If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 315
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1358 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 03:25:54 PM

Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.


What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.
 
2014-03-07 03:26:51 PM

HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.


isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?
 
2014-03-07 03:28:15 PM

miss diminutive: I wonder what people who were opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds would say to all this?

Something derpy, no doubt. Either way, those people were on the wrong side of history just as the people currently opposed to same sex marriage are. In a few decades they'll be viewed with the same sort of head-scratching disbelief as those who came before them.

They're entitled to their opinions, of course. Just as people choosing to remain aboard a sinking ship are entitled to their choice off the menu, blissfully ignoring the waters rising around them as their arguments and objections are swatted away by acceptance and common sense. Those of us who long ago swam for the shores of equality and reason don't wish them ill will, but we're not above pointing out the folly and utter wrongness in their choices.


Well I do think the people who supported civil rights a few decades have a great deal more street cred than than the folks who support same sex marriage today. Attitudes are rapidly changing in favor of same sex mariage which will be the law of the land soon.  I doupt there will be any mounments errected to anyone because for most you can be on the right side of history and not even leave the internet.
 
2014-03-07 03:28:34 PM

SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?


why would you consider a vegetarian caterer for your BBQ in the first place?
 
2014-03-07 03:31:43 PM

Kome: BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF!

For f*ck's sake, this is not a hard concept. I do not have to - and I will not - tolerate or be respectful of your views inasmuch as they are based on fundamental assumptions about how certain groups of people are inferior to others because of circumstances that are beyond anyone's control, i.e. race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. It is morally disgusting to hold such views, in a way that is qualitatively different than, for example, hating Raiders' fans if you're a Chargers' fan, when that kind of animosity is merely silly and inconsequential (that is, no one is seriously suggesting Raiders' fans be barred access to rights, freedoms, and liberties in the United States on account of being a Raiders' fan). You want to hate on someone because of a fundamental attribute of their being? Go f*ck yourself. I hope you rot, and I will not show you respect. You don't deserve any. You should be made to feel guilty, and ashamed, and embarrassed to hold such views because they are wrong on every conceivable level.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of the "tone" argument. "Oh, could you be a little more polite when responding to people who hate blacks/gays/women and want to strip them of their rights/prevent them from having rights? That'd be great." F*ck you. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by MLK Jr.:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can se ...


You think white privilege has anything to do with anti-gay bigotry? How so?
 
2014-03-07 03:32:33 PM
If your relationship to your God or your wife is so fragile that it is threatened somehow by gay marriage, you have some pretty farking deep problems.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:39 PM

SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.


Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:00 PM

SkinnyHead: What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.


Enforcement of the constitutional requirements of equal protection is a compelling state interest. Furthermore, even if that were not true, there is no need for a compelling state interest: this is a law of general applicability, and not a substantial burden on the free exercise of their religion. No one is alleging that their religion requires them to run a business.

But, you're begging the question. No one is "forcing" the wedding photographers, cake decorators, and the like to do anything. They are free to close their businesses, if they feel they cannot run a business in a non-discriminatory fashion.

You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.

www.crmvet.org www.americaslibrary.gov
What SkinnyHead thinks spiteful people look like.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:33 PM

I drunk what: Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!

he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey


Not exactly.  The March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, a close associate of King's, who was an openly gay man at the time.

/I think that was what the joke was, in part.
 
2014-03-07 03:38:43 PM

ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:40 PM

HighOnCraic: ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid.


//See also: the Mormons and their "the darker your skin is, the more you've sinned" dogma
 
2014-03-07 03:41:25 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?


Getting fired by an employer is not a state action, so the employee might not have any legal claim that his right to religious freedom has been violated.  But a reasonably tolerant private employer should try to make some accommodation out of respect for the religious views of his employees, whether the law forces him to do so or not.
 
2014-03-07 03:41:26 PM

SkinnyHead: Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.

What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.


Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?
 
2014-03-07 03:42:22 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.


Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?
 
2014-03-07 03:42:45 PM

s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.


Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:27 PM

HighOnCraic: I drunk what: Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!

he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey

Not exactly.  The March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, a close associate of King's, who was an openly gay man at the time.

/I think that was what the joke was, in part.


I think the joke was to look back 50 years and apply the same "they're the REAL bigots for not tolerating intolerance" to highlight how ridiculous it is. Seriously we have this thread every day. How can people be so self-centered and not see the hypocrisy in arguing that intolerance has any place in a 'tolerant' society.

