MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Was Memories Pizza a Victim of Irresponsible Journalism? Yes.

Memories Pizza, while not as gay-affirming as many of us would like, didn't announce pending discrimination.

Memories PizzaABC 57As Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch noted earlier today, Memories Pizza was forced to close because of death threats the business received in response to its owners' statements regarding RFRA and service to gay customers (they said they would serve anyone but could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding). And that's a terrible thing, regardless of what one thinks about religious freedom, or gay rights, or discrimination. No one should be threatened with violence, period.

Many in the media—particularly on the right—are now accusing those who reported and re-reported the story of irresponsible journalism. And they have a very good case.

The owners of Memories Pizza, the O'Connor family, did not willingly seek out controversy, deny service to a gay person or couple, or even go out on a limb to suggest that they would. No, they merely responded to a question from Alyssa Marino, a local reporter for ABC 57 News who had come to their shop in search of a story.

And they did give her a story—but not the one she reported. Her initial headline was "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service" (Michiana is the region in Indiana where Memories Pizza is located). That headline implies two things that are false. The O'Connors had no intention of becoming the first Michiana business to do anything discriminatory with respect to gay people; they had merely answered a hypothetical question about what would happen if a gay couple asked them to cater a wedding. And the O'Connors had every intention of providing regular service to gay people—just not their weddings.

That policy, while not as gay-affirming as many of us supporters of same-sex marriage would like, isn't as discriminatory as what the headline claims. And though ABC 57 changed it at some point, several bigger outlets ran with the distorted version. PJ Media has a good rundown of it: The Huffington Post reported, "Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings," and BuzzFeed ran with, "Indiana Pizzeria Owners Say They'd Deny LGBT People Service."

Stripped down to the actual facts, there wasn't much of a story here in the first place, writes PJ Media's Scott Ott:

If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”

In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.

As I said yesterday, I don't agree with the policy the O'Connors articulated, though I would defend their right to practice it—in both theory and actuality. I would also defend the right of people to criticize it, though I would question the wisdom, necessity, and productivity of doing so in such a harsh and stridently condemning manner. The death threats are another matter; no one has the right to threaten violence against someone else.

The people who made those threats are at fault, but so are the journalists who erroneously reported on this story—who made a merely unfriendly policy seem like a declaration of pending discrimination against the next gay person to walk through the front door of Memories Pizza.

Photo Credit: ABC 57

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.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Every Reason contributor wants a bite at this apple, it seems.

  • Loki||

    In some cases more than one bite. It's the Lay's potato chip of KULTUR WAR stories.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I like the irresponsible journalism angle. Journalists policing their own is a good thing.

  • ||

    You, particularly, Eddie. Despite your protestations you're fanning the flames harder than anyone.

  • althamnathaniel||

    I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing

    www.work-mill.com

  • GILMORE||

    "....while not as gay-affirming as many of us would like'....

    1 - Engage in Apeshit Denunciation
    2 - Subsequently Declare Apeshit Denunciations Overblown
    3 - Profit

    because when I order a pizza? I look for its "gay-affirming" qualities *first*

  • Loki||

    What toppings are the most gay affirming?

    Anchovies? Mushrooms? Spooge?

  • Antilles||

    According to some gay employees at Chik-Fil-A, customers during the boycott a few years ago ingested 'spooge' along with their chicken sandwiches. Don't know if that's true, but it makes me resistant to ever hire a gay person of go to one of their restaurants.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    You mean, that wasn't ranch?

  • Invisible Finger||

    That's why I only go to Steak & Shake. In sight, it must be right.

  • Antilles||

    Yeah, but what kind of shenanigans take place in the processing plant that prepares their menu items? Think about it...

  • Paulpemb||

    A few years ago, I was attending some night classes offered by my local university. And in a room full of college students, many of them were part-time fast food workers, waiters, bartenders, etc.

    One night while we were waiting for class to start, the subject of customers who had had their food sabotaged came up.

    One of the young ladies in the class worked at Steak n' Shake, and she told a story about a particularly abusive customer who came through the drive-thru late one night. The cooks took the bun they were going to use to make his sandwich into the restroom and used it to wipe down the urinals.

    DISCLAIMER: I know this is a disgusting and heinous (not to mention criminal) thing to do, even if the customer was an asshole. The mention of Steak n' Shake just reminded me of the story.

  • waffles||

    That is a DISGUSTING and HEINOUS (not to mention CRIMINAL) thing to do!

  • Antilles||

    I worked for several years as a pizza deliverer, and I'm happy to say that I never saw or became aware of any of my fellow employees do anything unprofessional with the food before it was served to the customers. Gotta admit I was tempted a few times with a few rude customers, but tampering with someone's food is such a sleazy, sneaky, gutless form of revenge.

  • Paulpemb||

    Yeah, i was the overnight manager at a fast food place for a few years, and some of the customers made it very tempting. But I never personally did anything, or heard of any of my coworkers there doing anything. I did refuse service to a few people sometimes, but they would usually just drive off then come right back.

    They were always more polite when they came back, though. We were the only place in my dinky little town that was open all night.

  • Harold Falcon||

    I worked at an Arbys for a few years in High School and one night the manager fucked his girlfriend on top of the roast beef.

  • MarkLastname||

    Come now, be a little open-minded. I know a great cookbook that I recommend to all my friends and I think you should all give some of the recipes a try. If you haven't already...

    http://www.amazon.com/Natural-.....al+harvest

  • Harold Falcon||

    Delicious.

  • ||

    Don't know if that's true, but it makes me resistant to ever hire a gay person of go to one of their restaurants.

    Because no straight boy has ever done that and there are a fuck ton more straight boys than gay men. But thanks for showing that all you need is a flimsy justification for your bigotry. Not that you need to justify it at all (Hi, Irish!), but you went out of your way to say that and this is very much the response you deserve.

  • ||

    Oh, and you are totally welcome to stay the fuck away from gay people, bigoted scum. Thanks for that. Hope you have the fortitude to back your words up with action.

    BTW, how would you know they are gay? Perhaps you should make a point of asking at each restaurant at which you dine.

  • Lanceman||

    Up yours with that 'bigot' bullshit, gayboy. It's called 'gaydar'.

  • Antilles||

    I'm simply repeating what some guys said online. Were they lying? Were they trolls? I don't know. But if it's true I would attribute their juvenile reaction to be more a result of their political affiliation (which they chose) rather than their sexual orientations (which they did not). Don't see how that makes me a bigot, but whatever. I've been called worse by better.

  • jay_dubya||

    "makes me resistant to ever hire a gay person"

    You dont see how your reluctance to hire someone based solely on their sexual orientation (and of course the salacious rumors about members of that sexual orientation you heard on the internet) would be perceived as bigoted?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm more worried about fast food places hiring known burgersexuals like the Hamburgler, personally

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    But thanks for showing that all you need is a flimsy justification for your bigotry. Not that you need to justify it at all (Hi, Irish!)

    Jesus Christ, Tonio, do you really believe I'm an anti-gay bigot?

    You are such a gibbering retard I can hardly stand it. It's especially laughable given that you've spent three days following me around and obsessing over me because I said you don't seem to care about freedom of association, but then you claiming I hate gay people with no evidence whatsoever is apparently completely justified.

    You are among the most disingenuous people I've ever had the misfortune to talk to.

  • ||

    do you really believe I'm an anti-gay bigot?

    No, Irish, no I don't. Srsly.

    But you are prone to mischaracterizing the positions of others (as you just demonstrated, again), or at least me. And given the churlish, sullen and delayed nature of your acknowledgement of that, I'm calling you out on that for a couple of days which is the length of time it took you to clean up your turd. Tit for tat, Irish, tit for tat.

    Sorry you're not man enough to take a bit of ribbing.

  • MarkLastname||

    "...man enough". You sexist prick!

  • Harold Falcon||

    Oh, piss off, fuckface.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Sausage. Though mushrooms are very nice. I can show you how to make one if you'd like.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Hello! Sausage!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Is there any way to test for genetic predisposition to Teh Homo? In which case a pizzeria selling only gay Jew foreskin topping pizzas would be the obvious 'gay affirming' option

    Though watch out when the owner declines to cater a Bar Mitzvah...

  • ThomasD||

    Who knew gay affirmation was mandatory?

    GFY Mr. Soave.

  • Diggs||

    The entire gist of this controversy is that everyone HAS to be gay affirming.

  • ThomasD||

    That, or suffer the consequences.

    People cannot even remain agnostic, and that is not by accident.

    Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    Perhaps the media would like to make a contribution to compensate these people for the damage they've caused.

    https://www.gofundme.com/memoriespizza

  • OzarkAggie||

    $660,000 as of this post. Guess that's not news. Wait till they hit a million.

  • MarkLastname||

    Hmm, maybe my pessimism isn't entirely justified, and fascism still is somewhat unpopular.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    This should happen every time! Show social justice warriors that their attacks will only backfire and make people millionaires. The fuss will die down and these people will ultimately be rich. I love it!

  • Antilles||

    The hypocrisy here is off-the-charts. Would a restaurant owned by a Progressive family agree to cater an event held by the Westboro Baptist Church? Would a black-owned business cater or support a Klan event? What if a Mormon polygamist wanted his 6th marriage (to a 12-year-old) catered? The selective outrage is nauseating...

  • Drake||

    One of the major features of being a Progressive / SJW is never, ever, considering the reverse circumstance. Not for a second.

  • Antilles||

    It's like they assume they'll always be in charge and will never be held to the same standard as those they persecute. Unfortunately, they're mostly right about that belief...

  • ||

    Again, they are emotional midgets who are incapable of putting themselves in other people's shows.

  • Antilles||

    That's called a lack of empathy. And what kind of people lack empathy...?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Libertarians!

  • Antilles||

    Close enough...

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Vulcans?

  • Antilles||

    Actually, Vulcans possess both emotions and empathy. They just choose to suppress those feelings and live by logic. Something I wish more Humans would do...

