight it?

    Did you cash the check too?

  • Win Bear||

    It's the law of the land: The Federal Civil Rights Act requires that businesses can't discriminate based on religion.

  • Free Society||

    Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities—even unpopular minorities.

    Holy shit Robby. Really?

  • Selderane||

    I really wonder if this guy is actually a libertarian. The Founders feared an oligarchy as much as anything else.

    The most vital function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Full stop. Minorities need no special protection if that is being done.

  • MichaelL||

    As a physician, I had no reason to discriminate against people of other races, or gay people. I did fire a few patients for not following the rules! But, I discriminated against women who wanted abortions! I did not do any! That was due to my religious convictions. Does anyone think I should have been compelled to do them?

  • Win Bear||

    Does anyone think I should have been compelled to do [abortions]?

    Well, perhaps. Physicians are licensed, and the license guarantees specific kinds of services and abilities. If you refuse to perform some of those services, you aren't complying with the licensing requirements.

    Let's say STD tests or blood transfusions are contrary to your religious beliefs. Should you be compelled to do those things? I think you should be. If you want to be a licensed physician, you don't have an intrinsic right to pick and choose how you deliver medical care or what procedures you perform. And since you can't practice medicine without a license, they only choice you may have is not to practice medicine at all.

    Given that the licensing restrictions are basically rent seeking that originated with physicians themselves, don't expect much sympathy either. You want to pick and choose what procedures to perform? Give up your rent seeking, don't start whining about your "religious convictions".

  • Azathoth!!||

    You don't have an intrinsic right to pick and choose how you deliver medical care or what procedures you perform?

    That's news to GPs, pediatricians, podiatrists, osteopaths, oncologists, obstetricians, plastic surgeons, and every other medical specialty that exists.

  • Win Bear||

    That's news to GPs, pediatricians, podiatrists, osteopaths, oncologists, obstetricians, plastic surgeons, and every other medical specialty that exists.

    You're missing the point. If you are licensed and practice in a specialty where you don't perform abortions, the issue of refusal obviously doesn't come up. MichaelL obviously was licensed in a field (probably either GP or gynecology) where patients might reasonably expect him to perform abortions and he needs to actively refuse doing so. So, to be clearer: it would be reasonable to refuse to let MichaelL practice as a GP or gynecologist, although he might be able to work as a podiatrist or dermatologist.

    As I was saying, I'd go as far as allowing an exception for a GP, but the point is that MichaelL has no intrinsic right to demand such an exception on religious grounds because the restrictions on practicing medicine are restrictions his own profession has demanded, mostly out of their own financial interest.

    Overall, I think it would be a lot better simply to loosen medical licensing requirements altogether; they are one of the primary causes of extremely high medical costs in the US.

  • ThomasD||

    "You're missing the point."

    LOL!

  • RoninX||

    If you believe that property owners have the absolute right to choose with whom they do business, then you have consistent libertarian principles.

    If you believe that it's actually moral (regardless of legality) to discriminate against people based on their race or sexual preference, then you're a bigot.

  • Koko the Monkey||

    There's a difference between discriminating against a person and discriminating against their activities. Selling a hamburger to a person in your restaurant whose lifestyle you disagree with is one thing, while catering at a celebration of that lifestyle is quite another.

  • ThomasD||

    If I owned a pizzeria I'd certainly have reservations about catering someone's Seder.

    Tricky.

  • ||

    Halal Pork Anyone?

  • Selderane||

    Wow. Just... wow.

    Robby, have you even read the Bible, or are you just recalling what you've seen from a television movie?

    Did Yeshua engage prostitutes and tax collectors? Absolutely! Would Yeshua enable their behavior? Absolutely not! Asking Christians to cater a gay wedding, and using this pathetic understanding of Scripture in retort to objections, would be like arguing you think Yeshua would, in addition to engaging prostitutes, take reservations for their clientele.

    "Go, and sin no more," is what He said to them. Are you now telling me Christian bakers should proceed to make the cake, and use the opportunity to tell their customers how they feel this union is an affront to God?

    I'm truly shocked at how shallow this article is. Really, it's below the standards of Reason, but indicative of the anti-religion bigotry I see in many libertarians. It's what kept be from the movement for so long. You guys are dead on about so many principles... but those principles vanish in the face of a sincere religious person doing harm to no one.

    You make me ashamed to call myself a libertarian.

  • Koko the Monkey||

    Are you now telling me Christian bakers should proceed to make the cake, and use the opportunity to tell their customers how they feel this union is an affront to God?

    Sounds like a good strategy to get around the anti-discrim laws (remember these are customers the baker would rather not have).

    And if the gay couple objects, he can just tell them that he gives this speech at all the weddings he does, and didn't want to discriminate against them for being gay.

