“Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down ‪#‎memoriespizza‬ w me?”

“Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down ‪#‎memoriespizza‬ w me?” April 2, 2015

As the Tolerati continue their Girardian Moral Panic in Indiana, an indispensible part of the kabuki of moral purification is to find a villain upon whom the community can lay its sins in purgative fury.  Like this:

Yesterday, ABC supplied that villain in the form of a little family-owned pizzeria and, in particular this Designated Face of Pure Evil about whom it was misleadingly declared:

(Source: ABC-57)

…making it sound as though they would serve no gay people. The headline on their website was slightly less garbled:

RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding

…but still misleading since it made it sound as though some gay couple seeking catering for their wedding had been turned away (and who would ask a pizzeria to cater their wedding?). But most of all, the headline left the impression that this belligerent Midwest culture warrior in an apron had thrown down the gauntlet to homosexuals, called a press conference, beaten her breast on camera, and shouted “Bring it, you queers!”.

Retribution was swift and terrible. Death threats like the one in the headline above were tweeted. A huge slew of nasty Yelp reviews from people longing to kill her business were unleashed.  The Tolerance Gestapo rushed like stampeding beasts to crush, ostracize, and publicly humiliate and impoverish her for her supposed aggression against gays.  It was full-on Pogrom Mode all day yesterday.

The thing is, the whole controversy was manufactured by ABC in order to gin up a mob (and ratings). Here’s what actually happened:

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

In short, a nice lady minding her own business and doing her job was interrupted in her busy day and artlessly said to the microphone shoved in her face that she’d serve anybody (including gays) but would not cater a gay wedding. In a sane world, people get that this means she recognizes gay people have a right to eat at her place, but not to force her to approve of gay marriage. They would also recognize that she had done nothing wrong and had never refused anybody service since nobody had (or would) ask her to cater a wedding, gay or otherwise.

In our world, however, it means ABC-57 torqued her words and offered edited reality in order to give the Ideological Police for Tolerance the sense of moral panic that justifies their belief that they can threaten her life and try to destroy her livelihood to punish her for Ungoodthink. And so: death, arson, and financial ruin threats are visited on a nice lady who was minding her own business and too innocent to realize that a network that was looking for somebody it could officially designate as the Face of Hate for the delectation of a mob of Righteous People.

Things might, of course, redound to O’Connor’s benefit. As the culture war heats up her business shows sign that it will be deluged with Chik Fil A style support. But then, it’s also possible somebody might make good on the death threats and shoot her in the head pour encourager les autres.

If the former, then I will thank God that an innocent took no harm from gotcha journalism of the lowest kind. If the latter, then I think the network who set this kid up should–pour encourager les autres–be sued by her survivors for $100,000,000 for inciting a mob and being an accessory to murder.

This is, in a minor key, the kind of moral panic and mimetic violence that Jesus suffered. Fitting that she should suffer it on Holy Thursday. God protect her, her family, and her business and surround them with holy angels through Christ our Lord.

"On a side note, that is an inaccurate description of the court case by VOA ..."

The Shea Legend of the Blackfoot ..."
"Even if it were true that she did not profit by it, the issue remains ..."

The Shea Legend of the Blackfoot ..."
"Yeah! Worthless US electoral system!I sure wish I had voted Democrat all those years! Then ..."

Rebecca Hamilton on the Freedom of ..."
"Cardinal Ouellet was supposed to verify Vigano's claims. Here are some of the words Ouellet ..."

Where Peter Is….

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • antigon

    As kenofken (& the principalities) insists, all that’s just what we need since ‘for any group to tolerate a sworn enemy who poses an ongoing existential threat to them is not just unlikely. It would be insane and/or suicidal for them to do so.’
    *
    And that quote will appear again inasmuch as man doesn’t need so much to be instructed, as reminded.

    • kenofken

      I’ve never called for any sort of action like this. I have simply offered a fairly un-original observation about human behavior. It’s actually the golden rule stuff everybody’s mom taught them the day they went off to kindergarten: Treat people as you would have them treat you. The gay community, and certainly its activists, are coming off of two generations of vicious treatment and persecution by culture war Christians. They created the toxic atmosphere in which they now live.

      • JM1001

        The gay community, and certainly its activists, are coming off of two generations of vicious treatment and persecution by culture war Christians. They created the toxic atmosphere in which they now live.

        In other words: “They did it first!”

        Kindergarten indeed.

        • Dave G.

          Of course. Duh

        • wlinden

          “And We’re so much more tolerant and open-minded than Them!”

        • Newp Ort

          I don’t think intolerance, and especially threats of violence are justified against conservatives of anyone else.

          But when you are intolerant for generations, blowback should be expected. I don’t say this as any kind of excuse, but as an explanation. Sow the sequins, reap the pink whirlwind.

          • antigon

            Maybe, Ort, but if you don’t think the ‘rage’ is being ginned & exploited for a larger agenda – the connection between homosexualism & the mass murder of the unborn for but one – then you are ignoring what’s there to be seen.

            • Newp Ort

              Plz detail this connection.

      • SteveP

        Two generations of persecution? Come off it. “Gay” does not generate.

        • Newp Ort

          You idiot. +1

      • ManyMoreSpices

        Even if we were to allow for some measure of expression of pent-up rage by oppressed homosexuals, that in no way extends to straight internet jerks.

        • Newp Ort

          We’re talking about a women’s softball coach here. so…um…

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Just to clarify, by 2 generations, you mean the time period between now and Stonewall?

        Has anyone ever taken you and your Aryan buddies seriously?

      • LFM

        If you were older, you’d know that most homophobia, back in the day when it was still openly expressed and commonplace, was neither moral nor Christian in origin. It was closely related to social conformity and to men’s sexual anxieties about gay sex, which is why I remember it emerging most often from the lips of boorish, amoral jocks back in the 1970s and early 80s (before the PC crackdown), none of whom had darkened the doors of a church since childhood – if then.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          Except when it’s the kids that participate in the noon Bible study being nasty to the kids who “looks gay”. Except when it’s the teen thrown out of their Christian home because they came out of the closet, or whose friends are suddenly no longer allowed to associate with them. Christians acting nasty toward homosexuals HAS happened, just like “good Christian girls” can end up pregnant out of marriage, and their “good Christian parents” can drive them to the abortion clinic to save face. It happens and it has happened, and denying that it has is not going to help. It just convinces the other side that Christians don’t understand.

          • LFM

            I wasn’t denying anything. You seem to be confused about what I wrote. First, I used the word “most”, not “all” in reference to homophobia. Second, the existence of homophobia among Christians does not disprove the truth of what I said, i.e. that much of it has its origin in male sexual fears and in social conformity.

            The degree of disgust which people used to express about homosexuality was so over-the-top, for a behavior that was no threat to most people (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is) that it was clearly not inspired purely by moral indignation.

            After all, religious people, and some others too, think that adultery, divorce and various other common sexual acts are wrong, yet their attitude to these phenomena are quite different. For that matter, have you not noticed that many people are far more perturbed by male homosexuality than the female version? There is something at work there that is quite separate from Christian moral attitudes towards gay sexual expression.

            I have little knowledge/experience of non-Catholic Christians, though, I must confess, and suspect that the way they handle such matters has more in common with the “jock” types to which I referred in my earlier comment.

            • radiofreerome

              ” For that matter, have you not noticed that many people are far more perturbed by male homosexuality than the female version? There is something at work there that is quite separate from Christian moral attitudes towards gay sexual expression.”

              Leviticus 18:22 demands that gay men be murdered for having sex and gives the murderer impunity. There is no similar stricture on lesbians.

              If we lived in India we’d see vigilantes killing outcastes for allegedly harming cows.

            • Rebecca Fuentes

              I think you are right in the origins. For many, there is a real ick-factor to homosexual acts that is not present for fornication or adultery. However, most of the people I have seen and heard say nasty or threatening things about homosexuals, or students I have seen target another student and pick on the for “being gay” (whether they were or not), would self-identify as Christian. I don’t know how it was 20+ years ago, for me it came “onto my radar” when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Laramie, WY. I was a senior at the University. Because MS was the victim, I never heard any ugliness directed at him from people I knew personally (perhaps because this was before the time of twitter, facebook, and other anonymous social media?). But a few years later, there was a clear trend I saw among Christians (and yes, mostly non-Catholics, mostly Fundamentalists) to act as if the temptation to homosexual acts, or the attraction to someone of the same sex, immediately made the person an abomination. I taught junior high, and I know former students who came “out” in high school or later. The tide seems to be turning, but for many of them, it was more acceptable for their churches to ostracize them (And the family, sometimes) that it was to let them keep attending worship and youth group. That paints all Christians with a very black brush in many people’s minds.

              • Joseph

                Part of the *ick* factor, and I know this is going to be politically incorrect, is the idea of putting the most prized part of a male’s anatomy to most men into a hole of which the primary function is to dispel poop. Not only is it totally unnatural (the poop chute is *made* by nature to be exit only and in no way can sperm fulfil its biological task by being injected into it), but it’s rather unappetising. Just like I have no desire to clean a toilet rim with my member, I have no desire to scrub the anal cavity of another person with it, be it a male, female, or animal.
                .
                That said, I don’t have a problem with people who like to do that sort of thing… at all… and it has absolutely no bearing on my view of said people (just like I don’t like my friends any less who have succumbed to drug addiction or other unhealthy addictions). But, the thought is repulsive to me. The thought of the oral *engagement* doesn’t disgust me as much, but the thought that one is not using their member according to what nature warrants springs to mind. I don’t mean to be brash, but there is good reason for people to be repulsed by the behaviour without falling into the *bigot* category. Those are my thoughts independent of religion.

        • radiofreerome

          I don’t buy this. (In the sequel, I use the term “little bastards” affectionately.)

          Faith, family, and peer groups create taboos and pariahs which then are enforced by young people who haven’t the ethical sense to avoid becoming vigilantes.

          It was true in the fifties when Catholic teenagers harassed and beat my graduate math dissertation advisor for being a Jew. The screamed “Jews killed Christ!” at him when they beat him up.

          This was true when I was called “faggot” 200 times a week at my all-boys Catholic high school in New Orleans. Those little bastards were taught their attitudes by their Catholic parents at a very young age (12).

          This is true today when much of the younger generation has become alienated from religion and pursues a kind of religion of equality. The little bastards now are harassing this pizza restaurant.

          This is true today when a group of twenty something Catholic high school alums committed assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against a gay couple whose crime was that when asked one wouldn’t deny that he loved the other.

          The alternative to all this vigilanteism is education of the young by parents, church, and peers using concrete examples of interest for religion, sexual orientation, etc.

          • LFM

            What I was trying to get at in my comment was the difference between secular homophobia and religious and/or moral disapprobation of homosexual expression. I don’t think they’re the same phenomenon and I don’t think they have the same roots. Other than that, I don’t disagree with your comment; I simply question its relevance, at least some of it, to what I was saying. Oh, and I agree with educating the young not to indulge in brutal, stupid vigilantism.

            There’s another comment I wrote somewhere here a few moments ago in which I clarify what I meant by this, or at least so I think. You may still disagree with me if you find and read it, but it will be with a clearer knowledge of what I was getting at.

          • virago

            I think I have a real sense of what you are talking about; I weighed 250 lbs when i was attending my Catholic high school and while I know it isn’t apples to apples, the young men in my hs felt it was ok to make nasty, hurtful comments to me because they had ok from society at large and the passive assent from the school and their parents
            When I went back for my 40th reunion most of the men apologized to me for their brutish behavior toward me in their youth (i went to the 10th and 20th and received no apology; it took til the 40th for them to do so and it wasn’t even wanted or necessary by then)

            You are right, it starts early with parents, church and peers, that is what makes up society. Starting early can change culture.
            I think what happened to me when I was younger is called body shaming now (per Barefoot and Pregnant’s blog post),
            Branding the action is a good thing,

          • antigon

            Je suis d’accorde, that midst the drivel that passes as public discourse, the teaching of Christ & His Church needs to be taught with clarity & vigor.
            *
            Thus, in passim, but one of many reasons why Cdl. Kasper & company should be defrocked.

        • Dave G.

          No, it was just one of a thousand different things that people made fun of you for, not because of some latent this or that reaction to a specific thing, but because of issues far deeper. Try being the shortest boy in your class for a day and see how it feels. This idea that there is LGBT, and then there is the rest of reality, is an idea hoisted on society that will no doubt, in years to come, play its own part in future mischief.

          • wlinden

            Or having a different vocabulary. Or being more or less sensitive to cold than the “normals” and dressing accordingly.

            But now we are told that bullying is solely a “gay” issue.

            • antigon

              Plus you know, the linguistically ridiculous word ‘homophobia’ as currently employed is not unlike those of racist & anti-semitic that get tossed at people not because they are guilty of these things, but because it is a useful tool to promote agendas quite unrelated to the want of charity, including institutional, that those words when they do have meaning are meant to express, you racist, fecalphobic Nazi!