  • ||

    Hitler! The answer is always Hitler.

  • Antilles||

    Your answer is too specific. The correct answer is, "Germans."

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Yeah, Hitler was Austrian.

  • Antilles||

    Hey, you know an awful lot about Hitler. What secrets are YOU hiding? Hmmm...

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    I think if you want to get Swiss to talk you'll need to narrow your gaze

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Hey, you know an awful lot about Hitler. What secrets are YOU hiding? Hmmm...

    "If I was a clone of Adolf Goddamn Hitler, wouldn't I look like Adolf Goddamn Hitler?!"

  • Road Warrior||

    One of the boys from Brazil.

  • MarkLastname||

    Right after the war, the Germans should've just blamed it all on the Austrians an demanded reparations from them. If only for shits and giggles.

  • Lanceman||

    And we know this because his primary language was...Austrian...

  • ||

    You?

  • Antilles||

    Projection is a fascinating thing. It reminds me of something Mr. Brady once said, "When you point a finger at someone else, you're point three fingers at yourself." Think about it...

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    People who torture and kill small animals to get their jollies?

  • Zeb||

    Or they don't consider the reverse situation comparable, because those people are bad. They have no conception of the "you today, me tomorrow" principle of political power.

  • Antilles||

    Yeah, but it's so sweet when their laws and ideology bite them in the ass at a later date. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I feast on delicious, proggie tears...

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    It actually happens very often. Progressives are frequently destroyed by the mob they were a part of a short while earlier.

  • MarkLastname||

    But it's only them getting destroyed by the even-more-progressive. Each successive wave attacks the previous one. It is not quite as satisfying (if unlibertatian) as a genuine Thermidorian reaction would be.

  • LarryA||

    It's like a Golden Rule: The power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

  • Road Warrior||

    Insert "Wants More Government" meme here.

  • ||

    The butt-hurt here is off the charts.

  • Antilles||

    Yeah, kinda like what happened when a private citizen replied honestly to a hypothetical (and extremely unlikely) scenario.

  • Sudden||

    All of this gay being shoved down our dark and evil cishetero hearts, shouldn't a little sore ass be expected?

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Hey, Tonio - you know how you totally favor freedom of association? Maybe if you want people to notice you're in favor of freedom of association, you should actually show a bit of outrage at a clear example of that right being stripped from your fellow Americans.

    Unless you're just a childish obsessive who likes to declare you favor freedom of association in order to ward off criticism while you ignore examples of that liberty's abrogation in order to petulantly insult people who are actually worried about it.

    Maybe I should copy this post and paste it after every comment you make for the next three days - you know, the way adults do.

  • ||

    Sure, whatever. I think my 8:46 post answers all.

  • ||

    Maybe if you want people to notice you're in favor of freedom of association, you should actually show a bit of outrage at a clear example of that right being stripped from your fellow Americans.

    I consider my clear, positive statements here supporting freedom of association sufficient. Also, you could have asked, not that you have an affirmative duty to do so. However, after you stated that I didn't support FoA, you had an affirmative duty to demonstrate that I did indeed state that. In a better world I would have ended that with yet another positive statemen in favor of FoA, but you got my Irish up, as it were.

    An individual has a right to compel proof or retractions of factual statements against him, particularly if those statements are false. You have no right to compel me to make a positive statement that I like vanilla or hate communism. Please tell me that you do see the difference there.

    And again let me highlight the clear difference. You attributed to me words I did not say, views I do not hold. Nobody made you do that, AFAIK. When called upon that, repeatedly and clearly, you ignored that. This is what that is about, Irish.

  • MarkLastname||

    He was that rough with you last, was he? Lotion helps.

  • XM||

    "The hypocrisy here is off-the-charts. Would a restaurant owned by a Progressive family agree to cater an event held by the Westboro Baptist Church? Would a black-owned business cater or support a Klan event? What if a Mormon polygamist wanted his 6th marriage (to a 12-year-old) catered? The selective outrage is nauseating..."

    An even more hypocrisy is that these progressives willingly turn a blind eye to "discriminatory" hiring practice. They ADMIT it, because they praise employers selectively hiring Latinos for labor. And it's not exactly a secret that immigrant businesses prefer to hire one of their own. The progs can no more prosecute common discriminatory practice than the conservatives can deport every illegal immigrant.

    And of course, American businesses fatten their pockets by doing businesses with homophobic nations.

  • Loki||

    If one of the O'Connors are killed can the reporter be charged with incitement to commit murder? Really I'd be satisfied with the rest of the family suing the shit out of them.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Can you provide a legal definition for "incitement to commit murder? "

    I'm having difficulty looking it up.

  • Loki||

    Meh. Probably Incitement to Violence would be the correct legal term. I doubt that could be a charge against the reporter because I think you'd have to prove that the reporter intended to incite violence against the O'Connors. It would just be nice if there was some kind of repurcussion for this shit. As it is I suspect the reporter will get hired by MSNBC any minute now, meanwhile these people have their lives ruined.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'm not finding Incitement to Violence in US law either. It appears it was abolished in England in 2008.

    I tried to look this up several weeks ago when someone used the term, but I could only find Incitement in other country's laws.

    Perhaps a lawyer here can help us out?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Maybe state by state? Here is something from Ohio:

    2917.01 Inciting to violence.
    (A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

    (1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

    (2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.
  • MarkLastname||

    No. The reporter isn't inciting anyone, in a legal sense of the word. They just asked a question. Which may have been a low thing to do, as it was purely to generate this kind of reaction, but it would be beyond absurd to hold one responsible for how lunatics react to what should be a completely harmless (if misplaced) question.

  • Rich||

    Alyssa Marino should track down the death-threat makers and ask *them* hypotheticals.

    She might find a real story.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I liked her in Who's the Boss, though.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Is that legal?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Anything's possible.

  • Lanceman||

    She is now.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Remember when local reporters uncovered things like crony contracts at City Hall, or police brutality, or ticket-fixing, or inflated pensions?

    But that's too much like work.

    Why put yourself out when you can go around hassling small businesses?

  • ||

    Oh, Eddie, you're finally learning to paint your victims without mentioning their religious beliefs. You are actually learning something. First Irish, now you. Will wonders never cease...

  • Dweebston||

    This is the hill you're itching to die on? Somebody doesn't want to cater gay weddings, as though she'd ever be asked, and it's that particular hill over which you'd want to throw away any libertarian credential to defend?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And the O'Connors had every intention of providing regular service to gay people—just not their weddings.

    Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending this self-contradictory nonsense is actually a meaningul sentence.

  • ||

    ?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    There's this very annoying speech pattern that comes up in politics (both right and left) lately where someone will defend their behavior by going "Oh, I would never , I just ."

    It drives me nuts!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Stupid HTML. "Oh, I would never (X), I just (Long explanation that qualifies as X without specifically using those words)."

  • Loki||

    "Oh, I would never (X), I just (Long explanation that qualifies as X without specifically using those words)."

    You really can't see the difference between serving customers in your restaurant and catering an event? Really?

  • ||

    I still don't get it. There can be different levels of discrimination. Here there discrimination is limited only to catering wedding (which I suspect is a non-existent portion of their business) rather than their business as a whole.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, that's the silly part--they made a throwaway remark that really has to be empty, as the number of pizza weddings is pretty effing small.

  • NebulousFocus||

    Gay pizza weddings...

  • Mr. Bourgeoisie||

    Perhaps there are unfathomable numbers of gay people living in trailer parks wanting to have pizza weddings in Hickville, IN...But, because these assholes, it's gonna be a Taco bell wedding.

  • SimonD||

    It's discrimination against a person (a gay man) versus discrimination against a thing (a same-sex wedding). Two entirely different critters.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I saw what they said earlier today, and it sounded like they specifically said they'd sell pizza to whoever, just weren't catering gay weddings.

    You know, the fact that this is a debate is totally sickening. Who the fuck cares? Is freedom of association that dead?

  • From the Tundra||

    Oh, it's dead. What's weird is that it's so fucking simple.

    Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.

    Even the most illiterate man-chimp could figure it out. So depressing.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And if they would refuse to cater a gay weddings, then they AREN'T selling pizza to whoever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Come on, you can see the difference. They're basically saying they aren't participating with a ceremony they don't approve of. But they'll serve gays who come in to buy pizza.

    In any case, while we may not all approve of their stance, why can't they take it? It's their property, and their lives. Hardly anyone is doing what they are, so there's no harm that requires government intervention. They should be able to associate or not as they will.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But they'll serve gays who come in to buy pizza.

    Unless they're buying those pizzas for a wedding, in which case they won't serve them.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yep. So what? Their objection is to gay marriage, not to gay pizza-eating.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So the statement "they'll serve gays who come in to buy pizza" is not true.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, general rules have exceptions without the general rule being false. Also, keep in mind that catering may not mean just handing over pizzas. It could also mean being there and serving them. Which is being part of a ceremony they don't approve of.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    OJ Simpson isn't a murder; he hasn't killed most of the people he knows, and the fact there's some exceptions doesn't make the general rule false.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your point. These people aren't saying, "We won't cater gay weddings, but we love homosexuality."

  • Loki||

    Also, keep in mind that catering may not mean just handing over pizzas. It could also mean being there and serving them.

    I think that's what they're saying they would refuse to do. What's to stop a gay person from going into their store, buying a bunch of pizzas and then serving them at their wedding? Unless they tell them they're buying the pizzas for a gay wedding, there's no way the pizzeria owners would ever know.

  • Sudden||

    What's to stop a gay person from going into their store, buying a bunch of pizzas and then serving them at their wedding?

    I'm gonna say that notable stereotype of gays prefering fabulous and tasteful things.

  • JPyrate||

    "So the statement "they'll serve gays who come in to buy pizza" is not true."

    Fuzzy logic.

    Cooking 20 pizza's for a take out order that ends up at a SSM wedding, and catering a SSM wedding are two separate jobs.

