I’ve been looking at a bunch of the articles about Memories Pizza in Indiana.
Here’s the story in a nutshell. The state of Indiana passed that they called a “religious reform bill” whose wording was apparently vague enough that some folks believed it would allow a business to legally refuse to service customers whose lifestyles offended their religious sensibilities. Of course, in 21st Century America what that actually means is that Christian businesses could refuse to provide services to homosexuals and Muslims.
Nobody seemed to know whether the bill actually did say that, including Gov. Mike Pense of Indiana who signed the bill. No matter. The Internet erupted and many large corporations threatened to boycott the state.
As all of this was happening, a reporter from Channel 57, an ABC affiliate in South Bend, Indiana asked the owners of a tiny pizza parlor in Walkerton, Indiana (population 2,144) what they thought of all this. The owners, being Christians, said, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no.” This was a response to a completely hypothetical question. No gay couple has ever asked Memories Pizza to cater their wedding.
The Huffington Post picked up on this and reported that the pizza place “publicly vow(ed)” to “reject gay weddings.” This entirely inaccurate description of what actually transpired was seized upon by countless folks all around the Interwebs. The pizza shop’s Yelp page was spammed with eight pages negative reviews, most of them quite obviously from people who had never been there. Their phone rang off the hook with fake orders. Someone on Twitter threatened to burn the shop down. The folks at Memories Pizza temporarily closed their restaurant.
Then someone called Lawrence Billy Jones III, a contributor for the conservative news platform The Blaze, set up a GoFundMe program to support the pizza shop and, in a single day, raised over $800,000 to aid them in their struggle. The folks at Memories Pizza said that this was evidence that God had blessed them for never abandoning their Lord and Savior.
I try to keep politics out of this blog. I’m basically liberal-ish. I definitely support the legalization of same-sex marriage. I do not support laws that would allow businesses to refuse to serve people because they disagree with their lifestyles. But I’m also a realist. The US economy is in terrible shape right now. If a gay couple really wanted someone to sell them pizzas for their wedding, they’d certainly be able to find a pizza joint who’d be happy to take their money.
What happened here has nothing to do with that. Rather it’s an example of how people on all sides of the political spectrum are equally ridiculous.
I had believed that being tolerant of other people’s ways of life was a by-product of open-minded understanding. I support gay marriage and I also support the folks at Memories Pizza’s right to refuse to cater gay weddings. Both for the same reason. I do not understand the pizza shop’s attitude at all. It seems to be the very opposite of Christ’s ideal of serving everyone equally. But whatever. It’s really a non-issue. If the gas company refused service to homosexuals that would be an issue. But that’s not what we’re talking about.
It’s incredibly disappointing to see adult members of the conservative right willingly donating to such an obviously media-created non-issue. Even if there had been no GoFundMe campaign, Memories Pizza would have been just fine in the three days it would have taken for everyone involved to completely forget the whole thing ever even happened.
But to me, as a semi-leftish leaning person, it is much more disappointing to see adult members of the supposedly “liberal” left acting like junior high bullies. I looked at Memories Pizza’s Yelp page a couple days ago and most of what was posted there was disgustingly juvenile (see the example image I used to illustrate this piece).
If we liberals are representing ourselves as the tolerant and intelligent ones, then we need to actually be the tolerant and intelligent ones.
Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.
Hatred directed at haters is still hatred.
Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerance.
This doesn’t mean we must be complacent in the face of injustice. But if the only options you can come up with are a) spamming some little pizza place’s Yelp page or b) being complacent about Indiana’s (probably) unjust legislation, then you’re not very smart.
In any case, the state of Indiana has now amended the bill in question so that it can no longer be used to justify refusing service to those whose lifestyles offend your religious sensibilities.
This whole mess just serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to do what is truly ethical. We quickly revert to our deeply ingrained habitual responses. We’ve grown up learning to hate, to bully, to be bigoted, to be intolerant. Perhaps we mature a tiny bit and learn, for example, that gay people are just people like us. But it’s amazing how quickly we forget the real lesson and simply redirect our hatred, bigotry and intolerance at new targets.
We gotta work on that.
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 24-26, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY ZEN & YOGA RETREAT
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 4, 2015 Hamburg, Germany LECTURE
September 5, 2015 Hamburg, Germany ZEN DAY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Registration is now open for our 3-day Zen & Yoga Retreat at Mt. Baldy Zen Center April 24-26, 2015. CLICK HERE for more info!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
If you haven’t given all your cash to Memories Pizza, feel free to make a donation to this blog. I guarantee I can use it a lot more than them!
Yes.
I’m guessing that you’re gonna catch pluperfect hell on this. But an awful lot of people don’t have morals or ethics, they have team loyalty; they think bullying is okay as long as only Bad People are being bullied.
I will say, I’m vaguely friends with Dana Loesch, and at the time they started the GoFundMe, these folks in Indiana were in hiding because of death threats and people who wanted to burn down their shop, and I don’t think Dana ever imagined it would exceed three-quarters of a million dollars. I also know lots of proponents of gay marriage who contributed, just as a protest against the bullying.
Good to see you again, Chas!
I think the money thing is a bad development. Some people are already thinking of ways to recreate the thing for their own benefit.
Thanks! Re the money, meh, it’s karma/vipaka. A bunch of people got the idea in mind to bully a couple of naifs who spoke honestly to a news person. A bunch of other people didn’t like them being bullied and responded with a few bucks. A bunch of skandhas got rearranged on the edges. And a bunch of people got a potential lesson in maitri.