      • antigon

        Either that, or the Christian aspirations of a substantial body of Americans are seeing two generations of vicious treatment by the plutocracy intensify.
        *
        T’wasn’t the Christians who imposed Roe, the slaughter of millions, &, you know, that toxic atmosphere mass murder will provoke.
        *
        It’s true some Christians failed to submit to that & related agendas with sufficient alacrity; & libel, as you know well apostate ken, is among the tools meant to bring them to heel.
        *
        And when that don’t work…

      • antigon

        ‘the toxic atmosphere’
        *
        We’ve read that phony spin before apostate k, but as you know well the toxic atmosphere came with the plutocratic assault on the unborn, since mass murder does that. The Christian resistance to homosexualist politics was hardly persecution, & rarely to non-existently vicious, & while millions of children have been sent to the landfills to become food for rats, one is confident not anybody claiming homosexuality has been.
        *
        Even as regards civil disobedience, the 50,000+ Americans arrested with non-violent Operation Rescue saw them subject to years of imprisonment, beatings, sexual molestation, testicle mashing & many other brutalities quite as savage as what Bull Connor did (as Bill Buckley observed), & all of which our plutocratic press probably approved, but definitively ignored, Nat Hentoff being one of only a few exceptions; albeit one loud enough to expose the silence & complicity of his obeisant confreres.
        *
        Were there as many as 1000 from Act-up that got arrested? Doubtful, but even if 2000, you can be sure we would have seen front-page coverage if even one had been subjected to anything remotely as vicious as what was all but routine against anti-abortion civil disobedience.
        *
        So the toxic atmosphere is all your side’s gift, ak, of which your agitprop libels against Christians are but standard & common expression to help smash any toleration of the existential threat they represent to your plutocratic masters.

        • HornOrSilk

          You know, I’ve heard many people excuse the holocaust for the “toxic atmosphere” the Jews made. And the fact that I’ve seen many acting against religious liberty have indeed singled out orthodox Jews as needing to be forced to change Kosher laws, the anti-semitic connection to the modern push to appeal religious liberty needs to be examined, don’t you think? 😉

  • Dave G.

    That’s OK. Last night Don Lemon hosted a fair and balanced debate on CNN, featuring two gay rights supporters and one lone woman defending religious liberty. As the host, he made it clear that you can support bigotry and intolerance, or accept liberal values. But what caught my ear was when he responded to the woman defending the law by saying it was ‘unAmerican’ to embrace this and laws like it. Maybe it’s me, but I can remember when nothing set off a liberal more than the charge of being ‘unAmerican.’ I’m amazed at just how much like old conservative stereotypes those opposing these laws are sounding. I guess it’s true. Today’s conservative was probably yesterday’s liberal. And today’s liberal will likely just be tomorrow’s conservative.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      I haven’t seen many “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” bumper stickers since 1/20/09. I gather that they may return in just inside two years, though, depending on what happens next November.

      • Matt Talbot

        Well, I haven’t seen nearly the level and pervasiveness of the “opposing our war in Iraq means you hate out troops, plus something about Chamberlain and Munich, and also, too: freedom” that blared from every orifice of Right Mediastan during the Bush years.

        Plus, left-ish people like Glenn Greenwald and Dan Froomkin are screaming bloody murder about the threat to civil liberties posed by the continued expansion of the surveillance state under president Obama, and virtually no one of consequence on the right did the same concerning the beginnings of those programs under GW Bush, nor about the establishment of a torture state under Bush and Cheney (which, for the record and unlike anything done by gay rights supporters, actually merits comparison with the Gestapo.)

        • antigon

          ‘virtually no one of consequence on the right did the same concerning the beginnings of those programs under GW Bush, nor about the establishment of a torture state under Bush and Cheney’
          *
          That’s just not true, Matt. Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, The American Conservative, Ron Paul, Tom Woods, the Rockwell site, hell, even The Remnant, & that’s just to name a few off the top of me head of those who kept one sane in those ugly years. And while not sure when Mr. Shea got involved, he sure wasn’t shy once he did.

    • Newp Ort

      Sounds like Lemon’s show left a sour taste in your mouth.

      • Dave G.

        It would anyone who is appalled at flagrant hypocrisy in the the service of intolerance.

        • Newp Ort

          Okay, fine, but there’s no need to get bitter about it.

          • Dave G.

            Appalled and bitter are not necessarily the same thing. Crushing disappointment might be more accurate.

            • Steve

              Newp is playing on words there, Dave… a little inside citrus humor to lighten the mood. Now orange you glad I didn’t say banana?

              • Artevelde

                Playing on words, you say. I say our friend is trying to shorten Lent by filling this thread with images of pizza and lemon based cocktails. I’m taking your bets on whether he’ll get to a chocolate based dessert before Saturday.

                • Newp Ort

                  Lime inclined to take offense to that comment.

                  But a bit of chocolate would be very appeeling right now.

                  • Artevelde

                    Surely you zest.

                    • Joseph

                      Hahaha… thanks guys. That was really a hilarious back and forth. Made my day. I truly laughed out loud.

              • Newp Ort

                I’m juicing the joke for all it’s worth.

                • wlinden

                  And you’re doing it with zest. I bet your disappointed that you aren’t getting peels of laughter.

              • Dave G.

                🙂 It’s easier to see on my computer than earlier on my stupid smartphone where I see about two words at a time. Well played.

            • Newp Ort

              You would expect anything other than disappointment from such yellow journalism as CNN?

    • IRVCath

      At least for Catholics, the honeymoon is over. Remember, they have done this to us before.

  • Joseph

    Wow. Just think of what’s in store for parents who try to protect their children from this sort of stuff. Something wicked this way comes.

  • wlinden

    And you were told it was nasty of you to refer to “gay brownshirts”.

  • ManyMoreSpices

    My heart breaks for this family. But it is great to see some good coming out of this. Beyond the spiritual (and hopefully financial) rewards, they should be able to take some consolation in the knowledge that this will all blow over in a week, if not less. This small-town pizza place will be back to selling pizza to small-town people.

    It’s easy to explode in righteous fury on the internet. If one person in a thousand who expressed online rage every comes within a mile of this restaurant, I will be astonished. And those who do might experience a backlash of their own, like the man who harassed the Chick-Fil-A drive-through gal.

    As for the threatened arsonist, my preferred outcome would be for her not to be punished by the law. Ideally I’d like to see the O’Conners offer to meet with her and extend extraordinary, undeserved mercy. Perhaps that would convert her heart – not to believe that SSM is wrong – but to understand that whatever she perceives the sins of her political opponents to be, they’re not monsters.

  • Elaine S.

    I recently read an old Civil War novel titled “The Crisis” by Winston Churchill — NOT the British Prime Minister, but an American who happened to have the same name, and was a bestselling author in the decade from about 1900 to 1910.

    The novel is pretty old-fashioned and politically incorrect by today’s standards in terms of how it depicts African-Americans, women, etc. But what it does best, in my opinion, is depict how the division of the country over slavery started filtering down to people’s personal relationships and their livelihoods — families splitting apart, old friends no longer speaking to one another, formerly prosperous and contented merchants, farmers, etc. losing everything, and ultimately, soldiers and innocent civilians dying. It also portrays a situation in which people who had done their best to remain neutral and maintain their ties to people on both sides could no longer do so, and were forced to choose sides — and no matter which way they chose, they suffered for it.

    I bring this up because the more I read about the run-up to the Civil War, the more I become convinced that something like this is happening again, only over different issues, and we are probably going to be facing similar situations in the future. How do we do so in a manner that preserves Christian charity?

    • SteveP

      The Christian response during the War of LBTQ Aggression is the same as before: feed the hungry, give drink to thirsty, comfort the dying, and bury the dead.

      • Elaine S.

        Which is exactly what the American Churchill portrays some of his characters as doing. One scene portrays two women — one Unionist and one Confederate — going to a makeshift hospital to help wounded soldiers (of both armies) just arrived from a great battle. They work side by side assisting the surgeons, bringing food and water to those who needed it, and offering to write letters home so the soldiers’ loved ones would know they were cared for, or at least didn’t die alone on the battlefield. Churchill describes them as “doing (God’s) work, which levels all feuds and makes all women sisters.” Love (in more than one sense of the word) conquers all in the end…. another reason I recommend this book.

        • SteveP

          Thank you for the recommendation; I’ll look for the novel.

          • Elaine S.

            Excellent. Full disclosure: my husband and I recently started a micro-publishing company to reprint forgotten/neglected 19th and early 20th century works that are in the public domain, and this was one of the books we just completed. It’s just been listed at Amazon. Look for the paperback version with the colorful battle scene on the front cover — that’s ours. 🙂

          • Free at Project Gutenberg
            https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5396

    • elcid

      If you know your history, Catholic Christians have always fight back (literally), read about the French and Mexican Revolutions, the Spanish Civil war as examples…against the same enemies; atheists, communists, socialists, marxists.

      I’m ex-military, when I had taken the oath it was to protect this country from enemies foreign and domestic, I for one will not let this country go down in flames without a fight, I had read something I believe it was from Bishop Fulton Sheen, something to the affect that God will sometimes punish a country with war, we had a civil war over slavery…who knows maybe one over the 50+ million aborted babies, the gay agenda and all the other moral garbage in this country.

  • Newp Ort

    Of course, none of this has any bearing on whether for-profit businesses should have the right to deny service on the basis of same sex marriage.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      The list of subjects upon which this has no bearing is a mile long. What’s your point?

      • Newp Ort

        That the deplorable conduct of one involved in the debate doesn’t change the rightness/wrongness of either side. Obviously.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          Do you think there’s anyone who contests that position?

          • Newp Ort

            Yes

          • wlinden

            Yes. The people, including “my” senior senator Schumer, who insist that THIS RFRA is DIFFERENT because the people passing it allegedly had bad INTENTIONS.

    • antigon

      Only on how the exploration of that question will be conducted.

  • KM

    Public shaming and “informing” on others is the new
    norm now thanks to social media. What’s striking about the New Rules of
    Secular Morality is that there is no mercy, no forgiveness, just punishment for
    any old or new offense that is deemed a “sin” by the ever-changing
    rules of moral relativism. So if someone can find something innocuous you said
    or did 20 years ago, or even 1 minute ago, that would be deemed offensive by modern
    “moral” standards, the hounds of hell will be released. There
    will be no penance, no redemption. You will be banished to the gulag.

    There’s a timely new book that was just released
    called “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” which explores this more.
    See http://observer.com/2015/03/the-shame-of-our-public-shamings/

  • Newp Ort

    I’m inclined to join in the burning. But only because delivery took an hour and a half AND they messed up my order.

    • Artevelde

      I’m beginning to see why the USA is such a bulwark of entrepreneurship, even of the shoddy kind. Where I live customers leave after 30 minutes, the business is violently nationalized after 45 and the owners dragged off after an hour :p

  • Peggy

    Oh, they are just more Right Wing Nuts of The Thing That Used to be Conservatism (TM).

    • Newp Ort

      Is this comment some kind of weird butthurt sarcasm over Mark’s criticism of conservatives?

      • Artevelde

        Yes of course. If you’re against tormenting poor children at the border, you eventually bring persecution by gay activists upon yourself. This is self-evident.

        • IRVCath

          Apparently. After all, Amnesty Equals Abortion(TM).

          • Artevelde

            And war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

      • Peggy

        Ding! Ding!

        Well, I’m not sure about that “butthurt” part though…

    • chezami

      What are you talking about?

  • Edward

    I didn’t get the impression from the reporting that they had denied anyone service. She made it clear they did not discriminate in their restaurant, but also that they would not want to serve pizza at a gay wedding because they don’t believe in gay marriage. That’s what I got from the reporting. Now, on closer examination: pizza at a gay wedding? Really? This is the claim that shows this was an attention getting, marketing ploy, to me.

    Marketing ploy or not, to me bigotry is enough to boycott their pizza joint. But that’s due to my religious belief: I don’t support people I consider to be bigots. No harm, no foul.

    That said, I think the response has been over-the-top. I did not like the misappropriation of the Yelp page or the posting most of the pictures to the yelp gallery (the ones I saw). I also don’t like that they shut down reportedly due to threats. I completely reject the arguments of those who participate in such behavior.

    In the end, I think this was a poorly considered attempt to increase business for the
    pizza restaurant by adopting a formerly common position in this conservative state. It must have seemed to them to be a “no-brainer” at the time, and I’m sure that while they were aware of the attention the law was getting, ergo the public statement to increase business, they had little idea of the tsunami of resentment this legislation created.

    Still, regardless of how they gauged it, it was cynical and unnecessary and unwise to make such a claim on a news broadcast in the middle of a national debate about this specific issue. Instead of gaining more business, they placed themselves squarely on the fulcrum of a massive national story. This is why people shun media attention in such circumstances, if they can’t afford a PR firm.

    The Yelp thing is a particularly interesting phenomenon. They have no ‘right’ to Yelp; it is not their property. Yelp is a community reporting medium. In order to gain Yelp support, one is required to serve the community such that he/she engenders feelings of good will due to quality product, good service, and respect for customers. When one burns one customer base in order to gain another, that’s just foolish; it’s poor form; it’s bad business acumen. “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.”

    • HornOrSilk

      But you are a bigot. Do you support yourself? Or do you boycott your stomach?

      • Edward

        You make no sense. Make sensible statements please or we cannot communicate.

        • I’m waiting for you to make sensible statements as well.

          • Joseph

            He’s making consistent statements… the Romans were consistent as well. So were the Nazis, Communists, and Islamic extremists (who, by the way, are guilty of killing more innocent human beings than any other group in the history of the world).