  • MarkLastname||

    Actually, no. It's participants in same sex weddings. Which means they're also denying service to straight people participating in same sex weddings (or straight people of the same sex marrying for tax purposes); while if a gay guy decided to marry a woman, they would presumably be willing to cater.

    It's participants in the class of event therefore that are being discriminated against.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If they had said "We won't refuse service to black people, but if a black person came in here and was visibly not a white person, we'd have to say no", would you be going "see, they're not racist, they're happy to sell pizza to all the white-passing blacks."

  • Antilles||

    Geez, enough with the hypothetical situations! If your wife and daughter were drowning and you could only save one, which would you choose? You monster!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The daughter.

  • Antilles||

    Wrong! Save your wife because with her you can make a NEW daughter. You can't say the same if you save your daughter. Pure, simple logic...

  • Sudden||

    You can't say the same if you save your daughter.

    That's what you think

    /Craster beyond the Wall

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Geez, enough with the hypothetical situations! If your wife and daughter were drowning and you could only save one, which would you choose?

    Are either of them gay?

  • Antilles||

    Actually, all three of the people in my hypothetical scenario are totally gay. I thought that was implied but I should have been clearer.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Firemen will probably legally have to save gays, minorities, and other protected classes before everyone else soon.

  • Antilles||

    You mean they aren't already doing that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not a blackletter requirement, no. Well maybe in some places.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They clearly oppose gay marriage. I imagine they aren't in love with homosexuality in general, either, but they aren't (apparently) letting that interfere with in-store pizza sales. Of course, the orientation of pizza customers probably doesn't come up much in conversation.

  • Road Warrior||

    Soon to be a new Starbucks campaign.

  • ||

    Do we actually know that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course not, but it stands to reason that if they're willing to say no gay marriage catering publicly, they'd probably say no gay service, period. In any case, it doesn't much matter as far as the politics of this goes.

    I heard Hugh Hewitt talk about this on the way home. He can be such a statist. He dismissed the idea out of hand that anyone should be able to raise a right of association objection. Nope, the law says commerce requires public accommodation of protected classes. I fucking wanted to slug him, as even many conservatives see those kinds of laws infringing increasingly on other freedoms, particularly association and speech. Volokh's site has been bitching about that for years.

    I don't like the divisiveness these SJW freak outs is engendering. I favor more tolerance of differing views and lifestyles, not less, but I worry we'll see a backlash if this shit continues.

  • KDN||

    I don't like the divisiveness these SJW freak outs is engendering. I favor more tolerance of differing views and lifestyles, not less, but I worry we'll see a backlash if this shit continues.

    That's where I'm at as well. Since cultural liberalism has been ascendant over the past decade or so, so much of the SJW freakout, crushing dissent wherever they find it, speaks to them being really poor winners.

    Thankfully it's being done nonviolently, but that kind of ruthlessness engenders a harsher response when the shoe is on the other foot.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Unless they're buying those pizzas for a wedding, in which case they won't serve them.

    That's some Tony-level idiocy, right there.

  • ||

    Unless they're buying those pizzas for a wedding, in which case they won't serve them.

    No. Catering is not the same as a carryout order. Neither is delivery.

  • BuSab Agent||

    THIS. I have catered events, and there's no way to do it without being heavily involved in the planning of said event. You can't just drop the food on the door step and run.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You can't just drop the food on the door step and run.

    Well, you could, but I suppose the customer wouldn't be pleased with your service.

  • ||

    Well, with pizza (and other traditional delivery food) you can and do. There's "catering" (six foot subs, stack of pizzas) and then there's actual catering.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a good point.

  • Pro Libertate||

    True, but since this was apparently hypothetical to begin with, I would assume she meant more than someone buying fifty pizzas. Or not. She's a little out there to have said what she said, even if she believes it all the way down. Not like the noise hasn't been heard in Indiana.

  • JPyrate||

    ^ Thank you. I glad there are some people out there who understand the food service industry.

  • Paulpemb||

    If they come in and buy a large number of carry out pizzas, I imagine the owners would neither ask nor care what they planned to do with them. That's not what 'catering' means.

  • ||

    But if they order them to be delivered to the First Gay Congregational Church they might have a clue. And yes, there are such places.

  • GILMORE||

    The strongest arguments are always the ones that rely on desperately strained hypotheticals.

  • SimonD||

    No. How would the owners know that pizzas would be eaten at a wedding? They were (hypothetically) refusing to actively participate by being there and personally serving the food at the event itself.

  • soflarider||

    "But they'll serve gays who come in to buy pizza.
    Unless they're buying those pizzas for a wedding, in which case they won't serve them."

    I think you missed the word "catering".
    Catering infers that the product is being provided at a remote site.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They should be free to refuse service to gays.

    My complaint is they want to have it both ways, refuse service to gays (even if only in certain circumstance) and yet pretend they're not refusing service.

  • GILMORE||

    "My complaint is they want to have it both ways, refuse service to gays (even if only in certain circumstance) and yet pretend they're not refusing service.'

    because selling someone a pizza is exactly the same as participating in a religious ceremony

  • ||

    Not agreeing with Stormy here, but selling a pizza for a wedding isn't the same as participating in a religious ceremony either. The whole thing is stupid though. There is not way anybody gay or straight is getting their wedding catered by this place.

  • GILMORE||

    " selling a pizza for a wedding isn't the same as participating in a religious ceremony"

    Sarcasm was implicit

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, it just occurred to me that maybe this was a misguided attempt to launch a wedding-pizza catering business.

  • GILMORE||

    GENIUS

  • Pro Libertate||

    But it's never been done!

  • Invisible Finger||

    There's a White Castle in Chicago that closes its dining room on Valentine's Day unless you make a reservation. I don't know why, but it is true.

    So I'm sure there's been wedding pizza catering.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, sure, I imagine it's happened before, but never on a systematic scale that enrichenfies me personally. Libertate's Wedding Pizza. Like wedding cakes, only pizza. A new American tradition. Holy fuck am I going to be rich.

  • BuSab Agent||

    No you're not Pro. If for some mad reason, the wedding party wanted pizza, they'd follow the exact same procedure as when they run out of beer. The best man would be handed a big wad of cash to retrieve the pizza.

  • Pro Libertate||

    But not wedding pizza. You have no vision, man! I expect more from an agent of the bureau.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I'm having a vision of a four-tiered pizza with plastic Super Mario and Luigi figurines on top.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is great. I'm going to have a statue/space elevator of myself built with the billions I'm going to make.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, Jesus, the cunning plans keep flowing into my brain. Now that these people have popularized the concept of pizzas at weddings, I will specifically market to gays, SJWs, and hipsters to get the business going. Because they'll want to have wedding pizza ironically.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You have to specifically stress that you do cater gay pizza weddings, and then capitalize on that to guilt people into patronizing you in solidarity:

    "Have you considered hiring us for a gay pizza weddidng?"

    "No, why would I want pizza at my wedding?"

    "Oh I see, you'd rather have Memories Pizza cater your wedding, just to stick it to gay couples. You homophobes make me sick!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Thank you, I'm using that.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I will specifically market to gays, SJWs, and hipsters to get the business going.

    What about real lowlifes like elected officials and cops?

  • Sudden||

    So I'm sure there's been wedding pizza catering.

    But probably not for the gheyz

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You just need to come up with a fancier term for the pizza to trick the women planing the wedding. Like "artisan savory pastries Neapolitan" or something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Pâte Neapolitan du Fromage.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Perfect.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    selling a pizza for a wedding isn't the same as participating in a religious ceremony either.

    Well, to cater it, you are at least involved at the periphery. You may witness some gayness that you might not want to see. I don't understand how the morality of public accommodation law itself isn't being called into question? What else will you force me to watch? Must I cater a Westboro demonstration? A porno shoot? A Klan meeting? A Congressional caucus?

    It's like no one will ask the obvious question.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    It's like no one will ask the obvious question.

    You can ask it all you want, the answer is still FYTW.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    My point being, this is what happens when you sacrifice principles. Public accommodation laws are wrong at their heart, and what we are seeing here is that logical "fallacy" known as the slippery slope coming to its logical conclusion.

    If we all agree it's right for race, color, creed, national origin, sex...it's also right for homosexuals, trannys, devil worshipers, klansmen, Illinois Nazis, pedophiles and even cops.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Worst part of being the pizza guy at the porno shoot is they NEVER have the money.

  • SIV||

    I'd be willing to bet someone has. Poor/working class couple with no family capable of hosting the wedding. Small ceremony or hitched down at the courthouse followed by a reception featuring a keg, a volunteer or really cheap DJ and Memories Pizza.

  • ThomasD||

    How about two slightly different scenarios?

    1. Dude walks in off the street and orders 30 pies.

    2. Same dude walks in and asks you to cater his NAMBLA conference.

    Can you refuse either?

    What justifications are acceptable?

    Would religious concerns be invalid, but economic concerns over the negative association/publicity be ok?

  • ||

    Way to pretend there isn't a valid point, Gilly. Fail.

  • Sudden||

    Did you refer to Gilmore as Gilly? I am now going to forever picture Gilmore milking a baby with his teats while walking around with good ole fat Sam Tarly. Thanks Tonio

  • ||

    I do what I can to make this a better, funner place, Sudden. Thanks.

  • F. Stupidity, Jr.||

    I do what I can to make this a better, funner place, Sudden.

    Nothing's more fun than throwing around accusations of homophobia at the slightest provocation.

  • GILMORE||

    "Tonio|2015/04/02 19:31:20|#5201617

    Way to pretend there isn't a valid point, Gilly. Fail"

    No, there wasn't.

    There is a clear distinction between operating a place of business and treating every customer who walks through the door exactly the same....

    ...and insisting that same business *must* make itself available to cater religious ceremonies which happen to conflict with their own.

