Political Correctness (Or why we can't all live in la-la land)

[Torgo]

politically correct
noun
1.

marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.
Abbreviation: PC, P.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our society today is definitely more left-leaning than previous times. Groups championing rights for LGBT people, Women's rights, animal rights, etc have risen in number and magnitude. Their goal, as they say, is to make everyone happy and equal.

Here's why that is physically impossible and insane.


Take in part the recent unpleasantries in Indiana and Arkansas. A law was passed in each saying that businesses with religious obligations to gay marriage did not have to serve one, such as a bakery or florist.

Of course, the media exploded. The aforementioned bakeries or florists were now the KKK and wanted all gays dead. The owners of a pizzeria received death threats. Luckily, some sane people made a donation pact, and the pizzeria has received over 150K in donations.

See the problem? Someone had a different opinion than the groups, and so were the scum of the earth.

What the pizzeria really said was they would not cater a gay wedding. They never said they would refuse service to gay people. . The media has just glossed over this little detail in favor of demonizing the owners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no reason to deny service to gay people, blacks, Asians, eskimos, etc. That is not right at all.
But when someone has a religious reason for not believing in gay marriage, then they have, under the power of the US constitution, the ability to refuse service. In this case, refusing to cater a wedding.

Liberals do not see this. We just are terrible bigots. And so, the lawsuits pour in, and the businesses lose everything. But this is ok, because they were homophobic scum. [/sarcasm]


Get the picture? Its all love and tolerance until someone disagrees. Then their true colors come out.

I fully support the Indiana Religious Freedom law. God Bless America.

 

[GI Cake]

No no, you're just a bigot. There's no reason why you wouldn't provide a service to a gay wedding unless you have a clear bigoted views against homosexuals. You live in the 21st century in a society that needs to live in a somewhat cohesive social setting. The lawsuit against the Pizzeria wouldn't be any different f the Pizzeria refused service to an interracial marriage or interreligious marriage. You're a shitty person if you follow a faith that condemns others for who they choose to marry.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

There's a difference between not agreeing with gay marriage and flat out not accepting gay marriage. I don't know why anyone would give 2 shits if 2 guys, 2 girls or 2 transsexuals decide to get married, it's such a stupid thing to fight and there's no real good reason to oppose it. Even if you're highly religious and don't believe in it there is no reason to treat someone differently just because they don't feel the same as you do.
If 2 gay guys get married it doesn't affect anyone outside of those 2 guys who decide to get married, if it doesn't affect you why make a stink about it in any manner? It's between those 2 people and it doesn't concern you so let them get married and if they're willing to give you money to cater their wedding why would you not do it?

Personally, I don't see any issue with someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage but I do see an issue with discriminating against those people because they don't feel the same way and that's what the owner of the pizzeria did, he discriminated against them because they were gay and that's just not right.

With that said, it's not right for the media to bend the truth in the way they did and say the owner would serve NO gay people at his pizzeria but sadly that's what the media does, it makes situations that shouldn't be a big deal and make them a big deal. It's fine for the media and people to call out the pizzeria owner for not catering a gay marriage but there's no reason to bend the truth about it either.

In regards to the death threats and constant scrutiny that has fell on the pizzeria owner that's just as unnecessary as the pizzeria owner not catering the gay wedding. Although I don't think it's right the pizzeria owner wouldn't cater the wedding but much like 2 gay guys getting married has nothing to do with me a pizzeria owner not catering the wedding has nothing to do with me either. If you feel real strongly against what the pizzeria owner did how about you just not give him your business or at most make a complaint about the pizzeria's views. If the pizzeria owner wants to live in the stone age and refuse a gay wedding let him, at the end of the day he's painting himself in a bad light and he's doing himself and his business no favors.

All in all, I think its ridiculous the pizzeria owner wouldn't cater a gay wedding (losing out on thousands of dollars of business for that reason is just stupid) but it's even more ridiculous that people are threatening to kill him for that reason. Neither side is right on this one.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

I can kind of see where the owner of the pizza shop is coming from not catering. Now don't misread what i'm saying I couldn't give 2 craps what people do. I'm just going to try see it from his perspective.

I would imagine the reason the owner didn't cater to the wedding is because he obviously doesn't agree with the concept of gay marriage. So in his mind if he agrees to cater for the reception he is supporting it.