    • Steve

      Edward, you do understand that the pizzeria did NOT seek out the attention. The reporter came into a place to find someone on whom to “Gotcha”. And it doesn’t sound to me like the hypothetical unwillingness to cater a gay wedding was a business decision. Just an expression of their considered moral position.

      If anyone was in it for “business” or marketing, it was the deplorable ABC affiliate.

      • Edward

        The pizzeria and is owners know the state of play from their local news media. They were prepared to respond and they already knew what they were going to say. That’s not possible if someone doesn’t know the state of play. They chose this as a means for publicity. They miscalculated.

        • HornOrSilk

          The bigots who hate religious people know the state of play from their local and national news media. They were prepared to respond and already knew they were going to harass religious folk….

        • wlinden

          They “chose” to have this “reporter” drop in out of the blue? Keep digging yourself deeper.

          • Edward

            Oh, dear, a real conspiracy theory type. Well wlinden, Johnny-come-lately to the conversation thread, that’s not what I said. If you go back and read what I said earlier, you’ll see that. What I said was they saw this as an opportunity to crow about the Indiana legislation and earn a reputation for themselves as being against “the gays,” hoping this would earn them business. They miscalculated. So did the Governor and the legislature by the way. Eating a large slice of humble pie yesterday, they revised the law in light of the critique of the law as unconstitutional. The false contexts having been laid to rest.

      • antigon

        ‘Edward, you do understand that the pizzeria did NOT seek out the attention.’
        *
        Of course he does. All this is just a ploy to win Sophie’s heart!

    • Artevelde

      A marketing ploy? A timid and rather naive reaction to this piece of journaille. She should have said ”wipe your toothpaste pimping smile off your face and get out of my house, you common stale of mammon”.

      • Edward

        That attitude doesn’t seem to be working for these owners where gays are concerned, and you’re recommending they use it with the media too?

        • Artevelde

          ”that attitude doesn’t seem to be working” is something I’d accept from a gay person asking people not to fling their religious convictions in his or her face. It becomes a chilling remark as soon as threats come into play.

          • Edward

            I don’t agree with the threats; I’ve stated that clearly. Conversely, I don’t agree with the law. I see it as bigoted and destructive of our social fabric, as well as a violation of our social contract.

            • The RFRA movement is in response to Scalia’s decision in Employment Division v Smith. If we ever reimpose prohibition in this country again, Catholics would not be permitted wine for communion as they were during prohibition due to the logic of Smith. This was viewed as wrong and thus the very popular RFRA movement was born to avoid outcomes like that. I understand that you would prefer that we be denied the blood of Christ under those circumstances. Am I mistaken?

              • radiofreerome

                It was an extremely stupid decision even for “Justice” Scalia.

                • You do realize that the guys who are sticking with religious freedom restoration are also largely fans of Justice Scalia, don’t you? What’s your priority?

              • Guest

                You’ll have to take that up with Justice Scalia; I did not make such an argument. Even if I had, it would carry no force of law. Posing a hypothetical question to me is meaningless hyperbole.

              • Edward

                You’ll have to take that up with Justice Scalia; I did not make such an argument. Even if I had, it would carry no force of law. Posing this kind of hypothetical question to me is meaningless hyperbole, and you know this
                to be true.

                • Prior to Employment Division v Smith, what RFRA seeks to do was the social contract. That is why the federal one was passed with wide bipartisan support.

                  Whether you make it purposefully or, through carelessness, accidentally set that situation up, you do have an obligation to either be in favor of our current sad state of affairs or come up with some way acceptable to you to avoid it once the problem has been brought to your attention.

                  • Edward

                    I note you neglect section 7, which in the Indiana law extends to for profit corporations. I also note you neglect to mention section 9 of which A. goes beyond the federal language of “is or was substantially burdened” and adds the language “likely to be substantially burdened;” and B. allows use of the law as a defense between private parties in administrative and/or judicial proceedings.

                    Also, why would you defend this law when the legislature and the governor have already passed modifications the law to ensure the these conditions are removed? Clearly they’ve seen the error of their ways so, what’s the problem?

                    • Have you seen the witch hunt trying to label any RFRA as being solely in the service of bigotry? I have no objection to debating and adjusting the details. That’s not what the gay lobby wants. That’s not what mainstream media sources are baying for. They’re not saying that the RFRA was poorly constructed so much as saying that backing any RFRA is disqualifying to Gov. Pence’s possible presidential campaign.

                      My preferred solution is to end up in a sustainable situation where nobody gets seriously hurt, neither physically or spiritually. Barring that, the secular law should minimize damage. That’s not the legal regime we’re in right now.

                    • Edward

                      “Witch Hunt”
                      “Gay Lobby”
                      “Mainstream Media”
                      “Baying”
                      ‘[paraphrased] unreasonable adversaries’ and ‘irrational overreach’

                      Such
                      characterizations are not those of one who is interested in discussing
                      and debating an issue in order to arrive at a sustainable or equitable
                      solution. Rather, they are ad hominem, conflation, composition, and false cause argumentation intended to further a particular agenda.

                    • JM1001

                      Such characterizations are not those of one who is interested in discussing and debating an issue in order to arrive at a sustainable or equitable solution.

                      Maybe. But one could also say that such characterizations as calling opponents of same-sex marriage and supporters of RFRAs “bigots” (as you have done) and no different than Ku Klux Klan members (as many others have done) also demonstrates that one is not “interested in discussing and debating an issue in order to arrive at a sustainable or equitable solution.”

                      If some conservatives are engaging in ad hominem attacks, perhaps it’s partly because they have been — and are increasingly being — subjected to the same.

                      Besides, the “sustainable and equitable solution” is obvious, even on pluralistic grounds: put aside, for the moment, the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legally permitted, but protect the right of those who have moral objections to same-sex marriage the freedom not to be forced to formally and materially cooperate with it.

                      But, as TMLutas points out, even that modest compromise is condemned as “bigotry” by prominent sources, rejecting the very principle on which any RFRA is based, not just the Indiana law.

                    • Edward

                      Please don’t continue mischaracterizing my words. Your rhetorical attempts to try to guilt those who disagree with you by false association is, or should be, beneath the dignity of an educated man. Your claim that I called people “bigots” is clearly false. I said the law is bigoted, and it is bigoted. You have already agreed with this yourself, else why would you be willing to negotiate a more equitable solution. What does this say about your continued attempt to “win” an argument and save face where you have already conceded? It is shallow rhetoric at best.

                      Your continued obfuscation regarding this subject does not support your claim that you are a person who is interested in arriving at equitable solution, and your continuing fallacious rebuttals do everyone who reads these posts a disservice. Perhaps you should spend more time actually working toward resolution with others, rather than simply continuing to argue with them, now that the proper characterization of the Indiana law has been settled by the conceding Governor himself.

                    • JM1001

                      Your claim that I called people “bigots” is clearly false.

                      You called the pizzeria owners bigots. You wrote the comment two months ago, so perhaps you just forgot:

                      Marketing ploy or not, to me bigotry is enough to boycott their pizza joint. But that’s due to my religious belief: I don’t support people I consider to be bigots.

                      On the matter of the law, first of all, I never conceded that the Indiana law is bigoted (I don’t necessarily think it is). Because the Governor caved to public pressure, most likely for the sake of his own political career and future prospects, says nothing about the rational defensibility of the original law. Politicians cowardly concede to mob pressure all the time; that does nothing to adjudicate the merits of the original position. But people often act like it does, presupposing that whatever the majority believes — and can pressure weak politicians into conceding — must necessarily be right. That’s obviously a fallacy.

                      Secondly, as I stated before, the “equitable solution” is obvious, even on pluralistic grounds: protect the right of those who have moral objections to same-sex marriage the freedom not to be forced to formally or materially cooperate in those marriages. This satisfies the justice-based demands of same-sex couples who wish to marry, while also satisfying the religious freedom demands of those who do not wish to endorse — either through explicit or symbolic speech — a practice that they have moral objections to.

                      But this simple, common sense compromise between citizens of radically opposing views is still condemned by many LGBT advocates as “bigoted,” even though, again, it is by definition the most “equitable solution” possible because it is derived from the very principles of democratic pluralism itself. That is why it appears to so many conservatives that many LGBT advocates are not interested in an “equitable solution” — the most equitable solution on the table is summarily rejected.

                    • In the month since we spoke, we’ve got the additional evidence of a Canadian jeweler who garnered death threats after:
                      1. making rings for a pair of lesbians
                      2. making them well enough that they sent business his way
                      3. when his opinion was discovered later, they sought a refund of their deposit

                      So no, it’s not about forcing businesses to serve gays just like everybody else. It never was and the equal protection mask is slipping. That some people saw it coming earlier is not a sign of their intolerance.

                      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/23/canadian-jeweler-makes-rings-for-gay-wedding-still/?page=all

            • Joseph

              Yeah, you do… you’re being totally disingenuous here and it’s rather entertaining to watch kids like you twist yourself into knots. Good job, kiddo.

              • Edward

                Joseph, you cannot tell someone else what they think or what they feel merely because you want to assign thoughts or beliefs to the person in order to try to falsely malign their character. That form of discourse is referred to as ad hominem fallacy. Using this “little dirty trick” as such fallacies are known, you hope to gain cheap ground by attacking me as a person, rather than than making a better argument. You really need to work on your reasoning skills. Best of luck to you!

                • antigon

                  Absolutely, Ed! What Joseph needs to do is learn to call you a teenager! Or if he really wants to hone his reasoning skills, a pre-teen!

            • antigon

              ‘destructive of our social fabric…as well as a violation of our social contract.’
              *
              A bit like public sexual deviance then, eh Mister Ed?

              • Edward

                If by deviance you mean a same-sex couple engaging in some amorous public behavior that is generally considered acceptable for opposite sex couples, I see no problem. And, if you agree that where an opposite-sex couple might otherwise not seem out of place where a same sex couple might also not seem out of place, then, I might find it hard to disagree. Perhaps we should think about this in the context of family and friends. Is that right? Are you aware of the sexual persuasions of all your family and friends?

                • antigon

                  In a society with any kind of serious social fabric, Ed, sexual intimacy is a private thing, restrained in public.

                • wlinden

                  ” Are you aware of the sexual persuasions of all your family and friends?”
                  Well, you think small businesses are aware of the sexual persuasions of everybody who walks in, as that is necessary if they are planning to “refuse service to gays”.

        • virago

          I have the benefit of 5 hours of history on my side so I can say that at this time lots of people, gay and straight, are supporting this pizzeria, according to the internet and need outlets.

          I fear that some members of the gay community may have pushed the issues a little too hard and to far.

    • LFM

      That is one of the more preposterous comments I’ve ever read.

      Also, who is claiming that Yelp is anyone’s right? It’s the sheer nastiness of the rhetoric being used there that is in question.

      • Edward

        Preposterous because…?

    • radiofreerome

      Even good pizza is usually quite ugly and never terribly refined. I can’t see anyone serving it at a wedding.

      I think the reporter ensnared this poor girl in a stupid hypothetical. Her father was obnoxious and self-righteous, however. But the response is grossly disproportionate.

      • wlinden

        Why do you hate pizza eaters, you bigot?

    • antigon

      Dear Edward:
      *
      You might want to consider marrying Sophia Sadek above, whereupon the two of you could spend many happy hours deluding yourselves about whatever nonsense captures your fancy.
      *
      P.S. Godwin’s Codicil: the first person to charge bigotry loses the argument.

      • Edward

        You propose to offer me, and by direct necessity, Ms. Sadek, marriage advice? Here, on a Patheos article page? How old are you? 12 or 13 years old? What grade are you in? Do your parents know you are involved in “grown-up” conversations on the internet?

        Mike Godwin authored no codicil to his law; therefore your statement is meaningless. Everything you’ve said here is perfectly meaningless.

        Please don’t speak to me, again. I don’t like wasting my time with fools.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Whoa, pompous much? I bet my vinyl collection is bigger than yours!

        • antigon

          Dearest Ed:
          *
          Well of course he didn’t. I was referring to *Algernon* Godwin’s codicil, not Mike’s, tho it’s true you deserve credit for expertise on that matter of meaninglessless Mr. Ed.
          *
          On the other hand – since you’ve already lost the argument according to Algernon – one is shocked by your ageist bigotry against 12 & 13-year-olds, especially as they still aren’t even free to marry the people they love in our ageist theocracy! Thanks to people like you!

    • My understanding is that Memories did no catering as a sideline. It was strictly a pizza joint. A reporter posed a hypothetical would you cater, which was answered, honestly and foolishly. I’m pretty sure that nobody in that place ever got media training.

      The business had 2 reviews and averaged 4.5 stars prior to today. That’s their actual relationship with the Yelp community. If it were a doctor running afoul of the gay mafia, people would be piling into Healthgrades to lie about that doctor, but it’s a restaurant so they use Yelp. This is libel.

    • virago

      I thought they shut down because they were getting so many calls for pizza that they were not sure if they were actual orders or not. But, the tweets were threatening.

  • Sophia Sadek

    Death threats are what we expect from homophobes, not from LGBT rights activists. I question the veracity of the attacks on this benighted woman.

    • LFM

      Piffle. Death threats are common coin on both sides of the left-right divide.