    People who want to pretend that there's some grey area claim =

    "a customer who walked through the door *in theory* could be buying them for some otherwise-objectionable religious ceremony....*therefore, Hypocrisy!!!*

    But that's bullshit, because it requires nothing additional of the vendor. Which is the same distinction the business owner themselves made.

    Hope that helps

  • ||

    You're being purposely retarded. They are not saying they wouldn't serve gay people in every circumstance.

    They are saying there is a class of very specific narrow circumstances in which they wouldn't serve gay people.

    You, like a moron, are trying to shorten "won't serve gay people in specific circumstances" to "won't serve gay people."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And you're trying to shorten "will serve gay people in specific circumstances" to "will serve gay people".

  • Pro Libertate||

    But who is saying that? They won't do one thing, which, by the way, is absurdly hypothetical, but they will generally serve gay people. I mean, even if they did cater weddings with pizza, which is a fucking brilliant idea, that would be a much smaller business than what they do in their restaurant.

  • ||

    "Will serve gay people in every instance but this specific case" is a lot closer to "will serve gay people", than "won't serve gay people".

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "will serve gay people" remains an untrue statement. They're engaged an double think trying to simultaneously discriminate while claiming they never discriminate.

    And it's disturbing how many of the poeple who ought to know better are stepping up to defend it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Will serve some gay people?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'd be fine with "will serve most gay people" or "will serve almost all gay people". Again, what irritates me is the cognitive dissonace of the "oh we don't X, we just X" construction I keep seeing.

  • paranoid android||

    I'd be fine with "will serve most gay people" or "will serve almost all gay people". Again, what irritates me is the cognitive dissonace of the "oh we don't X, we just X" construction I keep seeing.

    They also (I would imagine) don't serve straight people who have no money or ask for things that aren't on the menu, does that mean they don't serve straight people either?

  • Antilles||

    Straight people don't have a right to pizza, you bigot!

  • Sudden||

    I'd be fine with "will serve most gay people" or "will serve almost all gay people".

    But that would be entirely inaccurate. Based on their statement, they will serve any gay person as a customer in their restaurant. What they won't do is cater is a wedding between two gays, even if the entire crowd is cishetero and the gays plan on eating caviar while their hetero guests dine on pizza. But those very same gays could come into the joint the following week wearing their wedding rings and could get a pie of their choice no questions asked.

  • MJGreen||

    They also won't serve straight people at a gay wedding, either.

    I assume they also won't serve gays who are living in Chicago, or gays who want pizza at 4 AM. THE HYPOCRITES!

  • Antilles||

    Why is discrimination so bad? Don't you discriminate when you choose someone to date? When buying a car? Telling someone they have 'discriminating' tastes is a high compliment. Why shouldn't private citizens (NOT the government) have the right to discriminate against ANYONE they want for ANY reason? You don't surrender that right just because you start a business.

  • ||

    Congratulations Stormy. You have apparently completed Bo's correspondence course in pedantry.

  • Private FUQ||

    Why people keep engaging with Stormy baffles me. He is a concern troll. Every once in awhile the mask slips and he shows his progressive colors. His Bo pedantry lately is just hilarious.

  • GILMORE||

    This is the worst philosophy class i've ever been in.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, we can do much worse than this. Much worse.

  • GILMORE||

  • ||

    My complaint is they want to have it both ways, refuse service to gays (even if only in certain circumstance) and yet pretend they're not refusing service.

    ^This. And they are still within their rights to do so (pay attention to this, Irish, there will be a quiz later). But everyone else is also within their rights to call them on this (Irish, do pay attention here).

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    You're the whiniest person I've ever met in my life. Also, Stormy's argument is patently absurd, so the fact you agree with it pretty much proves I was right about you.

    Saying 'I believe gay marriage is wrong so I won't participate IN THE ACTUAL RELIGIOUS CEREMONY' is not the same thing as discriminating against gay people who just want to buy pizza. In order to cater a wedding, you actually have to be seriously involved in the wedding, so if you believe the wedding is immoral for whatever reason (it's gay people, it's a polygamous wedding, whatever) it's reasonable for you not to want to be involved.

    This is vastly different than selling pizza day to day out of a shop, there is no way anyone can claim otherwise, and the fact that you and Stormy are making an easily and quickly refuted argument like this is hilarious.

    Also, you really need to stop whinging about something I said to you two or three days ago. Let it go - it's an internet forum, and your obsession is unhealthy.

  • ||

    Irish. I came to a realization a few months ago. Everybody gets one subject to be completely fucking irrational about. For some people it's their religion, or lack their of. For some people it's family. For me it's football. I think we found Tonio's. But I've found that when you find that one thing for a person, it's pretty much pointless to argue it with them.

  • ||

    you really need

    Irish, when you define your audience's needs, you've already lost.

  • ||

    And again let me highlight the clear difference. You attributed to me words I did not say, views I do not hold....When called upon that, repeatedly and clearly, you ignored that. This is what that is about, Irish.

  • Paulpemb||

    And as long as calling them on this is limited to 'I think you are a horrible person, and I will never eat your crappy pizza again! And I'm telling everyone I know to do the same!' then that's fine.

    But when you cross the line into making death threats, threatening to burn down their place of business, spamming them with fake orders or hacking their website then that goes beyond legitimate disagreement (all of which have happened to the business in this case).

    And then after all of this when they feel they need to close their business out of fear for their lives to cackle "LOL, the free market worked, you guys should be happy!' is just repulsive.

  • ||

    Paulemb: First paragraph - yes, totally. Second paragraph - yes, totally. Third paragraph - that's a mischaracterization. Don't be that person. Also, they were very well compensated by gofundme for taking that stance. Don't forget that. And don't forget that they can, as others here have said without being challenged, change the name and reopen in a couple of weeks and everyone will have moved on.

  • GILMORE||

    "they were very well compensated by gofundme for taking that stance"

    That's like saying that burning someone's church to the ground is 'less of an offense' if there happened to be an insurance payout after the fact.

    and re: mischaracterizations.... go read some of those Yelp comments.

  • Paulpemb||

    Tonio: I haven't seen you personally make any comments along the lines of what I describe in my third paragraph, but the sentiment is definitely out there. And I'm not seeing much backlash against the people who perpetrate it.

    As far as the GoFundMe goes, it's a credit that thousands of people have offered their money to help these people, who are very much victims in this whole mess. But they could have hardly expected that to happen when they answered the reporters question.

    As far as reopening under a new name goes, maybe they can and maybe they can't. People have had their lives and careers ruined by internet rage mobs like this. And is that even relevant? "Sure, you've had your names and reputations dragged through the mud. Sure, you've been made to fear for your lives. But here's a big chunk of cash from other hateful haters just like you, and if you just keep your heads down and your mouths shut maybe we won't come after you again."

  • ||

    All freedoms are dead, ProLib. We're just drinking at the wake. And I intend to be here til they close the tab.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This fucking sucks. Why can't I live in Libertopia?

  • ||

    Nobody can LIVE in Libertopia because the second it started to exist somebody would bomb the shit out of it.

  • Loki||

    There's a simple solution to this whole cunundrum: refuse to cater ANY event. Cite costs or other business reasons. Just don't dare admit that it's because you don't want to cater gay weddings or you'll have the SJW horde on your ass.

    And yes, freedom association is dead.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's why we need robots to do everything. Let them associate or not. We're fucked.

  • Win Bear||

    You know, the fact that this is a debate is totally sickening. Who the fuck cares? Is freedom of association that dead?

    Actually, along with the freedom not to cater at gay weddings is the freedom of large numbers of Americans to say nasty things about them. In fact, the whole point of freedom of speech and freedom of association is that it isn't government who determines what's right and what's wrong, but the people themselves.

    I think this pizza restaurant's fear of death threats is as overblown as Anita Sarkeesian's. However, picketing, protesting, and bad Yelp reviews are certainly OK, even if they force the restaurant to close.

  • From the Tundra||

    U mad?

  • GILMORE||

    "Please stop insulting our intelligence"

    There's clearly no difference between participating in a religious ceremony and selling someone a slice of pizza.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If I were the pope, pizza would replace wafers for communion.

  • GILMORE||

    Catholicism is delicious.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I figure pizza goes better with red wine, anyway. I mean, who knows, maybe the Last Supper was pizza.

  • ThomasD||

    So long as it was meatless.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Clearly you don't see a distinction, but they do. As is often the case in religious issues, weird rules get invented to split hairs. It makes sense to me, though. They see a wedding as the sanctification of a relationship, and while they can tolerate the relationship itself, to sanctify it is not simply to avoid judging its sinfulness, but to actively deny it, which would essentially amount to calling their own religion bullshit.

    And yes, clearly the wedding-havers may not see it as a sanctification in any spiritual sense (though honestly, the fact that a couple is having a "wedding" instead of a "party" pretty much implies a certain amount of ritual and solemnity amounting to religion-lite), but they aren't ones being compelled to act against their conscience.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Advertise on our news program or the pizza parlor gets it.

  • GILMORE||

    "Memories Pizza was forced to close because of death threats the business received in response to its owners' statements regarding RFRA and service to gay customers (they said they would serve anyone but could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding). And that's a terrible thing,"

    SAY IT AINT SO??!

    a short trip down memory lane...

    "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"

    (Never mind said, Robby-sanctioned "combat" has absolutely nothing to do with 'Gay Equality', and everything to do with hurting individual people that made the horrible error of sharing an unpopular opinion with a Journalist)

  • ||

    He's just defending their right to those actions without agreeing with them. Just like he is with the pizza place. What's the issue?

  • GILMORE||

    Perhaps i misread his "terrible thing" as bemoaning the fact that the place had to close shop.

    I guess he meant their failure to cater gay weddings was the 'terrible thing'?

    Your explanation also doesn't square with robby's own new view =

    "The people who made those threats are at fault, but so are the journalists who erroneously reported on this story"

    Which is it? Were the critics and the journalist 'in the wrong' for the damage they caused? Or is everyone perfectly in their right to shout down any opposing view until their very livelihoods are destroyed?