Now the people baying for blood are just as bad. I hope these people that are sending death threats realise they are just as bad, if not worse than this guy. The idea of wanting to kill someone because of there views belongs in the stone age along with this guys stance on gay marriage.

The thing is a majority of these people won't have given a damn about it, but as with all issues like this people jump on the bandwagon. People do this to make themselves appear intelligent. Every fucker has to have there say on such an issue. And yes I do realise the irony behind that statement right now.

At the end of the day though this man should not be chastised because of his views. He hasn't come out and said 'All ******s are banned from my shop'. He has simply refused to service someone because, and i'm only assuming here, in his mind he would be supporting it. That's his right. It's a shame that's his attitude. It's a real fucking shame the media blew the shit out of it. It's a real big fucking shame people think the reaction to this is to bay for this mans blood as if that if the correct course of action.

 

[jmt225]

Honestly I feel like private owned businesses should be able to serve whoever they want to serve. Discrimination sucks but it's their privately owned establishment so they should absolutely be able to welcome and serve whoever they want, and turn away whoever they want. If I didn't want certain people in my home, is it anyone's right to tell me I can't do that? Of course not.

That said, these businesses should definitely be shamed for discriminating against people. First of all it's stupid because you're throwing money away by refusing service to a portion of customers. If you own a business, then your main objective is to make money. Why would you not want all the customers you could get? Like, prisons are filled with the biggest pieces of shit walking this Earth, but if I owned let's say a potato company, and Angola wanted to buy my potatoes to serve to their prisoners... why the fuck would I ever turn that down? It'll feed murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc... but it's BUSINESS and if I'm not providing that service then someone else will anyway, so I might as well get paid for it and let my business thrive. I'm not "selling out" against my religion by doing this.

Secondly, who cares? By not providing these people with your business, does it change anything? What does it accomplish? Like, there's zero logic behind refusing a paying customer as long as they're not trying to do something illegal with your product. To make such a big deal because of someone's sexuality to the point where your business gets put at risk is mindbogglingly stupid. Get over it.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Honestly I feel like private owned businesses should be able to serve whoever they want to serve.

Thank you, fucking thank you. Those buisnesses also get to feel the reprecussions of conducting themselves like complete fucking morons, when people don't want to patronize their establishment anymore over their actions.

Same thing with religious institutions.

 

[Барбоса]

Both sides in these disputes are guilty of hyperbole, which inflates an argument over the rights of a private businessman to serve who they like into a dispute over religious freedom vs freedom from discrimination - two inalienable rights.

Both sides deserve ridicule for doing so. The shop owners for invoking religion when as a private business "I don't want to" would be perfectly acceptable answer and the customers for taking up the gauntlet of discrimination when they could quite easily take their custom elsewhere and undermine the reputation of the business, you know, like how everyone else has done for centuries.

But for one side to be attempting to legislate on this with conscience clauses is ridiculous, not to mention morally reprehensible and socially dangerous. It is potentially empowering a business to discriminate openly on the basis of their faith and while they can technically do that already with their right to refuse custom to anyone (which in itself makes these laws/clauses unnecessary), this is a whole new can of worms.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

But for one side to be attempting to legislate on this with conscience clauses is ridiculous, not to mention morally reprehensible and socially dangerous. It is potentially empowering a business to discriminate openly on the basis of their faith and while they can technically do that already with their right to refuse custom to anyone (which in itself makes these laws/clauses unnecessary), this is a whole new can of worms.

As is legislating when/were/how people can practice their religion or be forced to do or put up with things that conflict with their own personal beliefs.


The Middle East says hello.


Legislation should never, ever, fucking ever have anything to do with religion, and only to a slightly lesser extent, private business.

If you make being stupid illegal, we will all be in one big jail together eventually.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Those buisnesses also get to feel the reprecussions of conducting themselves like complete fucking morons, when people don't want to patronize their establishment anymore over their actions.

That's the deal. If the owner of a business feels like adhering to his religious principles and refusing to supply his product to a certain person or group.....that's okay.

And if the person or group wants to organize a movement to try and get the folks in town to boycott that business on the basis of having been denied service.....that's got to be okay, too.

If it happens, it will be up to the strength of the business owner's personal convictions to see how long he's determined to adhere to his life-long religious beliefs.