    • Richard A

      My goodness Sophia, that is precious. Liberals always assume their political opponents are the close-minded and violent ones.

      • Sophia Sadek

        Liberals do not make death threats. That is not liberal behavior. That is the kind of thing we expect from the fascisti.

        • Artevelde

          And which of the two groups is more likely to use the fallacious argument called ‘No true Scotsman’?

          • wlinden

            You know who used the “No True Scotsman” argument? HITLER!

            • Artevelde

              And he was right. No true Scotsman would have invented something so unheroic as radar, only to employ it when Germany wasn’t ready yet.

        • Sorry, your “no true Scotsman” fallacy is showing. I have been personally threatened with death by people with impeccable liberal credentials.

        • Paxton Reis

          “Liberals do not make death threats.”

          ??? ignorant of modern history.

        • Joseph

          Say what?

        • Andy

          Humans make death threats – unfortunately it is part of our fallen nature – left – right – straight – LGBT – doesn’t matter. Please recognize this.

          • Sophia Sadek

            When a self-professed liberal makes a death threat, she becomes an exposed hypocrite.

        • wlinden

          So just saying “I am a liberal” is enough to make someone a saint.

          • antigon

            What are you talking about, wl? That it does has been clear since its inception! Why, the K-nacht hatefest against that girl – & photos rightly doctored to make her look ugly – all that is the very meaning of righteousness!
            *
            Plus, you know, the *feeling* of righteousness is even better than one from a bonk up the ol’ badooble.
            *
            Just ask the Sanhedrin.

        • LFM

          There are no more liberals left among the progressives. You drove them all out, because you have become the fascisti.

          • Sophia Sadek

            What makes you think that I have any truck with the fascisti?

    • HornOrSilk

      Dishonesty is what I expect from the “gay mafia.” So I’m not surprised you lie.

      • Sophia Sadek

        What lie?

    • radiofreerome

      We gays aren’t saints. We’re human like the rest. I apologize for those making threats.

      • Mike Petrik

        Your gesture is appreciated even if unnecessary. One should not have to apologize for the acts of others simply because you have something in common. Catholics are sinners too, and it is really silly for me to be apologizing for all of us — just me should be fine. And not to be pedantic, but people who have been recognized as saints were not so recognized because of perfection. Heroic virtue can sometimes be very idiosyncratic. In any case thanks for being a gentleman.

      • Joseph

        Thanks, seriously. But there is no need to apologise. Trust me, we understand. Not all Catholic priests are child molesters and it isn’t Catholic teaching to abuse and kill people for power. Human beings fall short.

      • wlinden

        Don’t waste your time apologizing for other people.

    • chezami

      Wow. That’s some epistemic closure bubble you got there.

      • radiofreerome

        Mark, I don’t think “epistemic closure” means what you think it means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure.

        The older term “closed-mindedness” fits the situation better.

        • chezami

          Whatever. The point is, this person is in such denial about the brutish mob of visigoths for tolerance that characterize the left’s response that she falls back on the hoary “This is a false flag operation by my enemies” denial to keep from facing the fact that her side is behaving like a horde of barbarians.

          • Rob B.

            “Visigoths for Tolerance.” Love it! We need a T-shirt!

            • HornOrSilk
              • Sophia Sadek

                I suppose the brutal treatment of Goth hostages by Romans played absolutely no role in the scheme of things.

                • Those Romans, they got what’s coming to them.

                  Right.

                  • wlinden

                    Try reading R. Lafferty’s ALARIC: The Day the World Ended (first issued by the gloopy publisher as “The Fall of Rome”.

                    • Since it doesn’t seem to be too long, I’ll give it a shot but the Amazon price is shocking ($999) and my library system doesn’t have a copy. I don’t have high hopes for the special request I just placed.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Rome was not a well loved town back in those days. It was the center of the most hated power cult in the world. Rome established the pattern for the fascisti of our own times.

                    • What was the name of that power cult? You see, the capitol of the Western empire had been moved to Ravenna when Rome was sacked. It is possible that you are referring to the papacy which did, indeed, work out of Rome. Please clarify what you mean.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      The Goths negotiated with the Roman power center over the protection of the city of Rome. The Romans did not negotiate in good faith. Never have, never will.

                    • You remain very opaque as to what, exactly, is the power center or “power cult” you are condemning though the “never will” hints at your actual answer. A straightforward naming of what you are referring to would be helpful. Or are you being purposefully obscurantist?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I believe the principal with which the Goths dealt was Honorius.

                    • That’s as nice of a description of a criminal protection racket as I’ve seen in quite some time.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It is fascinating comparing the perspectives of the orthodox and the heretics. The orthodox considered the heretics to be criminal and vice versa. Could both have been wrong? Could both have been right? Or was one right and the other wrong?

                    • Are you trying to make the case that Alaric’s sack of Rome was a blow for the cause of Arianism? And beyond this, you seem to be making the case that Alaric was justified? You must be fun in just war discussions.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Much of the conflict of the time involved differences between Christian sects. The Goths were not Arian in a strict sense of the term, but they definitely did not bend their knee to orthodox “authority.”
                      I have no sympathy for Rome. It was built on plunder. For Rome to be plundered itself is no sad event. When one pirate ship is boarded and captured by another pirate ship, it is no big deal.

                    • antigon

                      For someone who loves to charge bigotry, Soph, you sure do indulge it thirstily.

              • Rob B.

                The truly funny thing about this comic is that the Germanic tribes did have something of an inferiority complex when it came to the Romans…

                • Sophia Sadek

                  I would not consider it an inferiority complex. It was probably more like contempt.

              • Artevelde

                That’s okay, Mr. Goth, but what about the Philistine who made one of the stories disappear completely?

            • Joseph

              LOL. That is brilliant. I’d make a T-shirt myself, but I wouldn’t want to take credit away from Mark.

          • Sophia Sadek

            You sound like an advocate of Scott Lively’s paradigm.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Yes, and you sound like Frank Sinatra in ‘The Mongolian Candidate’.

              Frankly, if I was going to believe ANYONE was running a false-flag op, it’s you, Sugar. Why do you want people to think pro-LGBT supporters are incredibly stupid, brainwashed Polly Annas?

            • wlinden

              And you sound like someone who makes obscure references that make sense only to herself.

          • wlinden

            And it is “jumping to a conclusion” to think that something is what it appears to be… in other words, to espouse the null hypothesis.

    • SteveP

      I thought the rule is: if it’s self-identified, it’s truth. Is that not true?

    • JM1001

      Death threats are what we expect from homophobes, not from LGBT rights activists.

      It’s amazing that anyone could say this with a straight face. It’s now been over six years since the embarrassing (and horrifying) spectacle of what happened when the names and ZIP codes of the Prop 8 donors were released:

      For the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

      Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

      Again, that was over six years ago. If you’re still surprised by death threats coming from LGBT activists, then I can only conclude you haven’t been paying attention.

      • Sophia Sadek

        Are you convinced that LBGT rights activists made those death threats? The boycotting of businesses seems more like activist activity.

        • What is your evidence that the threats were not made by LGBT rights activists?

          • Sophia Sadek

            It does not fit the profile. There may be some LGBT fanatics who flew off the handle and acted up in this fashion. There may also be some fundamentalist fanatics who pretended to be acting in favor of the LBGT community in a way that made them look bad.

            • Your beliefs don’t constitute actual evidence. Do you have evidence?

              • Sophia Sadek

                I am not the one who is jumping to a conclusion. It is those who jump to a conclusion who need the evidence to support their position. My stance is one of skepticism. It is one of not believing the hype until all the evidence is in.

                • You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that it is not LGBT activists making these threats.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    The conclusion I jumped to is that it is more likely that these threats were made by homophobes. That is not the same as concluding that they could not have been made by any member of the LGBT community.

                    • Sirene

                      lol you are laughable!!!!!!
                      Those threats were made by gay activists. Unreal your level of brainwashing… I hope one day you wake up girl!!!

                • virago

                  You jumped. Then you feel. Please reread your comments.

                • Joseph

                  Umm… jumped to conclusions? Why was the report made in the first place? What were the reasons for it? Who was involved? Where did it take place? What was the reaction to *the report* outside of this blog?
                  .
                  If this blog post didn’t exist, it wouldn’t have changed the reality of the situation of which and its aftermath you are desperately trying to claim didn’t actually happen the way the report itself has stated. Nobody is jumping to conclusions here. They are commenting on the present reality. Return to Earth when you are ready.

                • wlinden

                  So thinking that something is what it appears to be is “jumping to a conclusion”?

                  It is those who reject the null hypothesis who bear the burden of proof.

            • virago

              Profile, you mean stereotype

              • Sophia Sadek

                I have worked closely with members of the LGBT rights community as well as with the folks on whose behalf they advocate. For me, a profile means far more than a stereotype.

            • Hegesippus

              Are you refusing the right of any “normal” LGBTs to choose to be violent or to threaten violence? That’s very stereotypical, anti-freedom and very deterministic! Shocking!

              • Sophia Sadek

                Threatening violence is not a right. It is a violation of the rights of the person threatened.

                • Hegesippus

                  So free speech is not allowed, even to LGBTs?

                  Do you get the feeling that this universal tolerance thing is illogical and irrational, contradicting itself the moment people disagree, leading to a hierarchy of who gets rights over others, thus to a system where the fashionable get to hold power over others?

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Certain forms of speech are not protected. Screaming “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium is the classic example.

            • Sirene

              The profile you invented….
              A group capable of getting people fire and destroying their lives because they don’t agree with their sexual activities…
              A group capable of bypassing legislative channels and impose via judges their will and going against the will of the people only denotes totalitarian tendencies
              A group that will lobby for employment laws that prevent gov’t from firing them just because they are gay
              A group that has managed to call out boycotts on every company that doesn’t comply with their agenda
              A group that has managed to intimidate speakers, teachers, media
              A group that has attempted murderer and actually did murdered people
              A group that would actively discriminate against Christians but then under the guise of “tolerance” wouldn’t touch a mosque
              A group that has demanded pastors to hand in their sermons
              No Sophia you are so brainwashed it’s unreal!!!!

        • JM1001

          Are you convinced that LBGT rights activists made those death threats?

          Sure. I see no reason to disbelieve it, for the simple reason that the political culture war tends to bring out the worst in many of the belligerents of both sides.

          Your argument, on the other hand, is that LGBT activists are all so innocent and pure that you cannot even conceive that some of them engage in death threats. Your naivete would be adorable if it weren’t so sad.

          • Sophia Sadek

            My position is not based on naivety, but on past experience. It is standard operating procedure for reactionaries to commit acts of violence while posing as leftists.

            • Paxton Reis

              Right-wing reactionaries don’t have a corner on violence. Just look at the horrific violence leftist have caused around the globe over the past 40, 50 years–especially in the US and Europe.

              And far as posing, leftist are not immune from this either and the number of hoax hate crimes are just an example.

              • Sophia Sadek

                Some folks consider Stalin to be a leftist. I am not in their camp. He was just as anti-communist as was Hitler and the pope.

                • antigon

                  But he was big on the power of the State, tho, just like that left-wing fanatic Hitler.
                  *
                  Popes have always been hostile to the idea of absolute state power, on the other hand, which while not the only reason Sophists hate them, is usually the main one.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    One must be pretty far to the right to consider Hitler to be a leftist.

            • virago

              Oh, honey, seek help!

              Everybody, no matter gender, race, etc…….., encompasses all human traits. LBGTQ community has acquired significant power, with power comes the ability and sick desire to hurt and harm.

              • Sophia Sadek

                People with real power do not make death threats.

            • Chris Allen

              Oh, you mean like that James O’Keefe fellow, and the ones who were sent to various Occupy protests to try to egg people into fighting police? It’s true, there’s a solid track record of a sort of “false flag” operation where certain conservative (or intelligence) groups infiltrate liberal groups and try to incite violence… so yes, it’s not a stretch to think some of them might make threatening calls or do mailings of powdery stuff.

              It’s also not outside the realm of possibility that some really angry people on the Left did that stuff. That’s the thing—we just don’t know, and given the track record of people like O’Keefe, it’s best to keep an open mind on the topic. “False Flag” operations have been done by both govt. and private individuals in the past.

              • chezami

                Actually we do know. It was an angry lesbian.. Deal with it.

              • Sophia Sadek

                This particular issue is more of a hot button issue for reactionaries than for progressives.

        • Joseph

          All one has to do is read comments on blogs, news web sites, etc. whenever one of these deliberately incendiary event like this occurs. Plenty of death threats, hateful comments, and wishes for painful, slow, death of the targets of LBGT community members. The internet is the new mailbox. You’ll get a much broader sample that way.

      • Sophia Sadek

        So, you feel Corkins is typical of LGBT activists?

        • Irrelevant. Your claim was that LGBT rights activists do not commit death threats. Floyd Corkin is a LGBT rights activist who attempted to kill numerous people because of their pro-traditional-marriage views. Therefore, your statement is false. Will you acknowledge that?

          • Sophia Sadek

            Corkins is a deeply disturbed individual who neither acted rationally nor acted in any way that is representative of the LBGT community.

            • Irrelevant. Your claim was that LGBT rights activists do not commit death threats. Floyd Corkin is a LGBT rights activist who attempted to kill numerous people because of their pro-traditional-marriage views. Therefore, your statement is false. Will you acknowledge that?