  • ||

    I think he is saying the death threats crossed the line that he drew in his first article: " supporters of gay equality can do anything they want (short of violence) to combat the views of the O'Connors""

    And its very clear that the terrible thing he's referring to is the death threats and closing because of them.

  • ||

    I think we are talking past each other, actually.

  • GILMORE||

    You think so?

    Answer the question =

    "'Were the critics and the journalist 'in the wrong' for the damage they caused? Or is everyone perfectly in their right to shout down any opposing view until their very livelihoods are destroyed?""

  • Pro Libertate||

    Boycotts are kind of the reverse of the issue at hand. We can choose not to associate with businesses that offend us. So why can't the reverse occur, too?

    Of course, having the freedom to do something doesn't make that something morally or ethically right, not by itself.

  • GILMORE||

    If that was an attempt to answer the question, i'm going to have to call it "incomplete"

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wasn't trying to answer your question. But I will now: What they did was wrong, but they were legally free to act as asses.

  • GILMORE||

    "What they did was wrong, but they were legally free to act as asses.'

    Both you and the other dude have a pronoun problem.

    "They" being the Pizza place, or the SJW terror-mob?

  • ||

    Were clearly both talking about the mob here because that's the fucking question you asked.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, I thought it was obvious--the SJW terror mob. I'm not that offended by the pizza people--I mean, everyone has shit they don't like. My new wedding pizza business might refuse to do business with government officials, for instance.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Certainly no pizzas for cop weddings right?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, they can have pizzas. If they pay fifty times as much as other people. I intend to employ punitive pricing.

  • Invisible Finger||

    They hate us for our freedoms.

  • ||

    They have the right to, short of the death threats (death threats I guess are a little grey legally, I guess it depends on whether a reasonable person would take them seriously or not).

    But I'd say they are in the wrong.

    So defend their right to do it without agreeing with them. Just like I already said.

  • GILMORE||

    Whose "right" to do what?

    A) The business owner's right to do business however they want?
    B) Or the "right" of the mob to terrorize them out of business?

    please be specific. A or B.

    I didn't ask who you 'agreed' with or not.

  • ||

    You're being purposefully dense. The assholes who are boycotting and criticizing the business have the right to do it short of the death threats. But they are still assholes.

    The business owners have a right to do business however they want even if they are assholes.

    In this case the critics are clearly the bigger assholes.

    WTF is hard to understand about this? You can't defend the freedom of association and speech of the pizzeria without defending the same for their critics.

  • GILMORE||

    "You're being purposefully dense"

    No - both you and others are being mealy-mouthed and evasive, and qualifying everything with what you "feel" is "right or wrong"...and then distinguishing that from what is "actually right or wrong"....which is apparently a completely different thing.

    As noted yesterday - you had an almost identical problem, which had me point out =

    "GILMORE|2015/04/01 15:23:08|#5197096

    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."

    The short of it as far as i'm concerned, is that the business owner had every right to share their opinion and had caused zero harm to anyone. even their statement of 'potential discrimination' was a completely-legal hypothetical.

    By contrast, the moralistic witch-hunters used their force of numbers to devastate this businesses reputation and destroy their ability to operate. For no other reason than to satisfy their own egos.

    I don't think there's any qualifying "grey area" here at all that's even relevant.

    You and others seem to suggest otherwise, but are unable to articulate exactly what it is without devolving into mush words.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Are you suggesting legal culpability for the boycott and shouting? Leaving aside the death-threats for the moment, which is more likely actionable.

    As far as right and wrong go, like I said above, the SJW freaks are entirely wrong.

  • SimonD||

    ""Are you suggesting legal culpability for the boycott and shouting? Leaving aside the death-threats for the moment, which is more likely actionable.""

    A good lawyer could probably make a case for libel and defamation if there were untrue statements.

  • ||

    So the mob here doesn't have a right to criticize the business and boycott it? I think you are the one finding "grey areas" in freedom of speech and association?

    The only thing I referred to as a grey area is the legality of death threats. Which they absolutely are a grey area. Some death threats are constitutionally protected speech while some aren't. I don't know enough about the ones in this case to know one way or the other.

  • GILMORE||

    "So the mob here doesn't have a right to criticize the business and boycott it?"

    as i noted yesterday= I'm not sure you can call it a "boycott" when people on the other side of the country are "protesting" a pizza place they're 1000 miles away from.

    Do they have the "right" to twitter and yelp and piss and moan? sure.

    when that twitter and yelping and pissing and moaning causes material harm to someone? I think you're getting into "someone should get their ass sued" territory.

    I'm just a little iffy on why people seem quite so quick to describe "Flashmob vengeance" as being kosher with the NAP

  • See Double You||

    I'm just a little iffy on why people seem quite so quick to describe "Flashmob vengeance" as being kosher with the NAP

    Better to err on a liberal interpretation of free speech. The alternative seems too slippery-slopey.

  • GILMORE||

    "Better to err on a liberal interpretation of free speech."

    Certainly.

    But as Robby (to his credit) noted - Yelp doesn't necessarily have to play along. And i'm not sure the characterization of a business as "Anti-Gay" (by original journalist, as well as the heaps of pile-ons that followed) should be entirely exempt from potential libel-claims either.

    there's no doubt that harm has been caused. Is it any less a violation of the NAP just because its done by a mob of people individually 'exercising their rights'?

  • ||

    Well you are certainly correct that they don't have a right to post on Yelp but that is entirely between Yelp and them.

    And i'm not sure the characterization of a business as "Anti-Gay" (by original journalist, as well as the heaps of pile-ons that followed) should be entirely exempt from potential libel-claims either.

    Calling someone anti-gay is an opinion. It cannot be libel. We don't want to go down that road like our idiot cousins across the pond.

  • GILMORE||

    "Calling someone anti-gay is an opinion. It cannot be libel."

    That's the sort of thing i'd expect from a nigger-lover

  • Paulpemb||

    Saying 'Memories Pizza is anti-gay' is an opinion. Saying 'The owners of Memories Pizza say they will refuse to serve gays' is not. It can be demonstrably true or false.

  • ||

    Better to err on a liberal interpretation of free speech. The alternative seems too slippery-slopey.

    I half agree. If someone is motivated enough against my belief system to do violence, a formal declaration of intentions is always appreciated and they are free to announce away right up to the point their fist hits my nose. As long as they're aware of the reciprocity their declaration invokes.

    My only reservation is with regard to the specific context and mob aspects of the situation. Even if I defend your right to yell fire in a crowded restaurant, IDK that I'm required to support it every few minutes for several days on end. At some point it does become harassment and between "mob" and "death threats" it is certainly certainly biased in that direction, IMO.

  • ||

    Certainly if one individual continually and repeatedly harassed them but with a mob, each individual person may only do something once. None of them individually has harassed you every few minutes for several days. They each individually cannot be held responsible for all the other individuals.

  • ||

    when that twitter and yelping and pissing and moaning causes material harm to someone? I think you're getting into "someone should get their ass sued" territory.

    Under what cause of action?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, I think it's morally wrong, certainly. Like with most other things, a disproportionate response is usually uncalled for.

    But should we use the force of government to stop nonviolent boycotts? Isn't that dangerous, since that would put the government in the role of arbiter of what is and isn't a "legal" boycott?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But should we use the force of government to stop nonviolent boycotts?

    I don't agree with the characterization of this as a "boycott", much less "nonviolent". As Gilmore pointed out, most of the people have not, nor will they ever, patronize this place due to how far away they are. This is more like those decrepit, hobo-beareded imans yowling "Behead those who insult Islam!" and then sitting back until someone takes them up on that "suggestion".

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, that's what complicates this situation, is the calls for violence. But most boycotts don't seem to have that element. They could be shrill and unfair, too. My question is, do we use government force to compel them to stop?

  • GILMORE||

    "My question is, do we use government force to compel them to stop?"

    no, and I don't think it would be possible anyway.

  • GILMORE||

    "But should we use the force of government to stop nonviolent boycotts? Isn't that dangerous, since that would put the government in the role of arbiter of what is and isn't a "legal" boycott?"

    i think 'boycott' is a meaningless and inappropriate term here. I think you'd have to first show capacity to be a potential customer before you could claim you were "boycotting" something.

    I believe courts showed "cross burning" to be protected speech, so long as its not on a person's private property. where does it go over the line, digitally? depends. who knows.

    i'm not a fan of libel laws either, but i think when a journalist goes out of a way to sucker someone like this, and then it turns into a national !*@&!@#$ freak-out, there may be some reason to appeal to something like that.

  • ||

    i'm not a fan of libel laws either, but i think when a journalist goes out of a way to sucker someone like this, and then it turns into a national !*@&!@#$ freak-out, there may be some reason to appeal to something like that.

    If the reporter lied about what they said that would be the case but they didn't. Having an opinion on a factually true statement isn't libel.

    The death threats are the only legitimate path here and it would still be a high burden to cross. If they reasonably felt that there were in legitimate danger they would certainly have a case. The problem is that hyperbole for example is protected, and the fact that these people are 1000s of miles away as you said cuts against the legitimate danger argument.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm starting to think the only sensible course of action at this point is to Nuke Indiana From Space

    its the only way to be sure. hopefully we'll get them all, and there will be no further talk of this "Gay Pizza"

  • SimonD||

    To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that it wasn't a mass freak-out; but a deliberately co-ordinated planned attack.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It comes down to this, I think. As a general rule, harmful speech is illegal, provided that it doesn't involve defamation, incitements to violence, fraud, and similar kinds of harm. Most of those are fairly definable and subject to the judicial process. Would this be? When is a freak out like this right, and when is it wrong? We don't like it, but obviously others do. I don't even know how you'd begin to make this a civil wrong, let alone a crime. Hysteria with intent to harm?