"Sorry, Lord, I tried to do it the way you want it done.....but my f'n business is going bankrupt!"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

*******************

As for Indiana, what tends to happen with these pieces of legislation is that people tend to expand the original intent of the law. It reminds me of what occurred when motor vehicle laws allowed drivers to make right turns on red lights. The law says you have to come to a full stop before making the turn, right? But eventually, people started making the right turn without stopping .....and not long after that, many drivers began acting as if they had the right of way and started cutting off drivers who were lawfully driving straight ahead through green lights. If a police officer stopped them, they'd claim that "I can make a right on a red light!"

See the parallel, Indiana?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Ugh, the term "political correctness" has just become a copout and go to phrase for the sad and disenfranchised victims of the dense. People who can't justify their actions or simply apologize and move on. Just stop being such an emotional ninny and understand that not everyone loves what you have to say and it is OK to apologize.

This law is stupid. Written by somewhat stupid people to get votes from pretty stupid people. If this law existed in pre-WW II Germany or any predominantly Islamic Middle Eastern country today the people that support it would be up in arms. I'm not saying the US resembles either place and I hate the point I just made but I can stick by it.

The gay wedding cake is bullshit too. It is easy pickings. It just this generations bigotry. Thirty years ago that type of person would not allow gays in their bakery at all. Now they jump on this hot topic because they are stupid and unable to see their hypocrisy. Just hide behind what they feel like.

If I were Christian I'm going all out on those gays. Not just wedding cakes, no food at all ever, them gays may be using nutrition to have dirty gay sex. And you won't catch me selling condoms to one of them. Never mind, I'm Christian I don't believe in birth control.

Rant, rant, stupid discrimination. Torgo is a good guy but dumb. Blah, go fuck yourself. I'll be moving to Indiana, converting to Islam and taking over a town with about 50,000 other Muslims. I hope your car doesn't break down when driving through. Good luck getting a tow, or borrowing a phone, or having a bite to eat, or a bed to sleep in. I wouldn't want you to be able to do any of those things since it will lead to you eventually worshipping a God I don't believe in.

Kind of dramatic off base, unrealistic, and untrue I know. But not the part about Torgo being dumb.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Pretty much everything that's been said has already been said.

If someone is refusing service based upon genuine, religious convictions, I can understand that to some degree. However, how can we know whether or not someone who refuses to service is doing so genuinely out of religious belief and is simply calling themselves religious to disguise their prejudice?

The mix of religious & political power is toxic, always has been and probably always will be. Why? Because one of the primary problems with basing laws religious beliefs is that those trying to get said laws passed do so because the law happens to skew exactly in their favor or, at the very least, to the people they want to vote for them come election time. The result is simple as is message: "if you're not one of us, then you're just shit outta luck." It's just good old fashioned discrimination disguised as the law and it's ultimately a legal tactic by social conservatives to strike back at gay marriage, which looks like it will become recognized nationwide at some point. Hell, it's legal in 37 states and any sort of legal challenges are squashed by higher courts.

Using Christianity as a club to beat people who don't agree with your views has always bugged and offended me because I'm a Christian. I'm FAR from a perfect Christian, but using faith to justify hate is pretty much the exact opposite what I've been taught. When it comes to making money, guns, big corporations, etc. many conservatives want the government to stay out of it as much as possible; yet these same conservatives are all for the government telling us how we should live our personal lives, what we should and shouldn't watch on TV, what books we should or shouldn't read, which consenting adults you should or shouldn't have sex with, etc. so long as the government's laws in these instances skew in their favor.

Anyone ever hear of a serial killer in the 1980s called The Night Stalker? His real name was Richard Ramirez, was a devout Satanist who broke into people's homes to steal money and valuables, often either killing and, if a woman was in the homes he broke into, savagely raped his victims. In all, between June 1984 and August 1985, he murdered at least 13 people. He died in 2013 from cancer at age 53, having been on death row in California for 23 years. Well, not long after his conviction, he began a relationship with a freelance magazine editor named Doreen Lioy, whom he proposed to in 1988 and married in 1996. Now, what's the point to all this? Well, I just can't help but wonder where all the various religious groups and protesters were when this man, a devout Satanist convicted of 13 counts of murder, 5 counts of attempted murder, 14 counts of burglary and 11 counts of sexual assault when he was married? Even though I was only 16 at the time, I remember that this got news coverage on CNN and other major news networks. It just strikes me as odd that so many people are against gay couples having the exact same legal rights as heterosexual couples who's only "crimes" are being in love with someone of the same gender, yet there were no rallies or protests against a proud, Satanic raping serial killer for having the exact same rights as all of them.