              • Sophia Sadek

                What I said is that this is not an expected LGBT activist tactic. That is not the same thing as saying that it is impossible for an LGBT fanatic to exist. There are atheist fanatics like Sam Harris who advocates torture and nuclear terror, but such conduct is not typical of atheists. It is almost standard practice for conservative Christians.

                • Irrelevant. Your claim was that LGBT rights activists do not commit death threats. Floyd Corkin is a LGBT rights activist who attempted to kill numerous people because of their pro-traditional-marriage views. Therefore, your statement is false. Will you acknowledge that?

                • “It is almost standard practice for conservative Christians.” Interesting. In my experience, it is far from standard practice. In fact it is very uncommon. What is your evidence that advocating for torture and nuclear terror is standard practice for conservative Christians?

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    I have read numerous works by conservative Christians that rationalize the use of torture by the conservative Christian Bush/Cheney administration and the use of nuclear terror by a variety of past administrations, including that of the Truman administration when nuclear terror was actually used. I suppose you consider Truman and his generals staff to be other than Christian.

                    • By your logic, I just need to read a book by Peter Singer in order to conclude that all atheists support infanticide. Do you think that is fair?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I always consider the argument before coming to conclusions. Some people consider all forms of contraception to be the moral equivalent of infanticide. Just because they think that way does not make it so.

                    • And just because you think all conservative Christians support nuclear terror and etc. does not make it so.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I am sorry I gave you the impression that I implied a blanket advocacy. No party is monolithic.

                    • virago

                      Many conservatives did not support Truman’s use of the bomb. Herbert Hoover, for example.

                      You paint a picture too broadly. You deal in stereotypes which affects your perceptions, weakens your arguments and can make you appear foolish.

                      But we’ve all been there.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      None of the conservatives and most of the liberal I have talked to think that the use of the A-bomb was justified.

                    • Joseph

                      Umm… are you aware that the two H-bombs were dropped on two burgeoning Catholic communities in Japan? Right next to ground zero of Hiroshima was a Catholic church. The US practically decimated Catholicism in Japan. It should be no surprise that the US government to this day does what it can to destroy Catholicism around the world (funding Islamic terrorist groups to slaughter innocent Catholics around the world) and at home (through a steady flow of media propaganda, convincing the sheep to adopt policies that will inevitably result in making Catholic practices in public illegal).
                      .
                      Most Catholics, who have not been poisoned with Calvinistic thought, do not agree with the H-bomb.

                    • Dave G.

                      Really? Oh brother. You just helped the progressive cause more than any advocate could hope to.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Did you know that no H-bombs have ever been dropped on any population center?

                      I know of nobody who does more to discredit Catholicism than the Vatican. Failing to deal with pedophile priests was practically a nail in the coffin for the Catholic tradition.

                    • Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the Church has failed to deal with pedophile priests? My experience is just the opposite.

                    • Sophia Sadek
                    • That article discusses the problem the Church has had with pedophile priests in the past. It says nothing about the extreme measures the Church has taken to deal with the problem. Example: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/index.cfm

                      So you haven’t proved your assertion that the Church has “failed” to deal with pedophile priests at all.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It took successful civil prosecution before they budged.

                    • So are you now admitting that you lied?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I admit that you split hairs, quite smugly as a matter of fact.

                    • No, you make gross generalizations and then backtrack once proven incorrect.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Rumors of your capacity to prove things by making false assertions are greatly exaggerated.

                    • Pot, meet kettle.

                    • antigon

                      ‘Did you know that no H-bombs have ever been dropped on any population center?’
                      *
                      Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians killed – if admittedly mostly only Catholics – in what your delusion, this time one that goes too far, won’t call a population center.
                      *
                      Don’t tell it to your boyfriends, tho, since (let us hope) even they would find this one too sick for words.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      To which population center do you refer?

                    • antigon

                      The ones where those tens of thousands of civilians were murdered.

                    • Tweck

                      You think Bush and Cheney are Christians?? Ha ha, I’m sorry, but anyone who worships a statue of an ancient Owl god, and ceremonially “cremates” their “care,” is not a Christian. Cheney and Bush, like most politicians, use Christianity to get votes. That doesn’t make them Christians. We are defined by our actions rather than our words. You can say anything, but that doesn’t make it true.

                    • Mike Petrik

                      Can’t speak for Cheney, but Bush is most definitely a Christian, even if an imperfect one like all of us. The idea that one’s actions must be in perfect accord with another’s conscience in order to be a Christian is pretty silly. Similarly silly is the notion that an imperfectly formed conscience renders one a non-Christian.

                    • Tweck

                      Very good point, and thank you. They’re both supposedly Methodists. But you are right, I shouldn’t expect any Christian to be perfect – I’m as imperfect as they come. I simply have my suspicions about those two. But I don’t trust anyone who goes to Bohemian Grove.

                    • Mike Petrik

                      Perfectly understandable.
                      I am an anti-torture Republican who disagreed with the Bush Administration on torture from the git-go. Death penalty too, though I’m given pause by all the murders known to be ordered from prisoners.
                      It takes a rather refined conscience to understand that it is wrong to torture even the most evil of men even for the most noble purposes. We should persuade rather than ridicule and vilify. I’ve had considerable success with this approach.
                      Cheney and Bush are honorable men with imperfectly formed consciences. Making cartoons of them is neither accurate nor efficacious.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      So, you have excommunicated the Bohemian Club Banditti?

                    • Tweck

                      Bush or Cheney aren’t Catholics… I think they both pretend to be Methodists, but the Bible has a lot to say about folks who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’m just sayin’ – you pray to Molech, you must not be a Christian. :p I guess it’s not really up to me to judge, but I do tend to shoot off my mouth about the whole Bohemian Grove thing, as I personally find it a bit revealing.

                    • antigon

                      ‘I suppose you consider Truman and his generals [sic] staff to be other than Christian.’
                      *
                      Well, t’is possible his hostility to Catholicism (like yours?) was more devout.
                      *
                      But congrats for a post not wholly idiotic. Lots of Jews been publicly big on torture & nuke terror, tho, so what with Christians bloody & defeated by thy brilliantly perceptive posts, Soph, might be time for you to see if you can get away with a little Jew-bashing too!

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Henry Kissinger is famous for advocating nuclear terror. Oppenheimer is famous for opposing it.

                    • antigon

                      Well, that’s a start, Soph, tho if you intend to bring your Jew-bashing to the level of your hatred for Christians, you still have work to do.

                • Joey Allen

                  That is laughable

                • wlinden

                  “expected” by you.

                • Joe

                  Tell all 15 million people who died under Stalin that. Tell that to all who died under Pol Pot. Atheists both.

                  • Joseph

                    Don’t forget the all time favourite atheist father, Hitler. Though he didn’t come close to Pol Pot and the Lenin/Stalin duo as far as body count goes. It so easy to win the body count argument against atheists. Their team is guilty of the greatest numbers of the slaughter of innocents based on their bigotry than any other entity in the entire history of the world, several times over… and in a much smaller time frame.

                    • Joe

                      Well, Hitler was more of a pagan, but I see your point.

                    • Artevelde

                      Nazi Germany vastly outranks the Red Khmer when it comes to body count, actually. Lenin is a fairly minor league player too, if you make abstraction of the horrors of civil war. Chairman Mao, then again, is missing.

                    • Joseph

                      Ah, who could forget Mao. Lenin did ignite the Red Terror though where there were so many bodies that they lost count and are left with estimates.

                    • Artevelde

                      Estimates indeed, but even on the higher end these estimates would at most reach a number of a few million. If we take ”killed over ten million people who could at that time not reasonably defend themselves” as a benchmark, we’re only talking (I think in this order) Mao, Stalin, Hitler and – possibly – Genghis Khan.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Stalin was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child and attended an Orthodox seminary. Pol Pot was indoctrinated into Stalinism.

                    • antigon

                      Absolutely. You have to understand, Joe, that Christianity has been historically overwhelmingly influential, & accordingly any crime that has ever been committed is due to that. Crimes committed before Christ were due to an instinctual understanding He was coming to found a criminal Faith.
                      *
                      Yesterday & today celebrate the effort to stop the Criminal, tho tomorrow represents a setback to that ongoing effort.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Do not blame Jesus for the works of Paul and Constantine.

                    • antigon

                      Some do actually, tho it’s true some hold that all crimes committed before Paul were due to an instinctual understanding he was coming to found a criminal Faith, as all crimes since because he was able to steal the Real Message – at least until Sophie came along – from that hapless Jesus guy.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Jesus made many mistakes. Recruiting Peter was one of them. Recruiting Paul was someone else’s mistake.

                    • chezami

                      Between this act of asinine fatuity and the Godwin’s Law violations, you reached my limit. Bye!

                    • Artevelde

                      And Charles Manson inhaled Pot.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Stalin was at the apex of his own cult of personality. Among his victims were members of the Russian Communist party. He was more like Ivan the Terrible than anything else.

                    • AquinasMan

                      Gacy, Speck, Cunanan, Dahmer, Swango, Wayne Williams, Henry Lee Lucas, Juan Corona, Luis Alfredo … not to mention much of the Brownshirt leadership in the Nazi party — all notorious mass murderers — all homosexuals. Is this standard practice?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      How many of them were also Christian? The history of Christian anti-Semitic violence is long and bloody. The Nazis were only the most recent and most egregious.

                      When people point to gay Nazis, they often point away from the gay victims of the holocaust. Nazis rounded up and exterminated a variety of undesirables including Gypsies, homosexuals, socialists, and those most hated by Catholics — communists.

                    • antigon

                      All quite terrible to be sure, & tho you neglected to mention all the Catholics they killed (& slandered), one is sure – hopeful? – you don’t think that compensates all the other murders.

                • John

                  You ought to attend university in Kenya.

                  To claim that it is standard practice for conservative Christians to advocate torture and nuclear terror marks you as basically brain dead.

                  • chezami

                    No it doesn’t. It marks her as aware of conservative Christian rhetoric for the past decade. Conservative white America Christians are *the* leading proponents of the use of torture and the chief defenders of the nuking of H and N.

                • Tweck

                  “It is almost standard practice for conservative Christians.”

                  That is an unabashed lie. Most conservative Christians are peaceful and would never consider something as vile as issuing death threats.

                  There are violent fanatics in every single walk of life covering the entire spectrum of political ideology and religious belief. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Neo-cons, Liberals, pagans, Libertarians, Marxists, Republicans, anarchists, the list goes on and on into practical infinity.

                  It also does not reflect on either the ideologies or the beliefs. It has to do with disturbed individuals, and that is all.

                  Singling out Christians as a group is empirically dishonest.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    It is empirically dishonest to ignore the crimes of Christianity.

                    • It is empirically dishonest to attribute all crimes to Christians.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It is empirically dishonest to claim that someone attributed all crimes to Christians when they did not.

                    • You did so, two comments above this one.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      What is it about the comment that gives you that impression?

                    • Because it is exactly what you said.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      That is your interpretation of what I said.

                    • Then perhaps you should edit your comment for clarity.

                    • Tweck

                      It is empirically dishonest to suggest that I didn’t include Christians in the above spectrum of beliefs and walks of life. It is honest to say that there are people from ~every walk of life~ who say and do terrible things.

                      It is a sign of bigotry to single out Christianity for the criminals in our midst, particularly when violence and violent rhetoric are coming out of your side of the aisle as well.

                      As a commenter above mentioned, if you want to start playing a numbers game with regard to crimes people commit and assign those crimes to peoples’ religious or non-religious identity, you’ll find that Christians as a whole are responsible for far less crime historically than people from many other groups.

                      Instead of just admitting that a small percentage of people from all sorts of causes, religions and ideologies do and say terrible things, you’re inferring that Christians are some how more violent or criminal than everyone else, which is simply a dishonest thing to do.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Most of the violence I have experienced in life was perpetrated in the name of Jesus.

                    • antigon

                      Uh-oh. Sounds like more of the kind of thing Hitler would say, Soph.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Were I around in his domain, I would have been interred, gassed and incinerated. I could see you as a member of Goebels’ ministry of information.

                    • antigon

                      To the contrary, Soph, given your hatred of Christians & refusal to note Hitler’s persecution of them, more likely you’d have been given a top-notch job going after them, not to say one in that ministry where practicing Catholics were most unwelcome.

                    • antigon

                      True, as it is to ignore the crimes – or indulge the slanders – against it.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Slandering criminality. That’s rich.

                • antigon

                  Uh-oh. Looks like this Islandbrewer penguin might be competing with Ed & Chris for thy heart (& brain) dear Soph, if it’s not penguinophobic to say so.
                  *
                  Looks like CAEI may be turning into a site for the lovelorn.

            • In turn, any Christians who send death threats are deeply disturbed individuals who neither act rationally nor act in any way that is representative of the Christian community.

              • Sophia Sadek

                Christians have a long track record of theft, murder and destruction. It is expected of Christians to continue in that vein.

                • Human beings have a long track record of theft, murder, and destruction. Even LGBT human beings.

                  • antigon

                    ‘Even LGBT human beings.’
                    *
                    Nonsense. Never happened. Classic Christian bigotry even to think it possible.