  • GILMORE||

    "I don't even know how you'd begin to make this a civil wrong, let alone a crime. Hysteria with intent to harm?"

    dude, "hysteria" is implicitly misogynist. (and i suppose "Freak-Out" is ableist...ugh!)

    but this issue of 'flash-mob-ostracism can and does cause material damage' is sort of what i was getting at.

    as an increasing amount of life goes 'online', people can be materially harmed by these sorts of 'mass shaming' campaigns. I'm not sure this example necessarily provides the perfect case-study, but the fact that it was so unbelievably fast and devastating (and in my mind, misguided) is at least useful to illustrate the idea.

    i don't know what it leads to. but i still think the cross-burning example is relevant. not all "protected speech engaged collectively" is benign by definition.

  • ||

    Just remember that granting the government this power, whether criminally or enforcing civil penalties, can and will be turned against you. If you think this mob is bad, imagine if they can sue you for libel because you called them freedom haters, which totally isn't true!. Imagine if one of those prog pussies can sue you for lost profits because you called them a cunt, which "triggered" them, "forcing" them to have a lay down and close up their feminist vegan bakery for a week to recover.

    Should all gamersgate people who made death threats be tracked down and rounded up (and yes I know they were a small part of the movement), when clearly they were never going to follow through? Should gawker be compensated for the lost advertising revenue when sponsors pulled out due to the gamersgate backlash?

    They can and will use that power if it is available to them.

  • GILMORE||

    "Just remember that granting the government this power...."

    Speaking of 'reading comprehension'?...

    "'GILMORE|2015/04/02 21:02:07|#5201888

    "My question is, do we use government force to compel them to stop?"

    no, and I don't think it would be possible anyway."

    you're off on something of your own creation again

  • ||

    I'm not blind, you've stated repeatedly that you think that this is in libel territory, but if you've changed your mind then I withdraw what I said.

  • GILMORE||

    "you've stated repeatedly that you think that this is in libel territory'

    No, only that material harm has most definitely been caused. Libel "territory" was the specific comment.... but how (if at all) it would be actually be treated by the law, i don't know.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Perhaps a private solution? ASJW strike force, wreaking legally sound revenge upon hatecotters?

  • GILMORE||

    "Perhaps a private solution? ASJW strike force, wreaking legally sound revenge upon hatecotters?"

    THE WELCOME BACK-COTTERS

    Actually, yeah, that's sort of what i had in mind. Hopefully with capes, and masks.

    I think things like 'gamergate', where these culture-wars turn into full-on Twitterbloodbaths where real lives are actually smooshed in the process? Will happen more often in the future. And they will get bloodier before they find any homeostasis* point. (no pun) I'm just thinking that it will become a real issue in the near future.

    they've already come within a hair of passing "bullying" laws online.... i can imagine that something worse might emerge if there's not some kind of mitigating 'economy' which makes these mob-attacks 'costly' or not worth engaging in.

  • Pro Libertate||

    In all seriousness, given the way things are today, the solution probably is a vocal reaction against these morons. Calling them out, attacking their methods, dishonesty, and destructiveness. Most people hate a bully, anyway.

  • GILMORE||

    "Most people hate a bully, anyway.'

    not sure about that at all.

    I think the propensity for people to gang up and destroy smaller targets is actually pretty high

    and freidersdorf i think nailed it in his piece =

    "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."

  • ||

    Well harm has been caused in a moral sense but not a legal sense. In the end, this pizzeria doesn't have a right to profits, just the right to be free to attempt to earn them. Any argument that they are owed damages could be equally applied in the gawker example I gave. (I just googled and it was gamasutra that intel pulled ads from not gawker so that's what I meant). Gamasutra certainly suffered harm when intel pulled their ads, but did they have a right to that ad money in the first place?

    Ultimately, they didn't have to close their business down, even if their decision to do so is completely understandable. Unless that is the death threats were credible, then by all means sue those fucks.

  • ||

    Also I went back and checked. I didn't use the word "feel" a single time. And there is a difference between the use of the word "right" when talking about rights, as in have a right to do something versus "right" as in it was right of them to do something.

    So the pizza place has a right to not cater gay wedding but they aren't right to do so. The mob here has a right to criticize and encourage a boycott of the pizza place but they aren't right to do so.

    Reading comprehension!

  • GILMORE||

    ""the pizza place has a right to not cater gay wedding but they aren't right to do so.""

    I told you yesterday = i'm not interested in your "2 definitions of 1 word in the same sentence"

    Whether or not you agree with someone's choice is immaterial to whether they have the right or not.

  • ||

    You're the only one here saying people don't have a right to do something because you disagree with it.

  • GILMORE||

    oh yeah!?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    They received another 20k in the last hour:

    http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

  • Drake||

    I'll give them $30 for a couple of pies.

  • Invisible Finger||

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    That gofundme fundraiser is absolutely hilarious. As of this moment, $267,000. In less than 24 hours. That is one giant FUCK YOU.

  • ||

    For now, ASM, for now. As pointed out earlier the number of people hoping for a free ride off fat socon cash will continue to grow, and the resources of socons will soon be tapped out. In six months the cash value of "standing up to the homos" will probably be $100, one year from now it will be $5.

  • ||

    In six months the cash value of "standing up to the homos" will probably be $100, one year from now it will be $5.

    Before you know it, people will be "standing up to homos" for free without any profit motivation whatsoever.

    Almost like they'd do it based on some vague notion of principles or something.

  • SIV||

    Tell that to Chick-fil-A

  • Almanian!||

    I am so tired of all of this, and where it is heading, as was predicted by many.

    Ohhhh, no - it's not about forcing anyone to do anything, just about equal rights, blah blah blah. Yeah - bull fucking SHIT. It's always about control and inflicting pain and making others support whatever.

    Well - I was fine with "tolerate" - I am not fine with "support" any number of things.

    I'm just about off teh gai bandwagon after supporting efforts re: gay marriage, because THIS is what's happening now - fucking up people's lives who don't exhibit GoodThink.

    Fuck the purveyors of that line of thinking - let them eat cake. Baked by someone besides me.

  • Antilles||

    I felt this same way after seeing the temper tantrums and vengeance inflicted by gay activists in the days after the passage of California's Proposition 8 (which I voted against, btw). I've always been a big supporter of gay rights. But these days, not so much...

  • Winston||

    It's always about control and inflicting pain and making others support whatever.

    Where else has an anti-discrimination crusade turned into that? I have no idea...

  • Invisible Finger||

    Let them eat cock.

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    Where you went off the rails was letting yourself be convinced that tolerance is some sort of virtue.

    "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions"
    - G.K. Chesterton

  • Zeb||

    It's better to be intolerant? Are you saying that it was right for these unpleasant people to harass these people until they had to close their business?
    I suppose no one should be expected to tolerate something they see as a positive evil. But otherwise I think people have better things to do than go around not tolerating things.

  • Win Bear||

    Are you saying that it was right for these unpleasant people to harass these people until they had to close their business?

    "Harass"? I don't know; that covers a lot of legal territory.

    Is it OK to picket, insult, protest, and denounce a business that you don't like? Of course it is. That's what freedom of speech means.

    I suppose no one should be expected to tolerate something they see as a positive evil. But otherwise I think people have better things to do than go around not tolerating things.

    Most businesses and professionals know better than to make controversial statements in public. But if you use your business to make a religious or ideological statement, you shouldn't be surprised if you suffer negative consequences. Most of the time, people will still not react because they have better things to do, but sometimes it blows up.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

  • BuSab Agent||

    Nice.

  • GILMORE||

    "A society of emasculated liars is easy to control"

    Upworthy is totally the best website ever.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "Small business owner receives death threats. Here's why that's not a problem."

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's disturbing.

  • John Galt||

    Think about Obama's most successful actions against those who dared to oppose him. Actions such as public shaming of the SCOTUS before much of the nation during his SOTU. The use of humiliation is still of favorite tool of socialist dictatorial types.

  • ||

    I'm just about off teh gai bandwagon after supporting efforts re: gay marriage, because THIS is what's happening now - fucking up people's lives who don't exhibit GoodThink.

    That's disappointing, Almanian! As in, I'm personally disappointed in you for that. The worst actors get the most press (controversy selling as it does). Please remember me and those like me who may not like the implications of freedom of association, but adhere to that because of principle. When you fall off the principle wagon, you're no better than the SJWs.

  • Aloysious||

    Facts don't matter, Robby. The hysterics are running amok.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I guess this is where most of my fellow atheists just don't get Christians.

    "Why didn't she lie or not answer?"

    It's a religion that celebrates* people who'd rather be tormented and killed in horrible ways then pretend to treat Caesar as god for five minutes. You really want to re-awaken that school of thought?

    (* or at least Catholic and Orthodox parts do, I've no idea if Protestant-ish denominations give a damn about martyrs and saints by and large)

  • Winston||

    "Why didn't she lie or not answer?"

    *Insert references to Closeting and how non-Anglicans where treated in England between the Reformation and 1830 or so...*

  • ||

    Yes. People who are seriously religious are serious about honestly. Lying is a sin. ESPECIALLY lying about your faith. Plus the martyr complex, yes.

  • ||

    I've no idea if Protestant-ish denominations give a damn about martyrs and saints by and large

    Protestants more so, IMO. Catholicism and Orthodoxy is rife with empty purity tests, mindless recitation and blind worship, which is a big part of why the Protestants got out. They don't necessarily give a damn about any given martyr or saint by name (other than J.C.), but they are even more venomous about forced violation of belief structures because they intrinsically see those belief structures as belonging to the individual.

    Forcing one person to swear allegiance against their beliefs is one sin. Forcing 10 or 10,000 more resembled 10 or 10,000 sins rather than just one big one or just a bad policy.

  • ||

    Hence the large number of protestants who burned at the stake during the reformation for refusing to recant their heresy.

  • ThomasD||

    I guess it depends on what you consider within the bounds of Christianity. Does Christ like behavior even qualify anymore?

    Because as far as I can tell there is still a strong recognition of the need, and call to bear witness to one's faith, especially among Protestants and many sorts of evangelicals.