“But an awful lot of people don’t have morals or ethics, they have team loyalty; they think bullying is okay as long as only Bad People are being bullied.”
That’s a good way to put it.
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” – John Stuart Mill
Happy Easter!
Jesus, do you also support book burnings and the Nazi’s?!
Do you support forcing a Muslim vegan to cater a pig-pickin’?
I guess that may depend on what a pig-pickin is. I’m kinda afraid to ask.
If you hang out your shingle as a pig-picker, then you take all comers.
Unless they misbehave in your shop. Then you kick them right out.
Or, maybe all customers should be questioned on all of the sins that they have committed, and if they are not up to the proprietors standards, then No Pizza for You!!!! Yeah, that sounds like a good system!
I think his point was that you wouldn’t force a Muslim vegan to cater at a party centered around barbecuing and eating a whole pig, not that pig pickin’s should be able to exclude Muslims and vegans.
This is a ridiculous comparison because if ANYONE was interested in a ‘pig-picker’ wedding they wouldn’t go to a vegan caterer.
And by the way, suggesting that gay people are ‘pig-pickers’ is despicable, but it does show your prejudices.
I’m going to assume you’re joking.
Seriously, Brad. If you’re not willing to force people to provide catering service for institutions they don’t believe in, that’s pretty much the same thing as exterminating six million Jews. How do you not see that?
http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2014/02/13/episode-28-seda-and-the-sacred-hoop/
That’s pretty close to my take on this situation as well. Although I wouldn’t even call these people haters. They explicitly stated that they wouldn’t deny service at the restaurant to anyone based on what they imagine to be a “lifestyle choice,” but they also wouldn’t actively be a part of an event organized around an institution they don’t believe in. Who would?
This whole story smelled like bullshit to me from the get-go, so I tracked down the original broadcast where all the subsequent quotes came from and watched it. I have to say it looks to me like a local ABC news affiliate went out and found a small town restaurant with Jesusy chotchkies, asked them about religious freedom, got the expected responses and then billed it as “the first business to publicly deny same sex service,” even though no one had been denied service. Ta-daa! A couple of local-affiliate Indiana TV reporters suddenly have a national news scoop about a controversial issue. Having been interviewed by TV reporters, I can tell you that they tell the story they want, not the one you want told. In the broadcast, the gal repeats the question about gay marraige before answering it. That’s something they tell you to do when you’re being interviewed on camera. In other words, even the hypothetical, like the rest of the story, was very likely contrived by professionals who peddle moral outrage for a living. And, as usual, the social justice warriors on the internet got suckered right in.
One of my first thoughts upon hearing about the money (which was only forty grand at the time) was that more progressive catering services could try the same thing by announcing that they wouldn’t cater to pro-life fundraisers, Klan events or events associtated with anti-gay activism. Ironically though, I honestly don’t think anti-abortion activists, racists and bigots are nearly as likely to engage in this kind of nation wide campaign of threats and blackballing–at least not over pizza they aren’t likely to order in the first place.
I’m sort of surprised to hear you identify yourself as a “liberal” as the term (as well as the term “conservative”) has lost all coherent meaning, as far as I can tell. More and more I’m reminded of the old Robert Anton Wilson quote: “It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”
No sign of pluperfect hell yet. Very disappointing.
I agree with what Brad wrote. I think Brad put it very well.
Hello my facebook peoples!
Slavery in the Bible.
Murder in the Bible
The evolution of morality in civilized societies has rendered much of Iron Age morality obsolete even if it was written by the wisest men at that time. If, on the other hand, the morality of the Bible was devised by a supernatural being, then that being must have been some kind of demon.
Here is an interesting talk by Brian Leiter, who is an American philosopher and legal scholar who is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, founder and Director of Chicago’s Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, and is the founder of the Philosophical Gourmet Report.
The title is “Why Tolerate Religion”, however, the actual subject is why give religion a special standing when it comes to matters of conscience and the law. In it he talks about how the law has treated “conscientious objections” to laws of general applicability. Although he doesn’t address this particular issue he does address a similar issue regarding health care and business that seek to exempt themselves from providing health care that includes contraception.
The talk regards his book of the same name, “Why Tolerate Religion”. It’s about and hour, is very accessible and the considerations he raises are interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmy04mXQ6sU
“Philosophical Gourmet Report”
Can you summarize it in powerpoint?
When I see the word philosophy, I start to feel nauseous..
Is that “nauseous” or “nauseated”?
It’s worth the time and a little mental effort. No Power Points, but I doubt you’ll need it. It really is very accessible and only an hour long.
If you’ve read Being and Time, I doubt you’ll have any trouble.
Is getting nauseous over the word “philosophy” part of your philosophy?
Perhaps if more people studied some philosophy, their reality frame would be wider and more harmonious.
Take two pages of Bishop Berkeley and see me in the morning.
“Perhaps if more people studied some philosophy, their reality frame would be wider and more harmonious.”
I doubt that.
Read Being and Time and get back to me next week.
Seems to me the real bone of contention here is the right to identify as a persecuted victim. Or at least the “ally” of the persecuted victim. Because, as everyone knows, persecution = righteousness. (Says so in the Bible right? Matthew 5:9. And yet these days atheists and secularists just as apt to play that card as the most fervid of the religious zealots.) Problem is, to be subject to real injustice involves things like imprisonment, beatings, starvation and death, which very few are willing to risk if they can avoid it. Thus you end up with a holy war fought over pizza.