                    • Sorry, my sarcasm detector is out of commission at the moment. Are you being serious or sarcastic?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Judging by homophobic remarks made elsewhere by antigon…

                    • antigon

                      Why, Soph, only a Hitlerite would indulge such a libel!

                • Hegesippus

                  The track record tends to be significantly longer than the actual reality it purports to record.

                • John

                  Did you know that within 90 minutes of the Trade Centre being attacked, more people died than during the ENTIRE inquisition?

                  Christians have a long history of art, music, painting, astronomy, genetics, biology and philosophy.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Christian astronomy? Who were the most famous Christian astronomers before Copernicus and Galileo (who got much of their basic background from Pagan predecessors)?

                    • S. Murphy
                    • Sophia Sadek

                      How many of those Christians relied on Pagan sources?

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      All the wrong ones. That’s the simple answer. Tycho Brache, by careful observation, demonstrated that those pagan sources were largely incorrect, sometimes by a rather wide margin.

                      Spend less time rabble rousing and learn a thing or two.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Imagine where we would be today if there had not been that pause in intellectual development between the sixth and sixteenth centuries. By the time Brahe was born, computers would already have been invented.

                    • JM1001

                      Imagine where we would be today if there had not been that pause in intellectual development between the sixth and sixteenth centuries.

                      Oh God, not this crap again. Never let it be said that anti-Christians don’t have their own fact-free, self-flattering myths. There was no “pause in intellectual development” between the 6th and 16th centuries. Please learn something about history and stop mindlessly repeating such absurd and demonstrable falsehoods about the past.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I am familiar with the body of pro-ignorance apologia, thank you.

                    • JM1001

                      Unlike you, Tim O’Neill and James Hannam are actual historians, who have done actual work in the field, and have actual knowledge about the past. All you have is the historically ignorant self-flattering atheist myth about how there was no intellectual development in Europe for a thousand years because those Big Bad Christians banned science or something. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with science in the Middle Ages would know how bogus that myth is. The fact that you don’t is a testament to your own ignorance, not theirs.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      I am quite familiar with how scientists like Roger Bacon were treated by the open minded, pro-science authorities of the Middle Ages. Are you?

                    • JM1001

                      There you go again, moving the goalposts.

                      So I take it you now concede that your claim that there was a “pause in intellectual development” for a thousand years was complete bullshit. Since, you know, you’re familiar with Roger Bacon and his work.

                      I suppose next you’ll want to acknowledge the work and developments of people like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine, Nicholas Oresme, and Jean Buridan. But by the time you get around to doing that, your original thesis will be totally exploded, because you will see them practicing science without being harassed by the Church, and you will be forced to move your goalposts even further.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      The treatment of Roger Bacon does not prove your point.

                    • JM1001

                      First of all, anyone familiar with the literature would be aware that many historians of science doubt that Bacon’s imprisonment happened at all. The story comes from the Chronicle of the 24 Ministers General of the Franciscans, written almost a hundred years after Bacon’s death. They talk about “suspect novelties” as the reason for his imprisonment, but do not specify what those “novelties” were, much less that they had anything to do with his scientific work.

                      In fact, it’s more likely the problems resulted from strictly theological matters than anything related to science. Bacon’s writings are filled with millennialism and expectations of the imminent coming end of the world — and, as a result, he may have become associated with a radical, ascetic wing of the Franciscans, who advocated that the Church divest itself of its property. Historians of science generally think this a more likely explanation of his imprisonment. That he was jailed for his science has no basis in any of the historical evidence, and is yet another myth.

                    • Ye Olde Statistician

                      And how do you believe Roger Bacon was treated, and what is your source?

                    • Ye Olde Statistician

                      Tim O’Neill is an atheist. So is Thony Christie at The Renaissance Mathematicus. Try to avoid prejudiced stereotypes and cardboard morality plays, why not.

                    • Ye Olde Statistician

                      What color is the sky on your planet?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Does blue look the same to me as it does to you? Some folks associate it with Heaven. I associate it with the Earth. Heaven and Earth are the same thing once one has escaped the clutches of after-death delusions.

                    • Ye Olde Statistician

                      The comment was a sarcastic reference to your ideological grasp of history. It was not a comment on the word “blue” or its various associations.

                    • antigon

                      It was 27 per cent I believe, tho some say 28.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Given the dependency of Aquinas on Aristotle, it is probably much higher than that.

                • Tweck

                  Misguided people from all walks of life have a long track record of theft, murder and destruction. Singling out Christian people is a bit dishonest.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    It is not as dishonest as you might think. The most vicious and brutal people I have encountered in my life are staunch Christians.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      You ought to get out more. Its a wide, wide worldworld, your poor provincial flower.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Woe is me!

                    • antigon

                      Finally! Something we can agree about!

                    • antigon

                      Why, only Hitler would say that!

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      You seem to be a self-professed expert on what Hitler would say and do.

                    • antigon

                      Only because it doesn’t seem fair you should be the only one to claim expertise where there is none.

                • Mary Strain

                  LIke they did at this pizzeria? I have a suggestion, Sophia. As a social experiment, go to a strongly pro-SSM website and comment that you don’t approve based on your Christian beliefs. That will answer the question for you fairly quickly, I would think.

                • antigon

                  Replace the word ‘Christians’ with ‘homosexuals’ & you might be onto something. True, not onto much, but that’s not your forte’.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Homophobia suits you well.

                    • antigon

                      Darn, Soph, wrong again! I *like* the species homo, which means humankind. Granted am a little fecalphobic tho, what with the stink n’all.

    • Why would you expect that LGBT rights activists wouldn’t threaten death? What is the basis of that belief?

      Update: I read further down the thread and realized you’re just dealing in stereotypes. I strongly suggest you google “LGBT death threats” (no quotes) for multiple, relatively recent incidents where they are, in fact, issuing death threats. If you dig into older threats, I’m sure there are trials involved where they catch them.

    • Joe

      I’ve read first person accounts of gay activists getting violent and scary in protests countering protests against gay marriage. It’s perfectly plausible. You probably wouldn’t expect violence from pro-abort supporters either, but there are youtube videos showing it.

      • antigon

        ‘You probably wouldn’t expect violence from pro-abort supporters either,’
        *
        What? You wouldn’t expect violence from people who promote mass murder? That’s like saying you wouldn’t expect a dancer to dance.

        • Sophia Sadek

          Spoken like an open minded person.

          • antigon

            Why thank you, Soph, tho have to tell you, am not open-minded about mass murder, whether Ukrainian, Jew, Armenian, or even that most popular target of the unborn in this era, nor of those who promote such holocausts.

      • Sophia Sadek

        I do not contend that it is impossible that the death threats came from LGBT advocates, but that it is more likely that they came from anti-gay agitators. The issue of pizza delivery to a gay wedding is not as hot a hot button issue for most LGBT folks the way marriage rights were. The people getting most hot under the collar on the pseudo-religious-liberty issue in Indiana are homophobic bigots.

        • chezami

          Pizza trutherism. Seems to be a convenient dodge wen Lefties behave like a mob. “We didn’t do it and besides they had it coming.” Totally believable, Sophia.

          • Sophia Sadek

            Read my comments. Nobody deserves death threats. That is simply criminal behavior. Even the worst bigots deserve to be treated like human beings.

            • chezami

              Sophia: You are the bigot. You sound like a Klansman saying, “Even a n****r deserves a fair trial.”

              • Sophia Sadek

                That is totally off the wall. Would you care to explain your logic?

            • Tweck

              Hey, you said something I agree with! Yaaaaayy!! 🙂

        • Dale Jensen

          Baloney.

          This woman made an fairly innocent comment — she isn’t a “bigot”, she just disagrees with gay marriage, and discriminating against a “thing” isn’t the same as discriminating against a person. Things don’t have Constitutional rights.

          In response, she got death threats, from progressive activists, not from “homophobic bigots.” They closed their business in fear of said threats. Supporters raised $800,000 for the business on GoFundMe. Progressive activists then started a change.org petition to have the fund raiser shut down, with the comments on said petition testifying to who the real “haters” in this situation are.

          And they aren’t “homophobic bigots” or “anti-gay agitators”, they’re liberal, progressive, and “ever so tolerant” activists.

          • Sophia Sadek

            Marriage equality is not simply a thing. It is a right to be treated as a human being regardless of sexual preference. Opposing gay marriage relegates same-sex couples to second-class status as somewhat less-than-human.

            • Dale Jensen

              A gay wedding ceremony is not a right, it is a thing. Not providing a cake for a wedding ceremony, whether gay or straight, is not violating anyone’s rights, because no one has a Constitutional right to a wedding ceremony, never mind a cake at a wedding ceremony. Religious freedom and freedom of thought are Constitutional rights, wedding cakes are not.

              Nice job dodging the issue of who the real “haters” are in the Memories Pizza incident, though.

              • Sophia Sadek

                This whole episode is comic given the fact that the tradition of catering weddings with pizza is non-existent. I cannot get my knickers in a twist over the wedding cake controversy because denying services to same-sex customers based on religious bigotry is self-defeating. You attempt to pull a sleight-of-hand in thinking of this as an issue over a thing and in ignoring that the “thing” in question is part of a larger rite that has been denied to same-sex couples because of bigotry.

                • Dale Jensen

                  Learn to read. No one needs a cake to get married, gay or otherwise, and no one has a right to said cake. This whole issue is being used by progressive activists to punish people who have beliefs that differ from theirs. They are all about “tolerance” until they realize that other people don’t agree with them and they become incredibly intolerant of any dissension.

                  The rational response to someone not being willing cater your gay wedding? Get over it and go patronize a business that will, there are plenty of options. Problem solved.

                  The progressive response? Sue them for their “intolerance” and, in some cases, send activists in, day after day, until the government imposed fines drive them into bankruptcy.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    I am fascinated by what a reactionary considers to be “progressive.”

                    • Dale Jensen

                      Funny how you equate rationalism with being a “reactionary,” and how you never addressed the questions raised about who the “haters” are in this Memories Pizza incident.

                      Intolerance is only unacceptable when it’s someone else doing it, eh?

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Such “rationalists” may consider the boycotting of bigot-owned business such as Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, and Coors to be a manifestation of intolerance. We should be more sympathetic towards the ignorant. No, thank you.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      You are welcome to boycott all the businesses that you like, that’s called freedom of expression. What you are not welcome to do is threaten to burn down a business because you disagree with the beliefs of the owners. The Nazis did that, it was called Kristallnacht, and it’s what your LGBT supporters did, as noted in the original article.

                      You might wish to consult a dictionary on the proper definition of “bigot,” as well — Hobby Lobby was opposed to certain forms of contraception because of their opposition to abortion, which is not bigotry, and as Coors/Molson is a publicly held company, it seems highly unlikely that its “owners”, the tens of thousands of shareholders, are all bigots. But you boycott all you like, I’m sure that they’re really feeling the impact of the loss of business that you never gave them in the first place.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It was not I who made threats. I merely supposed that the threats might have been made by homophobes in an attempt to tar the image of the opposition.

                      Denying women equal access to health care coverage based on religious intolerance is certainly a manifestation of bigotry.

                      Just because Coors shares its capital pool with the open market does not mean that the Coors family is completely divested from it.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      You “supposed that” based on zero evidence, apart from your personal belief that liberals and LGBT supporters are incapable of intolerance, which I have demonstrated is obviously false.

                      And, again, you clearly do not understand what the word “bigotry” means, if you think it applies to the Hobby Lobby case. I would suggest you look it up before making any further foolish comments. Painting everyone you disagree with as a bigot, regardless of facts, is actually a form of bigotry in itself.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It makes more sense. The hotheads on this issue are the homophobes.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      It makes no sense and there is absolutely no evidence that supports your irrational belief, which borders on delusional.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      The belief that it could not possibly be the work of homophobes is more delusional.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      I didn’t say that it wasn’t possible, I said that there is no evidence to support such a claim, and therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it.

                      Please provide evidence to back up your accusation that the woman who threatened to burn down the restaurant is a homophobe, as well as those who made death threats, and those who signed the change.org petition to have the fund raiser cancelled.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It is merely an opinion. Why do you need evidence for an opinion? That seems a bit heavy handed. I would never demand evidence for the opinion that the pope is a swell chum.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      Because there are informed opinions, such as mine, which are based on the facts, and there are biased opinions, such as yours, which are based on nothing but a personal belief, and often, as is the case here, contradictory to the facts, which are then ignored. You can’t simply make something up, present it as a valid view, and expect rational people to accept it.

                      There is as much evidence for your imaginary homophobes being behind this as there is for the culprit being President Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or the Easter Bunny, and yet you would say anyone who claimed that they had done it was delusional, hence the rational conclusion that you are deluded by your biases in accusing anyone other than those in the liberal LGBT community as threatening to burn down the place, issue death threats and start that change.org petition.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Not everyone can be as perfect as you are.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      Glad to hear that you finally realize you are wrong 🙂

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      It is not that I consider my statement to be wrong. It is that I never considered it to be absolute truth in the first place. It is always good to be watchful of reactionary fabrications. Your hubris reminds me of why I would never want to be considered a Christian.

                    • Dale Jensen

                      I’m not sure that you understand the meaning of “hubris”, either, lol. You and I had a debate — I relied on the facts, you relied on your biased opinion, and you lost, because you never presented any proof that your imaginary homophobic framers existed.