You don't tolerate intolerance, dummies! to do so is to enable intolerance and that is the opposite of this 'tolerance' you pretend to care about. They only care because it's (rightly) directed at them. gah.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:56 PM

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?


I like tacos stuffed with sausage.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:24 PM

HighOnCraic: ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid).


Slight tangent... That pisses me off to no end when religions, or other organizations (businesses do it a lot, too), have spontaneous changes of heart, but blame some other outside force to avoid having to admit they were wrong.  The Church above had a "revelation".  Uh huh.  Whatever.  Look, you picked wrong, you made the wrong choice.  Own up to it, ask for forgiveness, and move on.  I mean seriously, what ever happened to taking responsibility for yourself?  When the Catholic Church inevitably decides that gay marriage isn't wrong after all, I sincerely hope they just come out and say, "Ya know what guys?  We were arseholes!  We're sorry, we know what we did wrong, and we won't do it again."  I'd have tremendous respect for that.  Don't just hide behind some bullshiat revelation or whatever.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:41 PM
ManateeGag

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

In addition to those already mentioned, see Christian Identity.
 
2014-03-07 03:50:33 PM

Theaetetus: palelizard: Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.

No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.

A priest?


They mostly just use saliva as lube.
 
2014-03-07 03:52:42 PM

give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?


Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:27 PM
I think Democrats should propose a bill banning Sharia law including their prohibition against same sex marriage?

Watch heads explode.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:50 PM
To a Christian(R), walking into a Macy's between Halloween and New Year's Day and seeing a menorah is more bigoted than being told that you can't marry the person you love because they are the same gender as you.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:52 PM

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


What traditional functionality of marriage might look like:

Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother.
Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage (i.e., that outside the clan) was forbidden. It has been known in many societies around the world. The practice is similar to widow inheritance, where, for example, the deceased husband's kin can dictate whom the widow may marry.
The term is a derivative of the Latin word levir, meaning "husband's brother".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sororate_marriage
 
2014-03-07 03:55:16 PM

Fafai: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?

I like tacos stuffed with sausage.


sounds like sloppy seconds to me
 
2014-03-07 03:57:35 PM

SkinnyHead: give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?

Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.


Does this mean you're starting to think of yourself and el chip as two separate people now?

/Yeah, I know, I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious, threadshiatting alt.  The obvious, threadshiatting alt is the victim, and I'm the REAL bigot. . .
 
2014-03-07 03:57:51 PM

mrshowrules: Fafai: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?

I like tacos stuffed with sausage.

sounds like sloppy seconds to me


Who are you to judge?
 
2014-03-07 03:57:53 PM
Bigots need some minority group that they can hate and condemn unabashedly and still be allowed to feel good about themselves.

Liberals have that already, bigots.

The poor bigots have nothing.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:21 PM

SkinnyHead: give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?

Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.


I just figured you were a masochist.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:29 PM

ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?

why would you consider a vegetarian caterer for your BBQ in the first place?


Consider your source.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:22 PM

HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.


When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:11 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?

Getting fired by an employer is not a state action, so the employee might not have any legal claim that his right to religious freedom has been violated. But a reasonably tolerant private employer should try to make some accommodation out of respect for the religious views of his employees, whether the law forces him to do so or not.


This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Whether the scenario I described or the one with the baker in real life, the result could be a lawsuit that will be decided in the courts. If you want to call that a 'state action', so be it, but it is no different. And, by writing the bolded part above, you seem to be indicating that the employee in my hypothetical scenario would likely lose a suit against their employer for firing them and it is for those exact same reasons that the baker will (if they have not already, I'm not really following it) lose the suit against them. You don't have a constitutional right to own a bakery. Feel free to discriminate against gays if your religion requires you to do so, but be prepared to deal with the consequences of your choices.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:15 PM
I don't think vegetarian is a protected class under the constitution.

If I don't want to work on a Harley, I don't have to work on a Harley.

If I work at a cupcake shop, I don't have to sell you BBQ.

See? It's different.

Now if you are vegetarian working at a BBQ joint and refuse to serve me BBQ because it is against your beliefs, then I can say fark you and your boss may have a problem with you not doing your job.

Now, pretend you are caterer who doesn't believe in gay marriage. Yet gay marriage is a reality under the law. Do you still get to choose not to cater a gay wedding?

No.

Because that is being a bigoted bigot. Just like you can't say you don't cater to Muslims. Because in this country, you can be any goddamned religion you want, and you can't discriminate.