Good news for stand up comedians and satiric novelists… or not, maybe. Satire relies on exaggeration, and when things get this absurd there’s not much room for exaggeration. But not so good for the soul of a nation. One might argue that a crusade over something trivial and illusory is preferable in so far as no one has actually died as yet. But I can’t help thinking about what Jesus said – “For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (pretty sure that was Jesus)
Luke 23:31
I would like to know whether or not Memories Pizza is registered as a LLC and whether or not they have a Federal Tax ID Number. If they are not, this becomes a completely different conversation that if they are.
When you register as a corporation, you enter into a contract with the state. They will provide your business with incentives and protections such as a different tax scheme and protection from liability should your company go belly-up (e.g. creditors and litigants could take your business, but not your house). In exchange, you promise to pay taxes on time, provide overtime, keep your place safe, provide insurance (thanks Obama!) and… oh… I don’t know… not discriminate.
Now what this type of legislation does is say that if you have a religious objection, you can opt out of the discrimination part, provided you aren’t discriminating against a protected class of people. Members of the LGBTQ community aren’t currently considered a protected class of people.
So while I agree that the response from both sides has been a bit dramatic, it illustrates a major legal question that will be answered very shortly: Should gays and trans people be considered part of a protected class? One side says “no, being gay and/or trans is a choice, like getting a tattoo” and the other side says, “yes, being gay and/or trans is not a choice and they are systematically discriminated against.”
Yes!
We eventually stopped allowing folks to use their bigotry against Black people to excuse refusing them services; eventually we’re gonna have to stop allowing folks to use their bigotry against non-conservative-Christian-behaving people.
You have to feel bad for these good people. First they were forced to serve darkies and now this. America is going straight to Hell.
Oh yeah, And only seven comments before the specter of nazism was invoked..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqyN3-bpGug
Oh, Did I walk past Brad’s point again? Sorry. It was a damn good main point. I agree with it as much as I can.
Goddamn, more people need to read this post.
If nothing else, when people are allowed to be openly bigoted, I learn not to give them my money.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title II
“Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term ‘private’.”
It could probably be argued that people who discriminate based on their own religion, not the religion or any other characteristics of their customers, are still violating that section of the law.
Complete text of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php
The real love:
http://www.gofundme.com/churchofcannabis?fb_action_ids=10152824800946545&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_ref=fb_cr_n
Sure, light up a joint at Memories Pizza because it’s your religious right and you want them to have the real love.
The whole point is academic anyhow, cuz like what self-respecting fagot would serve Nazi pizza at their nuptials.
This point has been made a number of times in the online hysteria over this manufactured controversy, and frankly I’d agree with the overall premise, which is: what the fuck difference does it make? Although didn’t you just say that it would be ridiculous to compare this to a situation where people throwing a pig pickin’ try to hire vegan caterers for the exact same reason? Frankly, they’re both absurd hypotheticals that would never occur in the real world, the difference being that one was thought up by a guy arguing for compassion, the other was invented and spread, for profit, by the Moral-Outrage-Porn industry, then used by a bunch of self-righteous bigots to scapegoat a small, family-owned business in the middle of nowhere.
We have definitely come a long way when 2 trees can get married.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFG6AoEScVE
“The whole point is academic anyhow, cuz like what self-respecting fagot would serve Nazi pizza at their nuptials.”
You misspelled “branch”. Better luck next time.
Cheers.
Spelling Nazi
The difference is equal rights, dude. You think there are equal rights in America? Think again, pal. You think achieving equal rights is easy? Think again, buddy. You think you’ve got equal rights, being Asian and ____? Think again, baby.
Ever heard of a Straw Man argument? It’s a common rhetorical fallacy. I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not, but I notice you use it quite a bit. In this case, you’ve stated a bunch of things you imagine I think, then refuted those statements without my ever having agreed with them or stated them myself In case you’re completely unaware of what you’re doing, here’s Wiki’s description of the Straw Man fallacy:
“A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent’s argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining “battle” and the defeat of an “enemy” may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman’s head”
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
If everyone were to do the Zen thing and be like, “oh, whatever, if someone doesn’t want to give Jason a job cuz he’s Asian and ____, hey, I can support that, cuz I’m like all Zen mellow,” then things wouldn’t change.
We need to take a stand, bitches.
Non-equal rights in America is real, dude. It’s not a fucking model of an old woman’s head.
See, you just did it again. And, since you don’t seem to be getting it, what I mean by “did it again” is that you fabricated an easy argument to attack rather than address anything that’s actually been said. Maybe you could go over my last post more slowly. Also, maybe you could show me where I’ve stated that “non-equal rights [aren’t] real.”
“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” said the pizza Nazi.
This is an expression of discrimination. And you ask what the fuck does it matter. Well let me ask you. Do you think that expressions of discrimination like this matter?
If by “expressions of discrimination like this” you mean statements coaxed out by reporters trying to create a story where one doesn’t really exist, yes, of course they matter. Without them, how would a small town pizza joint make nearly a million dollars because a bunch of sanctimonious bigots imagined themselve to be “taking a stand.”
From Google: “big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”
“…the defeat of an “enemy” may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.”