I've heard some Christians say that tolerance of homosexuality is evil, yet they forget that they tolerate "evil" every single day of the week. For instance, somewhere in the United States at any given time, someone is committing adultery yet go unpunished. I mean, we don't take these people by the scruffs of the neck, drag them into the middle of the street and stone them to death like they did 2,000 years ago. Every day, someone, somewhere takes God's name in vain, but we don't string them up in the town square and light them on fire. Part of a free society is sometimes having to tolerate things that you may not personally agree with.

Personally, I see no logical reason whatsoever gays shouldn't have all the same legal rights as straights. Either we're ALL equal in the eyes of the law, or the United States Constitution is a 240 year old joke and that men & women who have died defending it have done so for absolutely nothing.

 

[Boring]

If this were a story about satanists and not gays, what would be the consensus then?

What makes a gay person anymore special or important then a satanist?

In Ireland a gay baker didn't want to serve people because they wanted a christian phrase on their cake.

If some decent old pizzeria owner doesn't want to cater a gay wedding should he be shunned by all of society?

The problem with all this PC shit is that people who shouldn't be picked on are being considered right along the lines of nazis, terrorists, murderers etc. The world(us is populated enough) is big enough that I'm sure you'll find someone to cater your shit... but it's not even about that is it.

 

[Boring]

Thank you, fucking thank you. Those buisnesses also get to feel the reprecussions of conducting themselves like complete fucking morons, when people don't want to patronize their establishment anymore over their actions.

Same thing with religious institutions.

And what if that same man was a veteran?

I thought our constitution was made to protect men like that.

"You fought for me and my familieis rights, safety, freedom and you don't want to cater a gay wedding... I see no problem here."

Edit: Instead we get headlines "2nd Amendment Patriot won't serve gay customers."

We never read "War Hero not comfortable catering gay wedding."

 

[Mighty NorCal]

And what if that same man was a veteran?

I thought our constitution was made to protect men like that.

"You fought for me and my familieis rights, safety, freedom and you don't want to cater a gay wedding... I see no problem here."

Edit: Instead we get headlines "2nd Amendment Patriot won't serve gay customers."

We never read "War Hero not comfortable catering gay wedding."

What difference does it make what their job was/is ???

If you don't want to cater the wedding, then you lose a customer, and you lose the money. They put the word out, other people decide they don't like your practices because you didnt serve a gay veteran, and then you lose lots of customers, and lots of money.


People have and should have the right to serve or not serve whomever the hell they want. They also have the right to have their buisness go down and flames, and live in a fucking maytag refridgerator box down by the river for the rest of their life as well.

 

[Torgo]

The issue with the marxism doctrine of PC is that you say what we agree with or else you lose your right to speech and to have a business.

The liberal media basically says that this is a battle of the big evil Christians vs the poor, helpless gays getting all their rights taken away.

This is not the case at all. In fact, I think that it is disgusting to compare the gays to the blacks fighting for their right to sit in the same general area as whites.

Gays can do whatever they damn well please, except when it tramples on another person's right to freedom of religion.


BTW, I dont see any gays wanting to protest at a Muslim bakery...




EDIT: Thanks Rainbow Yaz for the lovely picture you sent me in red rep. Also, fuck you.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The issue with the marxism doctrine of PC is that you say what we agree with or else you lose your right to speech and to have a business.

Actually that sounds more like freedom, choice, and free markets.

The liberal media basically says that this is a battle of the big evil Christians vs the poor, helpless gays getting all their rights taken away.

Please provide five examples of this most prevalent rhetoric that you speak of.

This is not the case at all. In fact, I think that it is disgusting to compare the gays to the blacks fighting for their right to sit in the same general area as whites.

Because you have grown up at a time where you are used to blacks have similar rights to white people.

Gays can do whatever they damn well please, except when it tramples on another person's right to freedom of religion.

Where is anyone's religion does it talk about baking a cake?

BTW, I dont see any gays wanting to protest at a Muslim bakery...

Look I know to conservatives think businesses are people but now you also think business can have their own religion. You should be on the Supreme Court.