                      Nothing arrogant about that.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      You debated.

                    • chezami

                      In Sophia World, you can run around like an arsonist setting fire to the reputations of complete strangers as bigots and conspirators and then declare that since it’s just your opinion you aren’t responsible for it and need no facts to back up your hysterical slanders.

                    • antigon

                      I don’t know, Soph, some would say you qualify as perfect, if they are perhaps too polite to say a perfect what.

                    • chezami

                      In my opinion, the universe orbits the earth and Obama is reptile creature from another dimension. I don’t need evidence for that since it’s my opinion.

                    • chezami

                      And they say right wingers are anti-intellectual.

                    • antigon

                      I don’t know Mr. Shea. Since strictly speaking ‘homophobe’ means a phobia about humankind, & lots of homosexualists hate themselves & everybody else, maybe she’s been talking about homophobic homosexualist homosexualites right along!

                    • chezami

                      No. It makes no sense. “Homophobes did this and besides they deserved it” is adolescent denialism.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      Claiming that I said anyone deserves death threats is adolescent spin doctoring. Claiming that I asserted that homophobes did it can be chalked up to sloppy reading.

                    • chezami

                      Despite the fact that we know who made the threats.

                    • antigon

                      ‘Denying women equal access to health care coverage based on religious intolerance is certainly a manifestation of bigotry.’
                      *
                      I’m sorry, Soph, but that’s going too far. Only Hitler would make a false charge like that.

                    • antigon

                      ‘We should be more sympathetic towards the ignorant. No, thank you.’
                      *
                      Careful, you’re cutting your own throat there Soph.

                    • Sophia Sadek

                      That way, if I am found dead with a cut throat, you can say it was suicide.

                    • antigon

                      As are we by the epithets people desperate to be called progressive hope to cling!

                • antigon

                  And not just bigotry! Poo-poo-headedness too & even more!

            • SteveP

              You mean the right to survivor pension benefits payable from the public treasury. Stop pretending white males in the US are oppressed.

              • Sophia Sadek

                There are other rights that come with marriage, such as the right to be included in health care treatment decisions.

            • antigon

              Dear Sophist Sophie:
              *
              Absolutely. Just like opposing opposition to perv marriage relegates such opponents to a 2nd class status clearly less than human.
              *
              O the humanity!

              • Sophia Sadek

                If there is any homophobia, I wish people would point it out to us.

    • wlinden

      And when I was beaten up by “anti-war” Marxoids, “liberals” told me to my face that IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Excuse me while I vomit.

      • Sophia Sadek

        Thuggish behavior is typical of labor activists. The liberals you mention may have either suspected reactionary infiltration or they may have feared reprisals from the thugs themselves.

    • wlinden

      Activists are never violent. What’s the reason?
      Why, if tis violent, tis not activists.

    • Peggy

      You need to google also what happened to Prop 8 supporters who were outed. The abuse and violence they experienced were real. LGBTQRS… activists are violently angry that they are not accepted.

    • LSpinelli

      You’ve got to be kidding me. I still vividly remember death threats and doxxing leveled against a lovely Catholic woman four years ago from…LGBT rights activists and mindless loonies that followed them to her site.

      I’m sure they forgot about this incident by now…but I’m sure she didn’t.

      (Mark, I don’t want to bring up the details, because I don’t want to send nuts her way again.)

      • Sophia Sadek

        Were they actual LGBT activists, or was that simply your personal impression? The activists I met after the Prop 8 tragedy were quite disappointed, but hardly venomous. Another thing to consider is that the people with the most at stake in Indiana are the homophobic bigots, not the marriage equality advocates.

        • LSpinelli

          Do the numbers of actual activists matter when a seething mob went over to the woman’s blog, demanding her blood if she didn’t change her views to suit theirs? Does it matter if actual LGBT activists were “civil and rational” when others were doxxing and tossing out death threats?

          • Sophia Sadek

            What is significant is how the squeakier wheels get the bulk of the attention. The smooth operators are ignored completely.

            • LSpinelli

              Nice. Death threats and other violent threats for attention. Though I don’t condone that from anyone. Not gay rights, pro-life (clinic bombers), Westboro. No one.

              • Sophia Sadek

                Some folks would prefer to tar the entire movement using the antics of a few malicious hot heads. That tendency forms the basis of agitprop subversion of progressive causes.

                • chezami

                  You ongoing attempt to say, “This was a conservative false flag operation and besides they deserved it” are duly noted.

                  • Sophia Sadek

                    Your ongoing attempt to spin my opinion has also been noted.

  • Jaceczko

    Hold on a minute—let’s ease up on the Visigoths a bit here. The Visigoths were the ones that settled down and became Roman citizens and consuls and held many other such offices in the fourth and fifth centuries.

    Vandals, Alans, Huns, ok.

    None of those groups ever settled within the empire and integrated their people with the forms of Roman society, as the Visigoths did in northeastern Spain and Aquitaine. When the Vandals “settled” in North Africa, it was just because they ran out of grass for their horses to run on—and they quickly burned themselves out there. And the Huns never settled in one place at all.

    I hate to see the Visigoths lumped in with these other 4th/5th century invaders, since we have lots of evidence (e.g., Ammianus, Ausonius, Salvian, Paulinus of Pella) to draw a much more individuated picture, and more detailed conclusions, of them than those others.

    Of course it was just a joke and I’m taking it too seriously, so to get back to the point: wow, Mr. Shea. This was well-written. I liked yours of the other day about Ebola and outrage and whatnot, too. Thanks!

    • wlinden

      “The Goths , who were kingdom-founding Christians, have been called barbarians…. even the Huns have been called barbarians, which is unfathomable.” — Laffert, ALARIC

  • From the coach’s school’s Wikipedia page:

    “The school was host to President Barack Obama’s first order of business meeting outside of Washington D.C., as well as the site of one of his campaign rallies before the 2008 election.”

    This coach lived deep inside a Democratic bubble.

  • Chris Allen

    I admit this was yellow journalism. At the same time, even though no one serves pizza at a wedding, the woman *did* say that they would refuse to cater for such an event because of their feelings toward gays.

    As to the threats, I am against *anyone* doing threats like that—but at the same time, I don’t think it’s established that anyone LGBTQ or their allies were the source of the threats.

    Consider: we’ve seen people like James O’Keefe doing all kinds of “false flag” operations toward Liberal groups. We’ve learned that his groups and certain intelligence/law enforcement infiltrated Occupy protest groups with the explicit purpose of trying to incite them to violence, and to incite police to more violent responses. Given that, unless and until the sources of these threats are tracked down, we just don’t know if it was actually some very angry or fringe LGBTQ people and/or allies… or if it was one of these false flag kind of groups or individuals trying to make LGBTQ people look bad. We just don’t know.

    Another point: these people may have closed down their business for a bit, but the online fundraiser someone started for them has already crossed $100,000—so they aren’t hurting financially at the moment.

    Bottom line is this: whoever did the threats, that’s very wrong, period… but that also doesn’t excuse the inherent “right to discriminate” this woman expressed, even if the circumstances that would let her do so are unlikely.

    People keep talking about this issue in terms of bakers, or florists, or restaurant owners… what is missing from the dialogue is, “What happens when it’s a doctor, or an EMT, or an entire crew at a fire station?” We’ve already seen an instance of a pediatrician refusing to treat a child because that child’s parents are Lesbians. So what happens when your doctor says, “Nope, sorry, you’re gay, can’t treat you or your kids”? What happens when the EMT who responded to your spouse’s call for your heart attack says “Nope, sorry, my religion doesn’t support the gay lifestyle” and just leaves? What happens when that anti-gay firestation crew refuses to fight your housefire? What happens when that privately-owned hospital says “No gays allowed”?

    You see, you can’t let florists and bakers discriminate, without also letting doctors and EMTs and firefighters and hospitals discriminate—and things can get serious very fast, just ask all the black people who weren’t allowed in hospitals, or who could only use certain facilities, or who were (and in some place still are) given substandard treatment, denied pain meds, etc. because “black people don’t feel pain like whites do” or because: black. (And please do remember the ongoing drive to “privatize” all kinds of “for the public good” government services: schools, prisons, police, fire, and lately they’ve been eyeing Air Traffic Control, trying to privatize the Postal Service and Medicare/Medicaid as well.)

    When public good services are privatized, often the companies who run them are not subject to the same kinds of laws and regulations that government agencies are. And let’s not forget just how many hospitals in this country are run by private, religious organizations, especially the Catholics. There are already health issues from Catholic hospitals refusing women certain kinds of services, making women who are at risk of their life wait to have a life-saving abortion, refusing to provide contraceptive services, etc. One hospital even refused to do a rape kit on a rape victim because they didn’t believe she was raped—the young woman (a teenager, if I recall) and her mother had to drive to another hospital for her to have it done and receive treatment.

    Final thought: Jesus ate with people considered sinners and the lowest of the low in his society: tax collectors and prostitutes. He interacted with Samaritans: a sin in his religion. He touched a leper: another sin in his religion. He allowed a woman who was suffering menstrual bleeding issues to touch him—again, a sin as she was considered unclean. Time and again, Jesus’s response was to love and care about *people*, regardless of whatever his own society and religion thought of them and the “sin” they attributed to interacting with those people.

    I find it odd that people who claim to be Christians—followers of Christ—aren’t following his example in this, and are treating LGBTQ people like they’re tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, lepers, and unclean menstruating women and the “Christians” are the Pharisees in the story. I’m sorry, but Jesus cared about *people* and had no qualms with interacting with those his society and religion labeled it “sinful” to associate with and break bread with.

    • Kevin Donahoe

      Oh no, I think you missed something let me help you out. She specifically states “anyone can eat in her family restaurant” including gays. And then goes on to say “if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it.” So its because of her feeling toward the wedding not the people. So everything you typed after your second sentence is based on a flawed premise.

      • PalaceGuard

        For that matter, would they cater *any* wedding? And do they cater at all, other than delivering a stack of pizza boxes to a venue, which is “catering” only in the most rudimentary sense?

    • Joseph

      I’m sure that if you spent any time on this blog, you’d realise that Mark and most Catholics here disagreed with O’Keefe’s so-called ‘Alinsky’ methods of breaking stories. Mark is pretty consistent in this regard. So, the ‘well, while I don’t agree with it personally, your team did it too so it’s OK’ argument sort of falls flat… and exposes the fact that you really aren’t that opposed to their methods after all.

      • Chris Allen

        I was referring to O’Keefe’s blatant “infiltrate the group and attempt to smear it from within” tactics, not his yellow journalism.

        “Your team did it too…”? it’s unclear what you’re referring to. If you mean the yellow journalism on the part of the news agency who broke the story, I stated exactly that this is what it was. As a Communications Major, I see the term “yellow journalism” as an insulting term, which I used precisely for that reason.

        If you were referring to the threats, again, I vehemently disapprove of them. However, until such time as authorities determine who actually *made* those threats, I’m remaining open-minded as to whether it was an LGBTQ person, or if it was someone pretending to be an LGBTQ person in an attempt to arouse ire against them. I will condemn whoever it was, whichever group they belong to, once we know. My point is that we have seen enough of those actions in the past from opponents claiming to be of a group in order to smear a group, that it’s worth keeping an open mind until *proof* is presented of *who* it actually was. (Facts are far better than assumptions.)

        I understand that you don’t know me, but perhaps this will help: I advocate on a daily basis against online harassment and threats of violence and death. I don’t care *who* such threats are leveled against, they’re wrong: not just because it’s a wrong to do that to *anyone*, not just because in some places it’s illegal—it’s also because the willingness to threaten someone with violence, rape, murder, and/or the harming of their children (as some who issue online threats do) lessens the humanity of the one speaking the threats. It’s wrong from any direction you look at it. And it doesn’t matter if 999,999 out of 100,000 people making those threats would never carry them through, because 1 out of 100,000 *would* do so—and the person being threatened has no idea who will, or will not, try to carry out such a threat among all the threats they receive. It puts them under enormous strain, and fear, and is in essence a form of emotional terrorism.

        When you read page after page of some of the grotesque and horrible threats being thrown at people (mainly women) online, it can make you quite ardent in opposing this behavior.

    • Dave G.

      The problem we seem to have is that everyone wants a right to discriminate, the question is against who. Do business owners have a right to discriminate based on their religious and moral convictions (I won’t serve people for a variety of reasons), or does the state have a right to declare moral absolutes and enforce them on all people, whatever their religious practices may be. The second seems to be gaining popularity. And yet there’s still agreement on the first. After all, nobody would get upset if a photographer refused to photograph a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship. So the more you think on it, the more it is just a case of one set of morals attempting to impose itself on another set of morals. Something liberals of old promised should never be done and promised they would never do.

    • wlinden

      And when “anti-war” thugs beat me up, I was told it must have been a “false flag operation”.
      I think I will start a GoFundMe drive on behalf of Eric Garner’s family , so I can tell everybody that invalidates their suffering.

    • Joe

      To say she is discriminating against gays is entirely too strong. She never said she wouldn’t serve gays in her restaurant. Why do on the pro-gay marriage side always assume all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church?! It’s ludicrous. Every interview that I’ve seen with supporters of the Indiana law said they would not serve gay weddings. Period. They never say they would not serve gays in their restaurants or make cakes celebrating a gay person’s birthday. Christian bakers probably wouldn’t make a cake with blasphemies against God, are they being unjust in that case too?