I’d call that a darn good description of the Hardcore Zen comments section.
(sardonic grin)
Cheers.
Probably comments sections in general.
I’d guess that you are correct, sir.
I have very little online commenting experience outside of here.
Cheers.
Forming a belief based on very little experience. There’s a name for that. What was it again? Oh, yeah, it’s called PREJUDICE.
You consider people who are intolerant of discrimination bigots? Uh… that’s retarded.
Ever heard of a Ad Hominem attack? It’s a common rhetorical fallacy. I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not, but I notice you use it quite a bit. In case you’re completely unaware of what you’re doing, here’s a definition from RationalWiki:
———————————————————————————————
The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin “to the person.” It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.
As most people use the phrase in recent times, an ad hominem argument occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It is therefore a special case of the broader category of formal logical fallacies, the non sequitur, in which the conclusion urged, e.g. that the disputant is incorrect, does not follow from the premise asserted, e.g. that the disputant is a dick. Even if the ad hominem attack is true, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant’s argument is logically sound.
———————————————————————————————-
See also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Okay I’ll spell it out for you. The difference between people intolerant of discrimination and people who are bigots is basically rationality. Bigoted intolerance is irrational, whereas intolerance of discrimination is entirely rational. It’s entirely rational in a civilized society anyway.
For example, it’s rational to be intolerant of genocide. I hope that I don’t need to explain why. It’s irrational to be intolerant of the gays. I hope that I don’t need to explain why.
Ok. That’s not the actual defintion of the word, but I’d say you should be free to believe your own version without a mob of ill-informed suckers trying to destroy your life through the internet, but failing and making you hundreds of thousands of dollars instead.
A prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others is necessarily irrational.
Failing? Indiana and Arkansas Revised the Rights Bills. Don’t you get it?
Sometimes it seems that I am exactly defined by everything I hate.
Harlan,
I know exactly what you mean…
Cheers.
Y’all are defined as haters. We already knew that about Mr. Sailer and his hatred of “mongrels.”
baaaaaaaa
This is for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0
lol, thanks :0)
THIS really is like the HCZ comments section
“Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.
Hatred directed at haters is still hatred.
Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerance.”
Well put.
And this
“This whole mess just serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to do what is truly ethical. We quickly revert to our deeply ingrained habitual responses. We’ve grown up learning to hate, to bully, to be bigoted, to be intolerant. Perhaps we mature a tiny bit and learn, for example, that gay people are just people like us. But it’s amazing how quickly we forget the real lesson and simply redirect our hatred, bigotry and intolerance at new targets.”
And then we’re doing what the bigots are doing. It’s like it’s OK to hate and be a bigot as long as we’re fighting bigotry. I also agree that if a pizza shop doesn’t want to serve someone like gays, it’s not a big deal. There are plenty of pizza shops to go around (as long as they aren’t actively condemning anyone in hurtful ways. Everyone is at a different place in their journey. Maybe the pizza shop owners are more tolerant of certain things that most other people aren’t; who knows?
One small thing, Leah. From what I’ve read (Brad’s post and the links) this particular pizza shop owner has said nothing about refusing to serve gays – not in the normal course of everyday business. She said that if asked to cater a gay wedding, she’d have to say no. I’m given to understand that there are plenty of gay-tolerant Christians who ‘draw the line’ at gay marriage.
Whatever… Thanks for reminding us what Brad’s post was actually about.
I knew Brad had an Easter picture somewhere (hope this works- it’s from his Facebook page):
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10996501_10152726692390969_5977196466223920092_n.jpg?oh=d53324b2ce2583944e53f7350ce42f2a&oe=55B87C79&__gda__=1436307740_29abf99e1678cb2841dcb6e378814f61
Only the sycophantic sheep could be wooed by such an empty statement. It lacks moral dimension. Shouldn’t that be obvious???
The slave owner is intolerant of views against his slave ownership. Slaves are intolerant of views supporting slave ownership.
Yeah. Perhaps he should’ve written a little bit more – fleshed it out a bit, you know.
No respectable gay couple would ever have their wedding catered by ANY pizza shop.
It is very important point!
“Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.
Hatred directed at haters is still hatred.
Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerance.”
Facile tautologies are just facile tautologies.
You must remember this…
Not necessarily. Not, for example, when they’re presented as part of a contextual argument. As here.
– is a reply to TGC’s “Facile tautologies are just facile tautologies.”
…I would have preferred for the 3 Tautologies without the double spacing. But you can’t have everything.
Facile tautologies ARE just facile tautologies.
It says so, right there in the tautology.
Also because of logic and semantics.
“Facile tautologies ARE just facile tautologies.
It says so, right there in the tautology.”
Oh yeah! : )
The context is Brad supporting the right to discriminate based solely on sexual orientation. It follows that he would also support discrimination based on sex, race, or socioeconomic status. The question is why he is in support of this. The answer is probably multifaceted, but ultimately boils down his status. He’s a white heterosexual male living in America. If he were a poor gay black woman she would be more sensitive to discrimination based on sexual orientation, sex, race, and socioeconomic status. It’s good to have the upper hand, and when people like Brad have the better position they want to keep it, so they support discrimination based on characteristics they are free of.
http://youtu.be/nfWlot6h_JM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhvXST1Rc3g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9ZYFG379M
For some reason I like these NIN/CutePop mashups.