    And then there is the story of Peter, denying Christ the night before his execution - something that required forgiveness for Jesus.

    So, speaking generally (lest we piss off the exceptions to the rule) I think it fair to say Christians are rather big on providing full and honest answers when questioned about their faith.

  • ThomasD||

    forgiveness from Jesus.

  • PapayaSF||

    OK, I'm off to Indiana with a truckful of "Straights Only" signs. I'll make millions, I tell you! Millions!

  • GILMORE||

    You'll make a killing in selling every customer the follow up sign, "TO SUE ME, CALL 555-345-5455"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They'll be able to re-open in a couple of weeks. The attention span of SJW is short. There's always a shiny new injustice to herd toward.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I hope so, I need to try this pizza, it must be really good.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Say, what kind of pizza do they serve? Chicago-style? I'm surprised no one has plumbed this depth yet.

  • See Double You||

    It's quite amusing when those on the left engage in the "but-you're-just-a-business-so-act-like-one" arguments when it comes to customer discrimination. For so long I thought they demanded that businesses stop acting so "businessy" and appeal to a more "human side" of things.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Yes, well, to explain, the difference is that...

    hey, a pastor in the rural South just said he believes in God! Let's go over there and mock him!

  • ||

    Yes, because mockery is exactly the same thing as death threats. Ah, Eddie, you never fail to amuse with your japery.

  • ||

    They're just mad when businesses exhibit a moral conscience .. .that isn't theirs.

  • ||

    For so long I thought they demanded that businesses stop acting so "businessy" and appeal to a more "human side" of things.

    ^This. But your mistake was assuming that SJWs operate on principle

  • SimonD||

    The left's ONLY rule is "I win". Or as another on the board puts it, 'principals, not principles'. There are no absolute standards. Their only value is the attainment of political power. It's their entire reason for being.

  • Winston||

    Here's Lenin on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association back in 1905:

    Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes, without any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including the party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the party to advocate anti-party views. Freedom of speech and the press must be complete. But then freedom of association must be complete too. I am bound to accord you, in the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to your heart’s content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw from, association with people advocating this or that view. The party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-party views.

  • See Double You||

    Lenin and his ilk were deeply evil, to use the popular phrase. I mean, he's justifying the cleansing of those who say things that hurt the Communists by invoking the freedom to dissociate from others? Like dissociation means killing? How very progressive of him.

  • Drake||

    Your are free to associate, or move to the gulag Comrade.

  • See Double You||

    The other day I engaged with some lefty type on Linkedin over RFRA. He said your personal thoughts are your own but your behavior can be circumscribed (he was alluding to the Reynolds case where SCOTUS held that polygamy was not protected by the Free Exercise Clause).

    For some reason, one can't respond to comments on Linkedin. But I would have said something along the lines of, "well, I'm sure all the gulag prisoners felt free and happy knowing they could think certain things."

  • PapayaSF||

    but your behavior can be circumscribed

    Really? Banning anal sex would slow the spread of AIDS, so I guess that would be OK?

  • See Double You||

    "But that's not the behavior to which I was referring!"

  • PapayaSF||

    Just like RFRA laws. "We meant to protect Native Americans using peyote, not Christians!"

  • Robert||

    How did Native Americans want to use Christians?

  • PapayaSF||

    Yuck-yuck.

  • RickC||

    I need to know the Christian sect that smokes weed!

  • SimonD||

    RickC: maybe not Cristian, but...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....as-passed/

  • Zeb||

    Which all seems fine as long as the party is one with beer and lawn darts and not one running a country.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Memories Pizza was forced to close because of death threats the business received in response to its owners' statements regarding RFRA

    The anti- #gamergate saga has taught me these threats makes all of the criticism launched at Memories Pizza completely invalid.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm sure MSNBC will have the Memories Pizza people on to talk about how traumatized they are any minute now.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Here is some good news to take your minds off of all things ghey.

  • Antilles||

    Took him long enough...

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    "America, it is said, is to be suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance, tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and Chaos, Our country is not nearly so over run with the bigoted, as it is over run with the broadminded."
    - Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

  • Antilles||

    Could not disagree with that quote any more. But what do you expect from a 'Bishop?'

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Could not disagree with that quote any more. But what do you expect from a 'Bishop?'

    To be juuuuuust too late before a vicar is killed?

    They did tell him not to baptize the baby...

  • Pro Libertate||

    THE BISHOP!

  • Trouser-Pod||

    +1 F.B. Gromsby-Urquhart-Wright as the Voice of God

  • Pro Libertate||

    C of E Productions.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    "We was too late!"

    Love any mention of The Bishop. Thanks for that oasis of fun in this shit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I prefer Ayn Rand's "Judge and be judged".

  • Sudden||

    But what do you expect from a 'Bishop?'

    Pederasty and a cast of catatonic catamites

  • Zeb||

    Nah. It's bigots all the way down. The pizza people least of all in this case.

  • ||

    That may be true today but it certainly wan't in his lifetime. Plenty of bigotry to go around.

  • MJGreen||

    You're wrong.

    There, happy?

  • Zeb||

    That's sad if their business is done. These people weren't bothering anyone. And as far as I can see never refused to serve anyone for any reason or treated anyone disrespectfully.

    If they had a big sign out front saying "no homos" or something I might forgive people for giving them shit (though threats of violence would still be just awful). But this is just assholery.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'd agree, except that because of their suffering, I have discovered a new business opportunity: High-end wedding pizza.

  • ||

    You'll need to do the wedding pizza in layers. Plain cheese on top, followed by pepperoni,meat lovers, and supreme.

  • ||

    Gay wedding pizza would be all sausage.

  • Zeb||

    Or whatever topping looks most like a vulva.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Artichoke hearts rolled around in whisker shavings?

  • Zeb||

    With an anchovy laid over the top.

  • ||

    You are all heretics.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What, you don't like the idea of wedding pizza? Even Stormy helped me come up with a name.

  • Antilles||

    I hate to lie. But I've learned from experience that if you tell the truth to the police or the government they will use your words to fuck you over. After this situation I'll be extending that same philosophy to reporters and the media.

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    No comment is the best comment

  • Antilles||

    But isn't saying, "No comment" still a comment? Like when books print the words, "This Page is Intentionally Left Blank" on some pages--but then those pages are no longer blank! Madness.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    So, just keep your lips over-dramatically pursed, while flipping them the double-bird? I'm down with that tactic.

  • ||

    RC Dean, is that you?

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    It is not, although I like RC's posts enough to take that as a compliment, whether or not you intended it as one.

    He did have a monocle-based handle for a while, but he adopted it after I did mine. I know because it pissed me off that searching for my own posts became very slightly less convenient.

  • ||

    Thx.

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    My God, you're right.

    *head explodes*

  • ||

    I learned that a long time ago. Never talk to a reporter about anything.

    Also, this is an entirely fake issue drummed up to distract from The Hildebeast's felonious behavior. The proggies have someone even worse than Obumbles they want installed on the throne.
    The Connecticut RFRA law is more broad than the Indiana RFRA law. This entire issue is nothing more than a squirrel.

    The woman conspired to conceal her activity as SofS and destroyed records of such, partly because she took money from foreign governments while on the job and partly because of her breathtaking incompetence and who knows what else.

  • Antilles||

    I hear you. But that story is already dead and buried and no one will remember it in November. And no Republican will dare bring it up for fear of being labeled a dreaded 'sexist.' Hopefully a conservative PAC will remind everyone, but I doubt it.

  • Sudden||

    I really hope they abandon their Hillary love and throw their lot in with Lizzie. My future access to Memories Pizza depends on it

  • ||

    Don't talk shit about teh skwerlz,(may their tails be ever fluffy) Suthen.

  • PapayaSF||

    The first time I saw an in-depth TV news report on something I knew about first-hand, I realized they could be total assholes. It was a 60 Minutes segment 30+ years ago that was so biased I could barely believe it. They went w-a-a-y out of their way to do a hatchet job.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obligatory:

    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
  • PapayaSF||

    Oh yeah.

  • Issue Ninja||

    I don't hate police per se but it's a good idea to keep in mind that the police's job is to arrest people. And if there's no one else handy, they will be looking to arrest you. It's what they do.

  • OldMexican||

    And the O'Connors had every intention of providing regular service to gay people — just not their weddings.


    I have every intention of providing regular service to cannibals - just not their feasts.


    Am I an anti-cannibal bigot for saying this?


    The Huffington Post reported, "Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings," and BuzzFeed ran with, "Indiana Pizzeria Owners Say They'd Deny LGBT People Service."


    Reporter: "Is the lady in the picture hot?"
    College Student: "Yeah, I say she is!"
    Reporter: "Would you want to spend a night with her and have your way with her?"
    College Student: "Oh, boy, would I!"
    Headline: College Student Would Rape Woman In Magazine

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Actual headline: Proof of Rampant Campus Rape Culture

  • OldMexican||

    Too nuanced. I am putting the ABC 57 headline in its proper perspective.

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    I was really confused by how the pizza lady could be considered hot, then I realized you were talking about a hypothetical woman.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    College Student Would Rape Woman In Magazine

    Either the woman is very small, or the magazine very large...

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    Magazines Quickly Replacing Frats as Rape Havens on College Campuses

    -Rolling Stone

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Idiot Denies That Man Raped Woman in Magazine

    -Jezebel

  • Sudden||

    He would've known better had he gone to Columbia!

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    We Admit It: Rolling Stone Really Fucked Up.
    We're very sorry (that they fucked up).

    -Jezebel, 2 weeks later

  • GILMORE||

    I'm still unclear on how Cannibal-Affirmative your policy is.

  • SIV||

    seems quite anthropophageophobic...Git 'em!

  • GILMORE||

    +1 SAT vocabulary word

  • Robert||

    Just make sure not to set anything off.

  • ||

    Not getting a pizza catered in 'theory' totally justifies destroying a family and their business.

    Very normal these people.

    PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE! CIVIL DISCOURSE!

  • ||

    Death threats are wrong. Nobody has a right to anyone else's income. Prosecute the death-threaters, but if this family's position causes them to lose business, that's just the marketplace. Don't fall into the socon trap that so many here do, Rufus; you're better than that.

    At this point I'm still trying to decide whether the journalists actually injured them, or they were just stupid by responding. I'd love for there to be a "fuck off, busybodies" youtube channel with many daily entries of people saying "we just sell pizza, fuck off."

  • John||

    Sure they were stupid for responding. In the same sense, if I invite you over to my house and kick you in the teeth, you were probably dumb to accept my invitation. That doesn't make my kicking you in the teeth any less awful.

  • AlmightyJB||

    awful? idk

  • PapayaSF||

    I would go with "awful" for what the reporter did. Put a small business on the spot about a hot-button issue? Any possible response will either tick off huge numbers of people, or leave them looking evasive and hiding guilt from one side or another. That's low, even for a reporter.

    And then social media kicks in, and it's a Self-Righteous Career-Ending Mob, with the inevitable death threats. The reporter should have known that was a possibility.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I was referring to kicking Tonio in the face

  • ||

    If the marketplace had a problem with what they said then I have no problem with the business facing the consequences of their actions.

    If the marketplace doesn't have a problem, I still don't have a problem.

    I don't even mind some protests around it.

    But this goes a little beyond that given what we know. These people have every right to their opinions. And really, all they said is they wouldn't 'cater'. They didn't say they wouldn't serve them pizza.

    This is how a free society should function.

  • ||

    I'd like to add, I find their position silly but as I pointed out, what are you gonna do? Compel them to cater to a client they don't want to serve?

    Come on.

    Sometimes we just need to move on. I don't go to a place that purposely refuse to serve people in English. I don't use public transport in Quebec because it's infested with rude nationalist jackoffs.

    It sucks but this is the reality. It's one reason why we're hoping to move.

  • ||

    [W]hat are you gonna do? Compel them to cater to a client they don't want to serve?

    No, of course not. Despite what you may have heard from others.

  • ||

    Wasn't referring to you specifically. Just in general.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    but if this family's position causes them to lose business, that's just the marketplace.

    I agree, but it would be nice if that was based on their actual, or at least stated, position, and not whatever gawker decided to twist it into for clickbait. ("Death to gays! proclaim violently anti-gay nazi pizza thugs")

  • ||

    "Death to gays! proclaim violently anti-gay nazi pizza thugs"

    Yep, that's the thing about mischaracterizing the positions of others.

  • MJGreen||

    Uh-huh. And if there was a widespread effort to shame and run out a gay man's business (or some other minority), you'd have the same reaction? "That's the marketplace for ya"? You're better than that, or at least you were before you got all indignant at Irish.

    Social power can still be used for immoral and illiberal purposes. It can still be considered oppressive, and it can still be strenuously denounced. Not a damn thing about that is a "socon trap." It's a hippy-dippy liberal position, for fuck's sake. It's John Stuart Mill, not Edmund Burke.

  • John||

    Which is more gay affirming, thin crust or deep dish?

  • John||

    I wish someone would explain to gays that no one owes you their affirmation. If having gays in society means everyone now has the affirmative duty of patting them on the back and affirming then, then fuck the gays and send them back to the closet. This shit has gone on long enough. Just because people have a right to live as they choose and be left alone doesn't mean they have the right that everyone approve and affirm them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    then fuck the gays

    Wait. Is that really the plan you want to go for here?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I always knew it:) lol

  • John||

    Just because I don't think you have to affirm them, doesn't mean i don't.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *claps*

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    I agree, that was a brilliant save.

  • ||

    "Just because people have a right to live as they choose and be left alone doesn't mean they have the right that everyone approve and affirm them."

    It also doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with them in even the slightest way is a secret Nazi,

  • GILMORE||

    What!? Secret Nazi? Who said that? Of course not! Ok, sure I wear a monocle, and I enjoy knee high leather boots, and who doesn't enjoy singing Lily Marlene every now and then, but I assure you there's no *secret nazis* around here!! Especially out in the forest... where we meet sometimes.... *and WONT BE MEETING THIS MONTH*..... but seriously though, how about that pizza!? Crazy.

  • ||

    And don't forget me. There's that xtian nationalist guy (srsly) on here who keeps accusing me of being a Nazi because the Nazis were pro-homo for like five minutes before they turned on Ernst Rohm and carted the rest of us off to the camps.

    Tomorrow belongs to me, not Gilly. [sticks tongue out]

  • GILMORE||

    Rumours of my secret-nazidom are gross exaggerations. Hydra isn't really the same thing at all.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hate speech, then? Hatecott?

  • GILMORE||

    Love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-cotting.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Tonio: seek help. You're nearly going Full Mary. It's scary, but mostly pathetic.

  • ||

    You are, of course, the one I turn to for advice at these times.

  • Private FUQ||

    Any thoughts that I had about Tonio being a little overly sensitive on this issue went out the window when criticized by Cytotoxic. It Cytotoxic thinks he scary and pathetic then he must be OK.

  • Brian D||

    I hope the reporter was thorough enough in her investigation to interview owners of other businesses equally as likely to be asked to cater a wedding as a mom-and-pop pizza joint. Bowling alleys, gas stations, used car lots... that sort of thing.

  • ||

    From Daily Kos:

    "A BETTER solution would involve a California entity to sue GoFundMe for the entire amount this biased pizza place got so far, as well as damages to ensure the pizza place owner never has another profitable moment in her life. She deserves lifetime scorn and derision for her racist, sexist position.

    Ban Fracking. Ban the GOP. Ban capitalism. Ban state governments, revert every lawmaking ability to the progressive federal government for maximum efficiency and fairness.

    by banthegop on Thu Apr 02, 2015 at 11:30:59 AM PDT"

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....t#comments

    These people. I can't even find words anymore.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's superb trolling.

  • Pro Libertate||

    How do people respond to horrible, hateful comments like this?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Apparently like this--

    if this family's position causes them to lose business, that's just the marketplace
  • Drake||

    Is that Chuck Schumer's handle?

  • Drake||

    Is that Chuck Schumer's handle?

  • ||

    I hate it when people re-post comments like this from other websites. it pains me to be reminded how colossally stupid the vast majority of other people out there are.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Does "racist" even have a specific meaning anymore to these sorts of people or is it just an expletive for "bad thing"?

  • bagoh20||

    " while not as gay-affirming as many of us supporters of same-sex marriage would like"

    Oh Jesus on a seatless bicycle! Can anyone ever talk about gay issues without first making sure they let us all know how hip they are? Just say what you have to say, and have the self-confidence to not put on your full makeup before coming out to the back fence to shoot the shit.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Robby, you didn't mention the #1 thing that makes no sense about this non-story. Nobody, Especially a gay couple, serves goddamn pizza at a wedding.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've known a couple of lesbians that might.

  • PapayaSF||

    There's another aspect to this. All these cases of "discrimination" are minor: it's not like any gay person lost a job or apartment or was physically attacked. And not only are they minor, they all seem like set-ups. Did some gay couples just accidentally stumble on some bakers and florists and wedding photographers who were Christian? Or did they go looking for someone to sue?

    Activists often work that way, and often not from the best motives. There's a crippled child molester (released prison out of "compassion" after he intentionally crippled himself) who makes a good living in California searching out trivial ADA violations and extorting money from owners.

    I find it hard to consider all that merely "free speech" or "the market at work." Saying "I disagree and will not patronize that business" is those things. A howling self-righteous mob destroying someone's life for symbolic or monetary reasons is not.

  • ||

    In the case of the bakery, they did not. But they also didn't want to sue. They just posted on their facebook page that the bakery turned them down. Then it got around and the state decided to sue on their behalf.

  • Paul A'Barge||

    Here is Alyssa Marino
    http://wbnd.images.worldnow.co.....4056_G.jpg

    Look at the face of evil.

  • Paul A'Barge||

    Leave ABC 57, the reporter Alyssa Marino and her staff comments here:
    http://www.abc57.com/category/.....-questions

  • ||

    Why can't wedding services that want to cater to the LGBT community just advertise that and put a sticker in the window like "LGBT Friendly" or something?

    Leave all the Christian conservatives alone and let someone else take the niche market. It's not like we're in the deep south and people are going to fire-bomb them or throw bricks through their windows. There is clearly enough social support for gay marriage for this not even going to be an issue.

    The gay people can just look for the LGBT friendly sticker and avoid places that don't have it.

  • John Galt||

    When I was young the psychiatric profession considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. That never stopped me from defending some young persons who were being bullied. I just couldn't see how they were hurting anyone, and even if it was "mental illness" I had also defended others considered mentally deficient or otherwise not "right." Looking back I was obviously a fool. While I've never regretted defending the learning disabled, or those having mental problems, it appears in the case of gays I unwittingly did my part to help create bullies.

  • Jim Walsh||

    Victim? I'd call them beneficiaries. Money just can't buy this kind of publicity...

  • Norco Kris||

    Would a story have broken if a Protestant minister who charged to perform weddings declined to marry an Aryan National couple? Is it newsworthy if a restaurateur who supports the Brady Campaign declines to cater a local NRA gathering? What if Hillary refused a professional speech engagement at an American Legion Conference? A discriminating person may be considered principled. No wonder the pols don't get it.

  • livelikearefugee||

    How about a compromise: they cater the gay wedding but no discounts on the "meat lovers" special.

  • stonefree2rant||

    "That policy, while not as gay-affirming as many of us supporters of same-sex marriage would like.."

    Asshat

    Supporting SSM has nothing to do with "affirming" gays. It's got to do with affirming equal protection.

  • stonefree2rant||

    Is "Tonio" Tony?

    I don't get here often. Maybe I missed something.

  • stonefree2rant||

    Is "Tonio" Tony?

    I don't get here often. Maybe I missed something.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netjob80.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online