And there is a big difference in a business that only caters to a certain group of people (Muslims) and a business that chooses to leave one group out (Gays, or maybe Jews or Jehovah Witnesses).

Regardless, fuck Scientologists.

EDIT: Thanks Rainbow Yaz for the lovely picture you sent me in red rep. Also, fuck you.

You'll have to excuse him, he lives in Indiana and doesn't know if people are treating him like shit because their assholes or "religious" assholes.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

If someone is refusing service based upon genuine, religious convictions, I can understand that to some degree. However, how can we know whether or not someone who refuses to service is doing so genuinely out of religious belief and is simply calling themselves religious to disguise their prejudice?

Does it really mather though? In both cases you dont provide service to people out of your conviction wheather its religious or just prejudice. So its basicly same.

And its OK to some degree. As private contractor you reserve a right to serve whoever you want. At the end of the road it means less job for you and more for someone who works with certain group you refused to serve. So you get to exercise your right to refuse to serve someone who you dont want to serve, other side will take their money to someone who actually wants to serve them and both sides will got what they want.

Would have a problem if other side is bullied in some way. Like this it is as liberal as it gets.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

If I owned a business and refused service to Christians, some people would obviously be pretty up in arms about that. They would spread the word about it and my business would likely suffer, because Christians are a pretty massive group in the United States. But if you discriminate against a minority group, there is going to be less of an effect, especially in communities that already have major prejudices against that group.

That's why the market can't dictate morality. Saying "Well if you don't like their policy just don't use that service and tell other people not to either" essentially justifies discrimination based on majority rule. Stopping people from discriminating is not an assault on your freedom. Just because you have a business doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it and serve whoever you want based on whatever criteria you want. Businesses get taxpayer money to help them, and they benefit from government programs. The free marketplace isn't actually free, and people need to stop pretending that it is or that it should be. You need to abide by certain civil standards, and equitable treatment of all people is one of them. Deal with it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If I owned a business and refused service to Christians, some people would obviously be pretty up in arms about that. They would spread the word about it and my business would likely suffer, because Christians are a pretty massive group in the United States. But if you discriminate against a minority group, there is going to be less of an effect, especially in communities that already have major prejudices against that group.

Good point. I find myself wondering at the reactions of people, whether religious, right wing, a combination of both or whatever, if they find themselves placed in a situation where they find themselves discriminated against and they're not used to it and unprepared for it. In the United States, the overwhelming majority of the population, somewhere in the 75% to 77% area, identify themselves as Christian; whether they're of a particular denomination or just simply identify with having Christian beliefs, they identify themselves as being Christian. The population of the US is roughly 320.6 million so that would put the number of those identifying themselves as Christian or having Christian beliefs is roughly in the 240.5 to 246.9 range. In terms of demographics, roughly 80% of the population of the United States is Caucasian, which comes to roughly 254.5 million. So an overwhelming majority of the population of the United States is comprised of Caucasians identifying themselves as Christians.

What's the point to all these stats some might ask? The point is that, as a whole, it's far easier for a person that's part of an overwhelming majority to brush discrimination aside or even justify it when they themselves have never really had to experience it for themselves. If the owner of a pizza restaurant, bakery, deli or what have you decided that he/she didn't want to cater to customers who were Christian, citing atrocities committed by Christians throughout history, citing their own religious/philosophical beliefs, etc., that would most definitely throw people for a loop .Considering the population demographics of the country, such a proprietor most likely wouldn't stay in business for very long though it's not impossible, depending upon where said person lives, population density, how long the story stayed around, etc. A story like this would most likely make national headlines resulting in right wing conservatives ranging from everyday citizens, religious organizations, church groups, political pundits and politicians pouring out like shit through a goose screaming discrimination. In a country in which society was ultimately founded by white Christians, an incident like this would leave a lot of people flabbergasted because they're not used to being the ones discriminated against because of a particular aspect of their lifestyle and, in some cases, a core element of their very identities.