Thanks for the links…
Cheers.
Thanks Brad, for your enlightened response to this issue. The more I learn to accept reality as is and adjust my behavioral responses, the more expanded I feel. Many more options appear and life becomes a breeze, compared to how it was when I rigidly took sides and instantly hopped onto some perceived cause.
Chas said: “I’m guessing that you’re gonna catch pluperfect hell on this.”
I spend most of my time in past imperfect hell.
Zafu said: “Jesus, do you also support …”
Jesus doesn’t read this blog. Being the Son of God, he doesn’t have much use for Zen.
You’re a Christian?
I’m guessing that pretty much all religious folk support the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, because they believe in some kind of cosmic moral order that gays don’t quite fit into. Most probably don’t even consciously realize that they hold such beliefs.
“I’m guessing that pretty much all religious folk support the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.”
You’d be guessing wrong. And I’m not a Christian, the remark was tongue in cheek.
Most of the comments so far have been predictable, facile, and a bit shit.
The ONLY point of interest I can see in Brad’s post – apart from the obvious entertainment/righteous-indignation value of the Memories Pizza debacle – is a very simple one, which bears repeating, because people forget it so easily… having a just cause doesn’t justify unjust or excessive actions.
Matthew 7:12, ya bunch o’ fucktards
2 Kings 18:27
Too bad you weren’t alive during the civil war, the South could have used your support.
Maybe you’re right Zafu, maybe we should round up any jesusists who won’t serve pizza at a gay wedding, and throw them to the lions.
Or burn the sodomites, before they invoke fire and brimstone from the sky and get us all wasted.
Whichever one you think is just.
It is touching how concerned you are for the wellbeing of the Memories Pizza folks, but how concerned are you for the LGBT community? Maybe they’re just hysterical overreactive gays, right?
“The owners, being Christians, said, ‘If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no.’ This was a response to a completely hypothetical question.”
…
“Someone on Twitter threatened to burn the shop down.”
I’m equally (un)concerned for the Christians and the LGBTQs, I just don’t think anybody should get death threats for answering a hypothetical question.
“I’m equally (un)concerned for the Christians and the LGBTQs, I just don’t think anybody should get death threats for answering a hypothetical question.”
It’s America. Everyone gets death threats for answering hypothetical questions.
They won’t provide pizzas for gay weddings because they are openly opposed to gay marriage. They may take other actions in opposition to gay marriage. In any case, it’s an expression of discrimination. You misrepresent the actual situation. But anyway, should anybody get death threats for expressing discrimination? I don’t think so, but then I’ve never been attacked and beaten for my sexual orientation.
It’s not an easy thing to live in fear, for the haters or for LGBT community.
I know that Zennies are ‘supposed to be’ all Zen Mellow, but you really should have a care. It’s human to empathize with the suffering of others, and want to do something to help.
“I know that Zennies are ‘supposed to be’ all Zen Mellow, but you really should have a care.”
Like you give a fuck. You’re a troll. You called someone a faggot a couple of days.
You need to keep your troll talking points in order. Maybe you should write them down.
That’s ridiculous, I don’t even know what a faggot a couple of days is.
Zafu:
That’s ridiculous, I don’t even know what a faggot a couple of days is.
—————————————————————
Fred left out the word “ago”. It was your post from yesterday:
http://hardcorezen.info/memories-pizza/3469/comment-page-1#comment-70029
I didn’t call anyone an ago either.
I didn’t call anyone an ago either.
————————————————————————-
No, but I’m sure Fred meant to! And now I’m calling you one:
You’ve got a big bad ago, brother. It knows no limits. It stops at nothing. It has neither scruples nor conscience.
Now make a troll reply. I will read it – but make no reply myself.
Don’t be a hatter.
Ago go?
Down with the sodomites; up with the gomorrahizers. Pizza for everyone.
“It’s human to empathize with the suffering of others, and want to do something to help.”
So what about the suffering of the pizza?
What kind of Nazi takes a bunch of tomatoes, cuts and squeezes the crap out of them, then picks up an innocent chunk of cheese and runs it thorough the grater like an A-list sadist, finally slicing up a perfectly peaceful slab of peperoni and dumping the whole mess onto a well beaten blob of gluten?
And then comes the oven…jeez, it just doesn’t end, does it?
What a bunch of heartless bums, whining about a bunch of crazy homo-saps when the real carnage is happening right under their human-centric noses…
Cheers.
Crazy homo-saps?
Don’t be a hater, ya mongrel.
Ufaz,
That’s Mr. Sailer to you.
Please respect your elders, we want you obedient while you’re paying our social security.
Cheers.
I thought you were English. Eh, you sheep all look the same to me.
BW: “It seems to be the very opposite of Christ’s ideal of serving everyone equally”
… somebody should tell these people…
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-are-sins-that-cry-to-heaven-for-vengeance-and-sins-against-the-holy-spirit
…maybe a quick word to these people would help too…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation
As per usual, when Brad joins a discussion, be it political or religious in nature–he usually reads and informs himself as little as possible, then proceeds to give us his (un)educated opinion.
Here is a much better, much better informed article. I’ll leave a piece of the article below, with a link to the rest after the excerpt:
As you may have noted, I have yet to write anything about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) debacle in Indiana last week. That’s probably because in the midst of the outrage, I felt a bit unsettled–for two reasons.