  • Selderane||

    Sounds like a good strategy to get around the anti-discrim laws (remember these are customers the baker would rather not have).

    Except all signs say they would love to have them as customers, and would happily serve them in any function except a religious sacrament. So your premise is flawed.

    That said, it would be a way around, but it's underhanded. And blowback (and there would be tons) would fall solely at the feet of the baker, bringing us right back where we started.

  • blitzstrasse||

    Based on my reading of 600+ responses, I seem to be the only one who thought this article was another April Fool's exhibit.

    Late to the party AND I have egg on my face!

  • Spooky||

    "I'm not particularly convinced that the teachings of Christ even require Christians to refuse to serve gay weddings."
    Just FYI:
    What are the 9 ways that one can participate in the sins of another person?
    1. By counsel (to give advice, one's opinion or instructions.)

    2. By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)

    3. By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)

    4. By provocation (to dare.)

    5. By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)

    6. By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)

    7. By partaking (to take part, to participate.)

    8. By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)

    9. By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)

  • Win Bear||

    Just FYI, that's the Catholic view, not the universal Christian view.

  • Spooky||

    Actually, as the word "catholic" literally means "universal", it is indeed the Universal Christian view.

  • QueerLib||

    ROFL, I have to hand it to the conservatarians, they're trying VERY hard to use liberal definitional terms.

    So far, I've seen it argued that Catholicism is the entirety of Christian doctrine, and that any deeply held moral belief is a religion.

    Hard to imagine that so many of them, so liberal and free-minded in choosing the fourth-tier definitions of clear terms like "Catholic" and "religion" were screaming about the "definition of marriage being redefined" just a few short years ago. How times are a-changin'!

  • Win Bear||

    You seem to have trouble distinguishing "Catholic" from "catholic".

    And just because someone calls themselves "catholic" (or "liberal" or whatever) doesn't mean that they actually are; in fact, if you have to bother making it part of your name, it's a pretty good sign that you aren't.

  • ThomasD||

    Not just Catholics, also Luther.

    Haven't read as much Calvin, so can't be certain, but I think you'd find little disagreement.

  • amiga||

    Three scenarios:
    1) You will bake me a cake or I will have my thug friends beat you and your family to a bloody pulp.
    2) You will bake me a cake or I will have the government bring its thugs to bear on you and your business.
    3) You will bake me a cake or I will publicize your decision and let the public decide whether or not to do business with you.

    There is no real difference between 1) and 2), both of which rely on the initiation of force. Only 3) is consistent with liberty and, if you accept the concept, morality.

  • QueerLib||

    Options 1 and 2 aren't even options in Indiana. There's no legislation under which an LGBT could sue and claim discrimination.

    However, options 1, 2 AND 3 are all legal (and the second is very popular) for *Christians* who are told they will not receive service because of their religion. You know, the same Christians who claim they need a special exemption from the law that provides them with special privileges?

    And yet the conservatarian masses have been achingly silent on protesting the initiation of force there. It's only when Teh Gheys are involved that they suddenly and righteously discover the power of free association. So curious.

  • woodNfish||

    Is anyone still deluded enough to believe this is still a free country? Thought control is now firmly in place.

  • BambiB||

    The O'Connors' views are wrong in just about every way possible. First, being gay isn't a choice—or at least, it isn't primarily a choice—as O'Connor would no doubt be forced to admit if anyone challenge him on his statement. "I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make.

    If that's true, then it must be a medical condition - like leprosy. If it can't be treated now, at least we can research what sort of treatment might correct the aberration, and once that cure is found, anyone choosing to be queer would be like someone choosing to be a leper.

    So which is it? A choice (which need not be protected)? Or a medical condition (which may be susceptible to medical intervention)?

  • Tony||

    One should sooner as the same of being a bigoted moron. I suggest compassion and intensive brain therapy.

  • QueerLib||

    Nobody credible is demanding the state tread on gay pizza bakers. Heck, Indiana doesn't even have a state law providing non-discrimination regulation around sexual orientation, and neither does Arkansas. There's literally and factually zero legal basis for the fear that "the gays is gonna force me to serve 'em pizza with th' laws!"

  • mgd||

    Didn't Jesus engage prostitutes and tax collectors


    Yes, but he didn't hire hookers or help the tax collectors rob people. See the difference? This pizza place didn't say they would refuse service to gays; they simply stated that they would not help them commit what they consider to be an immoral act. Are they right that's an immoral act? I don't care, and it doesn't matter one fucking bit.

  • Catholic Girl||

    mgd - so glad someone pointed out that problem with that oh-so-common argument people make when they use Jesus' actions to support their intolerance against Christians who speak openly about, and actually live out, their faith.

  • Win Bear||

    You don't speak for Christians, you speak for Catholics. Before people take you seriously, drop your arrogant pretense.