      • Paxton Reis

        “Why do on the pro-gay marriage side always assume all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church?”

        They need someone to look down upon.

    • Elaine S.

      Several important points you overlook:

      Yes, Jesus ate with sinners such as tax collectors and prostitutes, and he showed them more respect than the Pharisees did. However, he did not “enable” or participate in their sinful actions by actually, ahem, purchasing the services of said prostitutes or helping the tax collectors to extort money out of the public. The problem with gay weddings is that they constitute an action or an event that, to some Christians, is sinful and in which they cannot participate. Serving an ordinary meal to a gay couple, or providing them with medical treatment if they are injured or sick, does not present the same moral dilemma.

    • chezami

      ” the woman *did* say that they would refuse to cater for such an event because of their feelings toward gays.”

      No. She didn’t. She said she would not cater a gay wedding. She said nothing about ‘feelings toward gays”. The obvious implication is that the issue is not feelings toward gays, but her desire not to be taken as approving of gay *marriage*.

    • SteveP

      Dude, everybody whom Jesus encountered was a sinner: that’s why he poured himself out and took the form of a slave. To Jesus, sin was not a social construct to be reengineered out of existence. Rather it is something real, mortally real to humans, and it is Jesus, not the state, who protects us from that threat.

    • virago

      I wish all sinners were held to the same standard that society holds Christian sinners. Jesus, besides being a historical figure and our Savior, gives us an image to model ourselves but for us perfection will always be denied.

      Catholic hospitals will take care of women but abortions and birth control aren’t offered. That is a well known fact. I don’t think that is discrimination,I don’t think they offer vasectomies to men. Correct me if I’m wrong, anybody.

      I think some of your points are exaggerated. They might cause people to be fearful, unnecessarily.

      • Chris Allen

        It is my understanding that (unless that’s changed recently) Catholic hospitals will do an abortion to save the woman’s life. However, there have been cases where they waited till the last possible second to do so when it had been plain for some time that the abortion was necessary… basically, it’s rather like firefighters standing around when a house first starts burning, and waiting until just before the roof collapses before running in to rescue someone.

        • LFM

          If the firefighters were standing around refusing to act because they were concerned for the safety of the trapped person if they acted (an improbable scenario I suppose but not utterly beyond the realm of credibility) your analogy would be more accurate. There are also “hostage situations” in which the police do not charge into a building in which people are being held by armed gunmen because they know that action could do more harm than failure to act. Your failure to grasp this side of the issue in the case of abortion shows a fundamental inability to imagine what is really at stake in such conditions for people whose moral views do not coincide with yours.

          In any case, you are mistaken about Catholic hospitals being permitted to perform abortions to save a woman’s life – although in practise I’m sure some of them do this. They can only carry out actions that may kill the baby as a secondary effect of attempting to save the woman’s life; that is, they may give her chemotherapy to destroy a cancer, killing a fetus in the process, at which point abortion would be necessary. Or they may treat a condition of pre-eclampsia, for example, in which the fetus is certain to die anyway if the mother is not treated, which treatment involves delivery of the fetus and which will likely end in its death if the delivery is very early. (I think; I’m not certain about this one, as I’m neither a doctor nor specialist in moral theology.) Catholic doctors cannot perform an evil action (abortion) so that good (saving the mother) may come of it; they can only treat the mother and perhaps accept the death of the fetus as a side-effect of that treatment. I’m rather surprised no one has remarked on this aspect of your comment yet.

        • antigon

          ‘there have been cases where [Catholic hospitals] waited till the last possible second to [kill a child] when it had been plain for some time that [it] was necessary.’
          *
          Dear Mr. Allen:
          *
          Hate to break the illusion tho one hopes not your heart, since Soph Sadek was likely your source for this; but it has happened far less often than (doubtless) her view of the many times firemen have hung about a burning house ‘waiting until just before the roof collapses before running in to rescue someone.’

    • antigon

      ‘you can’t let florists and bakers discriminate, without also letting doctors and EMTs and firefighters and hospitals discriminate.’
      *
      Dear Mr. Allen:
      *
      That remark’s a fine vindication of Mr. Shea’s earlier post about the hysteria homosexualist arguments find so stimulating.
      *
      And the false flag nonsense would suggest an intellectual competition with Edward below for the heart of Sophie Sadek!

    • Paxton Reis

      “I find it odd that people who claim to be Christians—followers of Christ—aren’t following his example in this, and are treating LGBTQ people like they’re tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, lepers, and unclean menstruating women …”

      By referencing prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. are then equating LGBTQ has sinners? Interesting to read this acknowledgement.

      It seems to be the case of Christians–thtat you judgmentally put quotes around– are being asked to celebrate the sin, and failing to do so they are faced with death threats and the lost of their livelihood.

      With the increasing immigration to the US of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, it seems this vindictive tactic will face challenges for years to come, even in progress states like CA.

      • Chris Allen

        Nice job of trolling to twist my words around, but I’ve seen better. I made it quite clear that in Jesus’s society and times and religion, those things were considered sins, just as today *some* (not all) Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin. I was not equating homosexuals with sin; I was equating the reaction of some *Christians* to homosexuals and labeling them as sinners, as equivalent to, in Jesus’s time, societal and Pharisee reactions to other humans as sinners and untouchable, a viewpoint Jesus obviously disagreed with.

        • Messenger

          St. Paul speaks for Christ. Chris Allen YOU do not:

          “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men” – 1 Corinthians 6:9

    • antigon

      Dear Mr. Allen:
      *
      While it’s possible the libel against Christians in your closing analogy above is just unconscious & popular tho in this case actual bigotry, one can’t but suspect it was tendentiously so.
      *
      If not, here’s the thing. Christ was both kind & merciful to sinners (thank God!), but precisely, in His own words, because He came to help not the healthy, but the sick. The only behavioral sinners qua in your analogy are prostitutes – despite that tax collectors had an often justified reputation of corruption – & it is obvious that in recognizing their humanity, He thereby also sought to free them from their trade, not confirm them in it; any more than by recognizing their humanity He was confirming tax collectors in savvy methods of cheating people.
      *
      Same with folk tempted to sexual perversion. By recognizing their humanity, Christ does not confirm that proclivity, but, among even greater gifts, seeks to free them from it.
      *
      The same is true of any who would truly seek to be a follower of Christ.

      • Chris Allen

        There are many things I could reply to in your statement, but the heart of it revolves around one single point:

        “He came to help not the healthy, but the sick.”

        Then you proceed to define the sick as “prostitutes and homosexuals.” So the rich young man was healthy? The apostles were healthy? The hungry masses were healthy? To quote your own book, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”—that doesn’t sound like anyone is healthy. Jesus said he came to help all those people and more: he honestly wasn’t elitist in any way.

        Perhaps you should rethink your definition of “healthy.” Perhaps you should also consider that there are plenty of things labeled as “sins” in that book that extremist Christians don’t bat an eyelash at doing; for instance, those who advocate for war and/or torture, those who insist they’d serve an adulterer but not a gay, those who swear or have tattoos or eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed threads, those who advocate that we let children and the poor starve and remain homeless, those who advocate beating children and babies.

        And if you think there aren’t “Christians” out there (plural, many of them) who say (and do) those things, you simply aren’t reading enough news.

        • Dave G.

          Your point is taken, but not really important. If every Christian was the most evil thing in history, it doesn’t make the hypocrisy of the Left, having spent years insisting you can’t legislate morality, and now turning around and insisting that we legislate morality, any less stunning. Or right. Assume all Christians are worse than Nazis, and you’re still left with liberals attempting to force their values on others, even with the arm of the government they once insisted could never do what they now want it to do. So, back to right and wrong.

        • antigon

          Caro Mr. Allen:
          *
          Ok, so you were being tendentious, tho perhaps just addled, if this time a tad too obviously so, since it was not humble Antigon, but, regarding actual sinners, your earlier post that focused exclusively on prostitutes, tax collectors, those tempted to sexual perversion – & of course your effort to smear Christians for failing, like Christ, to confirm such folk in their self-destructive proclivities.
          *
          Read your post again & you will find no hint about Christ’s comparable failure to confirm sin or sickness in the apostles, the rich young man, the hungry masses, nor indeed any of us sinners – tho this time we do get from you another scattershot garble against the faithful.
          *
          One can’t but suspect some sin has mastered you, you hate both it & that it has, are hoping that if somehow the world says it’s fine you’ll be able to think so too, & hate the Christians, tho sinners all, because they won’t join that chorus.
          *
          Passing over your spittle-flecked stuff, anyone Christian or otherwise who has endorsed either torture or unjust war should repent of it, as has been both insisted upon & done on this site, as doubtless elsewhere, more than just once.
          *
          You should follow their example, by repudiating this comparable master of yours that, not us, is what you really hate. Upon confessing it & any other sins to a valid priest, you will not only escape as well the attendant despair, but will be born anew to win by Grace the destination for which you were created, &, like the rest of us, clearly yearn.

      • Lee

        Your characterization that gay people are “tempted to sexual perversion” is your belief. A belief is not a fact.

        • chezami

          I see you really believe that.

    • Danno

      Life-saving abortion?

      • Chris Allen

        Yes, that would be when an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life. There have been cases in Catholic-run hospitals where they delayed the procedure to the very last second, putting the woman’s life at risk, when at other hospitals once the need was seen, they would do so immediately.

        • Asmondius

          Abortion can only take a life.
          .
          One cannot reeve Good with Evil.

          • meg Bailey

            I do not believe in abortion! I couldn’t have one myself, or advisse advise another woman to do so!

    • wineinthewater

      This post is the archetype for what is wrong with the discussion over this issue.

      Your slippery slope argument is a total red herring. The woman specifically said she would have no problem serving gay people at her restaurant, she just wouldn’t cater a gay wedding reception. She had no problem serving gay people as a class of people, she would just refuse to play an active role in a same sex wedding event. There is no analogue for fire fighters, EMTs or doctors, because no one is talking about refusing all service to a class of people, and I don’t see those professions having a typical role in same sex weddings (unless catastrophe is a requisite part of the ceremony requiring per-arranged services).

      Similarly with the doctor. She did not refuse to serve the child, she told the couple that she would not be a good fit for them and offered to help them to transition to a doctor who would be. She took active steps to ensure that the child would not have a lapse in care.

      The fact that you are recasting this as a blanket denial of services issue when the facts clearly contradict that narrative shows just what is wrong with this national discussion. You are condemning people based on misinformation at best, lies at worst. At the very least, you are being very careless with your words to characterize this issue in a way that is so blatantly wrong in the face of easily-accessible information.

      This story isn’t about discrimination, it’s about ideological coercion. Toe the ideological line or the advocates will create a false narrative, attempt to destroy your livelihood and make threats against your life. It’s a pattern. Even if same sex marriage advocates are on the right side, they are on the wrong side when it comes to the means they have pursued. Your comment is indicative.

  • Lynne Anderson

    If you are going complain about misleading journalism, you should probably get your facts right. Their website was NOT hacked. Memories pizza did not have a website, nor had they purchased the domain. When the story broke, an independent person created the site that you are referencing. It is no longer up, but you can see the disclaimer at the bottom of the images on twitter.

    • chezami

      Fixed it. Thanks for the correction.

    • Dave G.

      Apparently fixed. The facts of the story that is. The assault on the First Amendment for the sake of broadening sexual permissiveness is still in full swing and gaining steam.

      • HornOrSilk

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/indianas-flip-flop-on-its-religious-freedom-law/2015/04/02/45c3b63c-d96c-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

        Indeed. Now the attack is on all religious liberty. Earlier it was the other states were different. Now all of them are anti-gay…

        • Artevelde

          The Most Valuable Company in the Universe. When Wall-Mart Calls the Elected Bow. The Party. The Right Side of History.

          Yummy word cloud, that.

          Totalitarian plutocracy.

        • IRVCath

          Soon they will discover that many states, like California, have interpreted their own state constitutions to have the same extent of protections that Indiana proposes to codify. Are the California Supreme Court, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris a bunch of homophobes now?

          • Dave G

            No. Like Obama’s opposition, they assume it is not sincere, and only for the latest political expediency. They will change that, just like they’re now changing the old ‘vote for young people as opposed to old people’ is strangely passing away from the usual slogans. When a movement treats morality and truth as here today, gone later today, those in disagreement are’t going to sweat it. But assume when people really mean they won’t celebrate the LGBT universe, expect the crushing gauntlet of tolerance to come down swiftly and with force.

  • Mike

    Isn’t this a Hate Crime? Where are the feds?

  • Mike

    This captures it perfectly:

    “Pogrom Mode”

  • Lykex

    This whole debacle really just served as a nasty lesson on mob mentality marketing and what kind of monsters it turns people into after they allow it to politicize them for so long.

    Back during the Satanic panic, the likes of Patricia Pulling attempted to put Gary Gygax out of business. Didn’t work.

    Today there’s a homophobe panic and a pizzeria gets threatened with violence is shut down. Many internet comments section are riddled with victory cries of “dey desurved it” and “everywun shud be for gay wights.”

    Oy vey.