First, Indiana’s RFRA, timed when it was, was specifically about providing services for gay weddings. This is why the owners of Memories Pizza said they would serve gay people in their restaurant but not cater for gay weddings. In the past few years, evangelicals have begun to shift their battle from preventing gay marriages to ensuring that they are not required to participate in them. Evangelical publications are full of stories about that focus on this question: a Christian baker who shut down his business rather than be forced to provide a cake for a gay wedding, a photographer who was sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding, and so forth.
I mention this because I think it sometimes got lost in the conversation. Indiana’s RFRA was not about allowing people to put a “no gays” sign in a restaurant window. Instead, it was about ensuring that a Christian photographer would not be required to photograph a lesbian couple’s wedding, participating in something prohibited by their religion and thus violating their conscience. Why does this matter? Largely, I think, because if we are talking about discrimination writ large and evangelicals are talking about providing services for gay weddings, we are going to talk past each other.
Second, the focus on the RFRA obscured the reality that in most of Indiana, discrimination against gay people–in any area of life and for any reason–was (and is) completely legal. There is no law against discriminating against gay people in Indiana. It is against the law to discriminate based on race or religion, and so forth, but not based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, in much of Indiana, it would be legal for a a person to put a “no gays” sign in their restaurant window–and this is as true today as it was two weeks ago. In fact, the fight over the RFRA never touched on this.
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/04/on-indiana.html#ixzz3WgUdLsu7
Oopsy!
gniz — I’ve read the article. I can’t see how it affects any of the points Brad makes in his post.The only thing I read that struck me as, arguably, relevant is this:
“First, Indiana’s RFRA, timed when it was, was specifically about providing services for gay weddings.”
Is that supposed to correct Brad’s mistaken impression that the marriage-catering question was entirely hypothetical? Well OK, but it’s a pretty fine point (the pizza place in question hadn’t actually been asked to cater a wedding, had they?). Whatever…
The Act deals with whatever the Act deals with, regardless of the debate which may have instigated it or the context which led to its passing and subsequent ammending. At no time did Brad say he did not support gay rights, that shop-owners should be allowed to put “No Gays” signs in windows, that (some) Christians are justified in their belief that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord, or that the RFRA is a fine piece of legislation.
Brad’s piece took issue with the form taken by (some of) the reaction to the statement made by the pizza place’s owner, suggesting it was hypocritical and questioning whether it was effective:
BW: “…to me, as a semi-leftish leaning person, it is much more disappointing to see adult members of the supposedly “liberal” left acting like junior high bullies. […] This doesn’t mean we must be complacent in the face of injustice. But if the only options you can come up with are a) spamming some little pizza place’s Yelp page or b) being complacent about Indiana’s (probably) unjust legislation, then you’re not very smart.”
Balancing rights is a tricky business. I’m glad I don’t have to do it.
BTW, dwsmithjr – I watched the Brian Leiter talk you linked. Thanks for that.
He wrote that he supports the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. As I mentioned before, this is probably because he’s religious and because he’s a white hetero male.
Pretty clear that you would side with whatever position was the most authoritative (shepherdish).
That certainly is a vigorous examination of the truth of the matter, Mr. Gniz. I commend you.
gniz – thanks for the patheos link. A very succinct and sober-minded take on the issue, though I don’t necessarily agree with the writer’s assertion that the Civil Rights Act should be extended to cover members of the LGBT crowd. Then again, my own political leanings are tentatively anarchistic, which makes it kind of a moot issue for me.
Nevertheless – the thing that jumped out at me was this:
“Second, the focus on the RFRA obscured the reality that in most of Indiana, discrimination against gay people–in any area of life and for any reason–was (and is) completely legal. There is no law against discriminating against gay people in Indiana.”
Miss Libby Anne says in the same article that a lot of people on both sides of the issue seem to be unaware of this fact. And that’s actually kind of the impression I got from reading Brad’s post. I didn’t mention it because it didn’t seem salient to the point he was trying to make, but what the hell, I’ll mention it now. That is, I got the sense that Brad doesn’t know that, as far as the federal law is concerned, it’s perfectly kosher for this pizza shop to refuse service to gay and transgendered people in their normal day to day operation (Apologies to Mr. Warner if I’m wrong). In fact, there is nothing to prevent them from engaging in any form of discrimination apart from that based on race, sex, or religion.
The interesting thing is that this law, the way it’s worded, is not specifically aimed at people who identify as LGBT. It pertains to all forms of discrimination, including those specifically covered by the Civil Rights Act. (As far as I can tell. Yes, I actually read the damn thing and – arg. Yeah.) So anyway, somebody who runs a business that serves the wedding industry – catering, photographers, tuxedo rental, whatever – potentially could now refuse to serve anyone who subscribed to a different religious creed from themselves. For example a Methodist photographer could refuse to photograph any couple that wasn’t Methodist. Or here’s another hypothetical: what if a baker subscribed to a religious creed that regarded miscegenation as an abomination? Could such a person now refuse to make a cake for a mixed race couple?
Yet these aren’t the sorts of “what-ifs” everyone is bickering about. Why? Simply because they’re assumed to be terrifically unlikely? But are they any less likely than the hypothetical posed to the owners of this weirdly-named pizza joint in the middle of nowhere? It makes me wonder what the real intentions of the people who write these sorts of acts are. I mean in so far as they seem to feed upon the ignorance or misinformation of a large portion of American voters in regard to both state and federal ordinance. Is it really about justice, freedom and the protection of our sacred rights, or is just about stirring up shit?