Unless you are a exclusively shellfish oriented caterer. If you only sell mussels, and cockles, and clams, you can go ahead and say no.

Because who wants just that shiat, right?
 
2014-03-07 04:07:09 PM

mrshowrules: Bigots need some minority group that they can hate and condemn unabashedly and still be allowed to feel good about themselves.

Liberals have that already, bigots.

The poor bigots have nothing.


They want to be free to unabashedly hate and not be called out on it, so they call out what they percieve as hate. It may very well be hate coming from a lot of those 'nasty' gay rights advocates, but people are allowed to hate, and others are allowed to respond in kind. They don't seem to get this. You can hate on whoever you want. When they hide their own hatred behind religion or traditional marriage, that's besides the point. No-one's saying you can't legally hate. They're saying you can't illegally act upon hatred via discrimination.

The whole 'sore winners' thing is like deja vu. Reminds me of back in the 90's when people staged 'kiss-ins' to protest bigotry and people whined about people kissing in the streets being combative or whatever. The more I think aboutt hese people trying to stop gay marriage the more my head explodes.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:29 PM

s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.


I'm glad someone understands my struggle.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:32 PM

loki see loki do: I don't think vegetarian is a protected class under the constitution.

If I don't want to work on a Harley, I don't have to work on a Harley.

If I work at a cupcake shop, I don't have to sell you BBQ.

See? It's different.

Now if you are vegetarian working at a BBQ joint and refuse to serve me BBQ because it is against your beliefs, then I can say fark you and your boss may have a problem with you not doing your job.

Now, pretend you are caterer who doesn't believe in gay marriage. Yet gay marriage is a reality under the law. Do you still get to choose not to cater a gay wedding?

No.

Because that is being a bigoted bigot. Just like you can't say you don't cater to Muslims. Because in this country, you can be any goddamned religion you want, and you can't discriminate.

Unless you are a exclusively shellfish oriented caterer. If you only sell mussels, and cockles, and clams, you can go ahead and say no.

Because who wants just that shiat, right?


Though a shellfish-exclusive caterer would be a little hypocritical using Biblical references to back up their bigotry.
 
2014-03-07 04:08:46 PM
But if you want the shellfish, I'll sell em to you.
It's no skin off my back.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:54 PM

SkinnyHead: Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.

What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.


If the war photographer portrayed some war crimes as atrocities, and some war crimes as justice, would you be right to wonder if that photographer is a twisted human being?

A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer.  A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:55 PM
If I only sell shellfish, I don't have to sell what I don't got is what I'm saying. To you it's a sin, to me it's delicious.

/bacon wrapped scallops
//doubly sacrilicious.
 
2014-03-07 04:13:51 PM

HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.

I'm glad someone understands my struggle.


That which doesn't make you struggle, makes you soshulist!
 
2014-03-07 04:15:50 PM

s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.

I'm glad someone understands my struggle.

That which doesn't make you struggle, makes you soshulist!


Working hard makes me feel free. . .
 
2014-03-07 04:16:27 PM

Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.


so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?
 
2014-03-07 04:16:47 PM
...and Ghost bustin' makes me feel good!
 
2014-03-07 04:17:49 PM

peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.

 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?


Dunno. Rent my clothes maybe.
 
2014-03-07 04:18:27 PM

Krymson Tyde: Rent my clothes maybe.


I'll give you two bits for ten minutes with your pants.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:01 PM

ManateeGag: Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.

so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?


You can pork the hell out of her.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:35 PM
What kind of pathetically spineless piece of shiat wants to simultaneously be against gay marriage and can't handle their little feelings getting hurt when they get called a bigot?

Want to be a bigot? Go right the fark ahead, nothing is stopping you, but for christ's sake actually own that shiat.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:38 PM
Anybody else getting hungry?
 
2014-03-07 04:20:51 PM

loki see loki do: You can pork the hell out of her.


Mary Moon Catering?
 
2014-03-07 04:24:35 PM

ManateeGag: Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.

so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?


In America, you have the right to sue anybody for anything until a judge orders you to stop clogging up his fax machine.

Seriously, though, I almost added that exact example to my last post, but deleted it because I thought it was going a little far afield of his question.  So yes, a vegan caterer doesn't have a right to deny service to a party just because that party will also have meat served by a second caterer.

Conversely, a vegan caterer does have the right to refuse to eat any of the meat served.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report