I have seen no proof they have received death threats other than them saying so. Have you? I don't believe they have received any. Just christians playing the victim again.
they made 388k in that one day. Why dont you and major explain why they are shutting down? http://www.abc57.com/story/28696535/high-school-coach-suspended-after-tweet-about-pizzeria
Sorry I never click on your links. What does it say? Some wingnut websites reporting "threats" were made?
it says abc in the address. why would you not click my links and then ask me what it says? whats the point of not clicking my links then?
They made more in one day than they probably make over many years, and they did it without having to do any work at all. Why NOT shut down at that point, especially if it elicits even more sympathy and more donations? I have no idea why they actually shut down, but doing so likely earned them a fortune.
All that said, my "market" comments have nothing to do with one random pizzeria - I think that's a quirky side story. When I am speaking of the market making an impact, I mean all the businesses that threatened to ditch Indiana and caused the legislature to freak out and revise the bill.
Patterson is saying nothing, and it would be out of his autocratic character to do so, but there's talk in Austin circles of cancelling or moving the UT-Notre Dame football game next year. Not important in the grand scheme of things, I know, but I thought it was interesting. You'll know Indiana is ****ed when the start taking about moving the Indy500.
This is fun: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/georgia-florist-gay-wedding_n_7001288.html Days after the owners of Indiana's Memories Pizza made headlines for declaring they wouldn't cater to same-sex weddings, other companies have followed suit, this time in Georgia. Flower shop employee Jennifer Williams told CNN's Gary Tuchman that she "couldn't" serve a same-sex couple who sought arrangements for their union. "It doesn't mean that I love them any less, because I don't," Williams said. "You can still love someone even if you don't serve them." A second florist, Melissa Jeffcoat, felt similarly. "I would respectfully tell them that I'm sorry, I just don't want to do it because of my beliefs," she said. "[Jesus] died on the cross for me, so that's the least I can do for him." Interestingly, she said that she would willingly serve a customer who committed adultery, but not a gay person: "It's just a different kind of sin to me, and I just don't believe in it."
Is it wrong to discriminate against people because of your personal beliefs in general or just your personal religious beliefs? Is it always wrong to discriminate against anyone? What would be your response if a group of people, because of their scientifically backed beliefs, discriminated against another group of people? That is to say, what if someone discriminated against homosexuals due to the belief that they are robbing humanity from a potential brilliant mind and doing a disservice to mankind because they can't conceive children. I'm not saying anything about the validity of the argument, but if we assume that humans have a "duty" to our species to procreate, I can see how that argument could be made. Would that be wrong?
I've heard the conception argument used against gay marriage but a lot of people, some of them married, don't or even can't have children.
Terrible argument. There are already to many people on the earth. So if i do not want people with a low IQ to get offspring since they would probably get children with low IQs and i think that is a disservice to mankind i can discriminate against them? Like i said terrible argument
People with scientific backed beliefs would be aware that the planet is overpopulated so they wouldn't discriminate against others because they can't conceive children. Plus many same sex couples may want to adopt. So that could give a kid the opportunity to have a home and parents who otherwise wouldn't.
If it is a FACT that if you were convicted due to having sex with children, you SHOULD be discriminated from working in the child care industry. If it is a FACT that you have epilepsy, you SHOULD not be allowed to drive. If it is a FACT that you have mental issues, you should be discriminated for having guns. We can go on all day long with this list but take note that this logic makes sense because there is a high risk that that somebody might get hurt. There is nothing about being homosexual that implies you can potentially hurt (outside of your bedroom ) or negatively impact other people.
I'm sure this has been discussed before in this thread. The proponents of the Indiana law argue that this law is the same as the federal version of the law that has been in place for 20 years. If there is a federal version of this law already in place, why is a state version necessary?