Sometimes, I have the impression that the French tend to be overly theoretical, dogmatic and eager to jump at each others throats for perceived un-correctness.
For instance, lately, a philosopher was cursed on all the media because he tweeted that it would be nice if our educational system taught to read, write and count, and eventually think, to its students. Immediately all the “right thinking” persons (essentially journalists, media people and “parisian” elite) starting abusing him.
Years ago, a former minister, about some sanitary scandal which should not have happened was similarly abused for having said that she felt responsible, but not guilty.
Such bouts of abuse are plain disgusting. But I have, today, to realise that this is not exclusive to France. With the ad hominem and straw man attacks that I have read in this here page, I don’t feel any better. I just wish that people would use a bit more what they have between their ears…
Gay Husband-to-be: Hi. Is that Pizzas for God?
P for G: Yes, Sir. How we can help you?
G H: Well, here’s the thing. I’m gay and I’m getting married to my boyfriend later this year. And we’d like you to cater the reception for us.
P for G: You want us to cater your gay wedding?
G H: Yes, please.
P for G: I’m afraid we can’t do that. You see, we’re Christians. And the Bible tells us: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). Can’t you find another, less holy, pizza place?
G H: Look, I’m in love. I’m getting married. And I want YOU to provide the chow. No one else. You hear me?
P for G: I hear you, but I’m gonna have to say no. I will pray for you, though.
G H: You can shove your gay-hating prayers where the sun don’t shine. Expect a summons — and maybe a couple of death threats. Goodbye.
P for G: Goodbye.
Wow, your mockery shows how you really feel about minorities, or those that don’t fit into your little religious model of the universe.
I support you, Zafu. I’m writing to the proprietor of this blog, demanding protected class of people status for the hysterical, overreactive, irksome, troll mofo community. Don’t let the bleaters get you down!
Thanks! Uh, what are bleaters?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bleat
Oh, lol, do you actually think the bleaters get me down? Y’all are hilarious.
“do you actually think the bleaters get me down?” … nope, I know they get you hard
Ah, the inevitable conclusion that I must be gay because I don’t support discrimination on the basis sexual orientation.
I don’t know that you’re gay. I know you’re a masochist who gets turned on by attracting criticism.
… which is fine by me. I’ve got nothin’ against masochists.
I prefer the diagnosis of Machiavellian sadist. Although, Machiavellian masochist has a nice ring to it.
Let’s go with Machiavellian masochist, at least until someone comes up with something better.
Hey Anon 108,
In your supposedly humorous little reenactment of a gay couple trying to force a pizza parlor to cater to their wedding, you seemed to have missed the point of concern most of us have about such laws.
It’s not all that different from the “separate but equal” restrooms and restaurants and schools in pre-civil rights America.
The notion that businesses should be able to turn down service to people who’s “lifestyles” they don’t agree with, is actually not allowing everyone to have equal civil rights under the law.
For me, this is not a difficult concept to grasp, but yet intelligent people such as yourself and Brad seem to have a difficult time getting the point some of us are making.
It might not be that easy, in certain parts of the country, to just “go and find someone who WILL serve you pizza, bake a cake, or take a wedding photo.”
And if the law allows for people to discriminate, how many different places should a gay person or gay couple have to go where they can be turned away over and over again based on their sexual orientation? Should they have to go from school to school to find one that will take their kids?
I think the notion that people should threaten the pizza shop in question is obviously wrong and abhorrent. Everyone, I think, would agree that those sorts of tactics are just wrong.
Perhaps I misunderstood–likely, I did misunderstand the tone of your humorous little play. But I think the question at hand is a very important one, with real implications for a vulnerable population, and denigrating it out of what I see as just uneducated, ignorant sophistry is unfortunately too common.
Gandhi didn’t hate the British. He chose not to act in a way that supported their lifestyle choices.
“Gandhi didn’t hate the British. He chose not to act in a way that supported their lifestyle choices.”
True.
But you could use that kind of PC spin to whitewash pretty much anything: eg “Hitler didn’t hate Jewish people. He chose not to act in a way that supported their lifestyle choices.”
New drug for Huntington’s disease to be tested in Vancouver.
“The drug, which was developed by California-based Isis Pharmaceuticals…”
Allahu Akbar?
Nah, Isis doesn’t call itself Isis, that name was put on them by the Western Press. More likely a bunch of goddess worshiping pagans. Just be sure not to pull the veil off of her image, no one who does that lives.
Five years ago or so, I was in a witch store in New Paltz. In a stack of bumper stickers was one saying “Ankh if You Love Isis”! This comedic particle found a humor receptacle deep in my psyche and I put it on my ’94 Saturn station wagon (OK, so I’m a rebel [Vermont is notorious for Subarus, which handle well on snowy roads {and are easy enough to drive under the strongest weed}]), even though I tend to avoid controversial religious or political signage in a well-armed public. I have yet to be accosted by an irate Christian for perceived mockery or blasphemous idolatry, but I have lately been questioned by puzzled strangers wondering what this message could possible be about. Americans are notoriously illiterate about their own religions, let alone others, modern or lately revived.
I admit to some anxiety over it, but damned if I let Daesh make me jump to their tune.
Oh, yeah . . . “Proud Gomorrahizer!”