There's no need for anyone to deny it because it'd be pure crap to do so. Choosing who can & who can't and who should & who shouldn't when it comes to basic, everyday freedoms based on skin color, religion or sexual orientation is just plain old fashioned bigotry no matter what sort of legal jargon one uses to try to disguise it. We've all heard the right wing political slogan "Freedom Isn't Free" at some point, which is true when you get right down to it as there have been times in which societies throughout history have had to fight just to preserve their way of life. Here's another one: "All Men Are Created Equal." It might be the single most well known phrase in the Declaration of Independence, maybe in all of American politics, and it's one that we simply haven't lived up to. Some might think it's hyperbole but, then again, look at how exaggerations, technicalities, creative uses of the law have shaped society over the centuries. I'm all for someone thinking what they want, saying what they want, reading and saying what they want. If they feel homosexuality is wrong and want to say so, I say go for it. To me, that's not really bigotry; bigotry is when they decide that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else and encourage attempts to make such decisions into reality.

 

[Барбоса]

To me, that's not really bigotry; bigotry is when they decide that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else and encourage attempts to make such decisions into reality.

Yes, it is bigotry. The next step up you mention is to discrimination based on bigotry.

 

[Torgo]

What gets to me is the left-leaning media.

What really happened: The pizzeria, when asked a trap question, remarked that they probably would not cater a gay wedding. They hadn't said anything about the matter up to this point.

What the media says happens: The pizzeria hung up Nazi flags and put on KKK robes and burned effigies of gay people while chanting praise Satan and Hitler.

Ok not really but they might as well be. The media so demonized this pizzeria such that people wanted to burn it down.

See, the media drives all of these relatively low issues. They fed the fire in the Ferguson mess, they feed all the crazy LGBBQBLT people (like the little nut who believes hes both a boy and girl and changes which according to what he/she/it feels like), all the while hiding real news. Like the THOUSANDS of illegal immigrants pouring across the border for free stuff.

But back to the original subject. Basically what is happening here is you agree with us, or you shut your doors. Its happened in Ireland, its happening here. That's socialism.

Just like what 1984 predicted.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

What the media says happens: The pizzeria hung up Nazi flags and put on KKK robes and burned effigies of gay people while chanting praise Satan and Hitler.

Which also should not be legislated out by Governmental interference. They should be able to do all of that they like, and if people no longer want to patronize the establishment (why that would fucking matter, as opposed to the quality of the pizza being served, I have no idea) then they can feel free to exercise their right to not remain patrons, and the parlour would lose that money.

That's how free speech, free religion, and free market is supposed to work. Unfortunately, that's how a lot the far left get things twisted up....

"free speech until you say something I don't like"

"Equality for all as long as they are a minority"

 

[Spidey Revivey]

People should have a right to serve whomever they want. They also have the right to stupidly wonder why their fragile beliefs cost them their business.

The real fact is nobody in this day and age should care whether two men or two women want to get married, least of all a pizzeria. It's not a Christian issue whatsofucking ever. If it were, Atheists wouldn't be allowed to. It's purely a hate topic and the more exposure it gets, the more people are going to wake up and realize it.

And yeah, Torgo. You are coming off a little bit like a bigot. At least with the LGBBQT bullshit. Human rights isn't a low issue.

 

[Torgo]

And yeah, Torgo. You are coming off a little bit like a bigot. At least with the LGBBQT bullshit. Human rights isn't a low issue.

Yes, youre right. I am. And I am sorry, but damn it I am so fed up with all this "he wont make us a cake waaahhh lawsuit time!" crap. We have so many more problems than someone not getting baked goods that we need to focus on, like our whopping national debt, illegal immigrants, government corruption...

I know human rights isnt a low issue. I think the rights to clean water, medicine, education, etc trump someone pitching a fit because they cant have cake with gay marriage lettering on it.

 

[tommo1898]

Torgo I will agree with you about the media blowing things out of proportion but you are really missing the point. It's not about cake or the inconvenience of having to go somewhere else it was the fact that they were denied the service because they were gay. To say that was wrong is not ridiculous pc nonsense, it is bigotry and there should be no place for it in a civilised society.

If they were refusing to provide service to black people would that be a 'low issue'? Or disabled people? It's exactly the same thing it just affects a smaller number of people which doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

If you are arguing that these people have the right to their views whether or not they are bigoted then I suppose I ultimately have to agree with you. But that fact that you seem to think there is little wrong at all with what they did really doesn't reflect very well on you to be honest because it actually was discrimination based on bigoted views (even if it was dressed up as religious beliefs) and I would expect any intelligent, civilised person to be able to see that for what it is.