  • oobins||

    There he is again, the progressive who thinks he's a libertarian. Liberty for gay sex and wealth, baby, and no religious liberty because Gay Bear Winnie grew up in a Xtian house and blames Xtianity, rather than callous parents, for his treatment when he admitted he loved sucking cock.

  • Catholic Girl||

    Please, Robby Soave, leave the Bible out of your argument. Stick to things about which you have some basic understanding. Leaving aside all the problems related to your misunderstanding of Jesus' relationship with sinners (a group of people among whom every single person ever born belongs), your misunderstanding of the sacrament of marriage and its analogy to our relationship to God is blindingly bright and clear in your article.

    Many other commenters already eloquently pointed out your lack of tolerance for those who disagree with your world view and your desire to deny them the freedom to think / believe differently. Nothing more be said about that problem with your position on the topic of your article.

  • finerbiner||

    The scenario set up here is just plain stupid. The Indiana law allows the pizza place to NOT SERVE gay patrons. The fact that these owners choose not to is beside the point.
    Other owners will give poor or no service and be protected by this hideous law.

    Reason????? NOT!

  • Robert Russ||

    This is "Reason" correct? Did anyone stop to ask themselves why a reporter chose this PIZZERIA whether they would cater a gay wedding? Cause the first thing that comes to mind when I think wedding catering is pizza.
    This pizzeria has never catered any affair previously. They were targeted because they openly display their Christian faith in their business.
    Where did this writer come from, Salon?

  • MonsoonMoon||

    I find that people are largely blowing this out of proportion because, let's face it, drama sells. Also, for those of you to whom this applies, "discriminate" and "hate" are being misunderstood and widely misused. Mostly I see people giving 'discriminate' a bad context, i.e. cut directly from the Gospel of the ProgChurch. That verse should say, "Be cautious with hyperbole lest you have no words to describe actual calamity."

    Let's review what hate is:
    ISIS killing Jews and Kurds/Iran vowing to destroy Israel = hate

    A pizzeria owner says he doesn't agree with a lifestyle = disagreement, not ZOMGWTF hate.

    Now for discrimination:
    A person selects a box of cereal from a supermarket shelf = he/she discriminated the cereals.

    A pizzeria owner allows all patrons to eat in his restaurant (how is he to know who's what?), but decides not to provide products and labor for an event with which he disagrees = this is personal liberty to have a selective business policy in a free market, NOT discrimination.

    I see a lot of borderline MH Perry's commenting here by writing the phrase "public business." That is Communist talk and should be argued to every extent. What private individuals or their businesses do is not the state's concern unless someone is harmed. I reject the argument that by not catering a gay wedding someone has been injured or wronged. Go. Somewhere. Else.

  • Marnie Tunay||

    ""I choose to be heterosexual," sounds like a choice only a non-heterosexual would be in the position to make." Uhmm really? Maybe you should read that sentence again... :)

  • madjack||

    Reason: "Everyone is encouraged to use reason as long your your reasoning matches the fascist mob's."

    Liberty is dead.

  • oobins||

    What can you expect with The Nickster and Rico Suave. Liberty is for gays who want to be rich, fuck the rest of y'all.

  • sgreffenius||

    As Matt Welch said in a companion column: this is ugly. The people who think they trash the O'Connors for justice' sake, actually trash themselves. And pornography on Yelp? C'mon, what can be going on here?

  • randall||

    Has anyone here (including Robby) ever watched interviews of rock stars. One thing that is universal between all of the screwed up rock stars is the lack of a father. They either resent the fact that their father left the family very early on or that the father never was there in the first place. Now we want the government to sanction gay marriages...i.e. lock kids into artificially created incomplete family units. Face it, sons cannot learn how to treat women in same sex marriages. These things are LEARNED, not instinctual. A very inconvenient truth.

  • Neoconwatch||

    "People certainly have the right to post those reviews." It depends on the terms of service. They may not have that right under Yelp's terms of service, and I would be surprised if they do. If they persist, they can be sued. Yelp is now suing people for libelous trolling reviews. People do not have a right to post factual disinformation about a joint. That's fraud, a violation of the rights of Yelp and the joint. Review sites are not the place for political opinions.

  • ER Jones, Author||

    I am troubled by an issue. It used to be very difficult for black people to travel in this country. They didn't have access to some restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc. I can see how if you are a business that opens your doors to the public and is part of the infrastructure to help people travel, then I don't see how you go about excluding some types of people. To exclude them using force, it seems to me that the business owner would need the power of the state to do that. Should the police assist in forcefully escorting someone off the premises just for being black, lbgt, etc? An example to consider is how courts stopped enforcing racist exclusionary covenants contained in some neighborhood plats.

  • NathanHolt||

    Gotta love the militant gay armada coming out in grand fashion. Progressivism overshadowing what liberalism once was.