Thanks, Fred!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10A0HQPLTJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlVfVBFdMaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4BwhQXOdM
“Let’s go with Machiavellian masochist, at least until someone comes up with something better.”
How about Machiavellian Manicheistic masochist, in which the dark side is given creative license to manipulate itself in a search of increased suffering.
Cheers.
Hmm…
You’re overthinking it again, Mr. Sailer.
No… he’s not…
Zephyr, welcome back…can we get cracking on that hard problem of consciousness?
Cheers.
You greet me with an insult? Who the hell do you think you are?
Are you capable of letting go of grudges or not?
Besides, I would like to comment more on what you’ve said, but I’m afraid my ideas may inspire people… My ideas may be borrowed for other people’s artistic creations. I do have some substantial, artistic things to say in response to your post in which I said, “Hmm…”
What you said, however, was very important which is why I responded with, “Hmm…” It’s one of the best posts I’ve read here before, but I want to refrain from commenting on it further.
“You’re overthinking it again, Mr. Sailer.”
It should be “You’re overthinking it still, Mr. Sailer” for increased accuracy.
Cheers.
How about, “You’re still overthinking it, Mr. Racist.”
Reads much better and is far more accurate.
Machiavellian Manicheistic masochist manatee? … manatee just for the cuteness value, and because of the risk of extinction.
Hey, I’m as safe here as a homo in an Indiana pizza parlor.
Hi gniz,
For what it’s worth, my little satire was intended to point up what I see as the absurdity of one particular aspect of the broader issue – and I do understand the broader issue. I mean the absurdity of a gay couple insisting that a gay-disapproving Christian pizza outlet cater a gay wedding. I mean – would they do that? Really? Wouldn’t they just go somewhere else…if they could?
Sure, in my liberal, irreligious opinion it would be a better world if (some) Christians didn’t feel the way they do about gay marriage. It would be a better world if all of us agreed on what’s wrong and what’s right, in all situations. But we don’t. I fear we never will.
Fairly balancing the rights and responsibilities of groups and individuals with competing interests is the duty of a liberal, democratic society. So sure, in some situations — where, for example an entire community is being denied equal access to education, housing or transport services by an entire country or state, campaigning for legislation to establish and enforce equal rights is a good and necessary thing to do.
But in other situations, where options that allow competing groups to express themselves without unduly restricting the lifestyle choices or natural proclivities of others are available, then I say ‘laissez faire’, even if that involves some inconvenience to one or other party. I can’t support compelling unwilling Christians to cater gay weddings any more than I can support compelling unwilling Christain ministers to officiate them. I’d hope there are are sufficient gay-friendly ministers and gay-friendly pizza outlets to serve the community, even in Indiana.
If I’m wrong, and gay couples are being entirely denied the rights of other free citizens, then one of two things will happen. Attitudes, assisted by pro-active campaigning on both sides, will change either in favour of gay rights or against them. I hope — and given time, expect – it’ll be the former.
In the meantime, I think we should be careful not to confuse the way the world is with the way we’d like it to be; different people have very different ideas about what that perfect world would look like. And we should be very mindful of the tactics we liberals adopt in our eagerness to bring about (what we see as) progressive change – lest we end up doing the very thing we’re opposed to.
Hey Anon,
I agree with much of what you say. But that’s kind of the point. People like Brad are somewhat dismissive of the fact that in order for the gay community (and before that, women and other minorities) to get equal protection under the law, folks have had to speak out, protest and become activists.
Sometimes, the activists go to far on both sides, and they do things that are counterproductive.
But using the actions of a few idiots who make death threats or bully someone, to then make light of the issue, is also ignorant.
Brad and others like him tend to have a very cursory and surface level appreciation of the subject matter, but then they make these grand proclamations of ethical superiority.
In actuality, it’s the people who are truly informing themselves, trying to understand the laws and how they’re applied, and then acting from their conscience, who seem to me to have the right idea.
If Brad spent a little more time reading and educating himself on issues, perhaps he’d do a better job of actually speaking to the real issues at play instead of attacking straw men and muddying the waters with his lack of appreciation of what the parties are actually struggling for and against.
But thanks Anon, for your last reply. That was a lot clearer.
Bloody hell, g. You don’t ‘arf write fast!
As for Brad – I reckon I’ve done my bit defending what he wrote. I do hear his piece somewhat differently from the way you do, but that’s OK.
Believe me, I think I realize the point he was making, and I believe it to be somewhat facile.
Yeah, we shouldn’t meet people who think differently than we do with death threats, etc. It makes us look bad, hurts them, and creates deeper divisions.
That’s not an argument that most normal, intelligent people who take issue with. It’s Brad’s surface level appreciation of the issues, his lack of knowledge or research, and his hubris that I find a problem with.
Of course I do agree that we shouldn’t become uncommonly cruel, dehumanizing and bullying and threatening to those who disagree with our views.
And the point being, it isn’t just as simple as, “find another business to deliver your pizza, cater your wedding, or take photos.”
If it were that simple, I hardly believe there would be this kind of public outcry and upheaval. The outcry is because gay people and couples are routinely discriminated against, made to feel unwelcome, assaulted and had their human rights violated.
That this continues is no small matter, and shouldn’t be dismissed so cavalierly by uninformed religious leaders.
Brad’s not “supposed to be” religious or a leader. He’s “supposed to be” an entertainer.