# Guess where I'm never taking my car to get worked on again.



## Razzy (May 15, 2012)

This disgusts me, and it's right in my home town, almost next door to where I work. I may call the owner tomorrow and give him a piece of my mind over this.


----------



## that short guy (May 15, 2012)

First I want to say I agree with you... this person is ignorant beyond belief. That being said, it's his right to voice his beyond retarded opinions. Calling him while it will make you feel better, won't actually help.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 15, 2012)

Just walk in and hug him and say it was for great service. Try to get a boner first and get really close to him. 





Then tell him you're gay and now he has AIDS.


----------



## Razzy (May 15, 2012)

that short guy said:


> First I want to say I agree with you... this person is ignorant beyond belief. That being said, it's his right to voice his beyond retarded opinions. Calling him while it will make you feel better, won't actually help.



Hey, if he's got a right to voice his opinion, I've got a right to voice mine and let him know I will never bring my car there, where I've been taking my cars for years, ever again.


----------



## AxeHappy (May 15, 2012)

Start organising a grass roots movement to boycott his shop. Put the ignorant fuck out of business.


----------



## flint757 (May 15, 2012)

Obama's pronouncement stirred the pot more than I expected especially since it was so nonchalant. Even celebrities are taking sides. Whatever the motives it got people talking about it again especially since I've heard more in the pro group speak up than the con group (excluding your post obviously).


----------



## Michael T (May 15, 2012)

I totally agree with boycotting that business . 

Yes we have freedom of speech, Religion ect... (Kinda , Maybe...hmmm, well not really, but the constitution says we do) Anyways back on track, he may be allowed to voice his opinion but I believe he is just showing his ignorance by putting it on a sign next to the street. It is just rude & disrespectful and shows the world just what kinda of person he truly is.

We are all human beings and should be treated as so. Sure there are things about some people I don't agree with but Hell I'm more than sure there are things about me that others don't like. That's life, so be it. Stuff like this is what still fuels racism, hate crimes and more.


----------



## flint757 (May 15, 2012)

The question is where do you draw the line, for instance I don't think I can put my dick on a sign without getting in trouble.


----------



## Razzy (May 15, 2012)

Michael T said:


> I totally agree with boycotting that business . Yes we have freedom of speech, Religion ect... (Kinda , Maybe...hmmm, well not really, but the constitution says we do) Anyways back on track, he may be allowed to voice his opinion but I believe he is just showing his ignorance by putting it on a sign next to the street. It is just rude & disrespectful and shows the world just what kinda of person he truly is.



Yeah, it's not his opinion that bothers me. I've heard the stupid "Adam and Steve" thing HUNDREDS of times. It's the fact that he put his opinion on the curb outside of his business.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 15, 2012)

His opinion is pretty bigoted too though. Stuff like that is on par with racism.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 15, 2012)

His sign, his business, his opinion, his right. 

Just like anyone who sees that sign has the right to never patronize his business ever again because of it. 

With all the truly shitty things out there, this isn't a big deal. If you get worked up over something like this, he's already won.


----------



## Hollowway (May 15, 2012)

Yeah I don't think telling him off will do much good. What I do think you should do is run that sign through an anagram app online and figure out something to sneak over there and rearrange the letters the evening before his day off. I bet you could come up with some really clever homoerotic stuff for his next statement to the world.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 15, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> His sign, his business, his opinion, his right.
> 
> Just like anyone who sees that sign has the right to never patronize his business ever again because of it.
> 
> With all the truly shitty things out there, this isn't a big deal. If you get worked up over something like this, he's already won.


If I saw this, I wouldn't necessarily get worked up, but I wouldn't go there and would let everyone else I knew that they were giving money to a bigot if they did.


----------



## Razzy (May 15, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah I don't think telling him off will do much good. What I do think you should do is run that sign through an anagram app online and figure out something to sneak over there and rearrange the letters the evening before his day off. I bet you could come up with some really clever homoerotic stuff for his next statement to the world.



I'd rather leave it alone and let him expose himself as the bigot he is, but I'd be lying if I said the thought hadn't crossed my mind.


----------



## JStraitiff (May 15, 2012)

Razzy said:


> Yeah, it's not his opinion that bothers me. I've heard the stupid "Adam and Steve" thing HUNDREDS of times. It's the fact that he put his opinion on the curb outside of his business.



Really? Cause its his opinion that bothers me... 

People can say whatever they want but it doesnt mean they're not gonna get shit for doing it. Id probably leave a dump on his shop counter. (apparently thats my solution to everything lately but it seems so offensive its perfect)


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 15, 2012)

Razzy said:


> I'd rather leave it alone and let him expose himself as the bigot he is, but I'd be lying if I said the thought hadn't crossed my mind.







JStraitiff said:


> Id probably leave a dump on his shop counter. (apparently thats my solution to everything lately but it seems so offensive its perfect)


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 15, 2012)

Isn't there a website you can use to have poop delivered?


----------



## pink freud (May 15, 2012)

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom _from_ (legal) repercussions. This guy might soon learn that.


----------



## McKay (May 15, 2012)




----------



## Razzy (May 15, 2012)

McKay said:


>




Using a public sign to joke about how you and your bigot friends want to shit all over equal rights in the name of a stupid religion actually IS offensive.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 15, 2012)

Razzy said:


> Using a public sign to joke about how you and your bigot friends want to shit all over equal rights in the name of a stupid religion actually IS offensive.



No one has the right to not be offended.


----------



## Baelzebeard (May 16, 2012)

I'm definately with Max.

I'll preface this by saying that I am not offended by sexual preferences that differ from mine. But... 

True freedom means that this guy is entitled to his opinion even though it may offend you. Consider that from his perspective homosexuality is offensive.

Alot of the music that is popular on this forum is VERY offensive to the majority of people, yet many of us walk around with Cannibal Corpse t-shirts on without much thought to the matter, (I do it too.)

I likely would stop patronizing that place though. There are several businesses I no longer support because of their practices or poor service. He knew the risk, he should be willing to live with the consequences to his business.


----------



## ddtonfire (May 16, 2012)

Free speech much?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (May 16, 2012)

That's fucking ridiculous, while i agree he has the right to his own opinion i don't think it's right of him to put that out there. Sure he can, but it's just a bit fucked up. Times are changing, and he needs to accept that. Maybe he'll realize that when his business suffers greatly.


----------



## Explorer (May 16, 2012)

I've been talking with some friends about joining any protests over gay marriage.

We'll go with signs which are to the point, marching proudly to make the message clear.

"Everyone is free to follow OUR religion, not theirs"

"Freedom from my religion? Not in the Constitution!"

"My religion should decide who you marry!" 

As we've learned over the years of marching with those we don't agree with, there is nothing more damaging to viewpoint like these than someone articulating the thinking behind them. Stating clearly that freedom from someone else's religion is un-American, at least according to the protestors, is a quick way to lose them sympathy. Attacking the Constitution by saying that it states one thing, when it clearly says another, also pulls the patriotism rug out from under these people. 

We were also tossing out tactics for dealing with those folks we saw on the news, the ones at the recent rallies dressed in black so they couldn't be identified when they broke windows. We will be experimenting with liquids which are normally clear in regular light, but which are visible under UV, to tag vandals who actually break things so they're soaked, and then when they remove the black clothing so they can't be identified, the dye will still be visible on their faces, hair and skin with the right cameras/lenses. 

Nothing like seeing trolls and vandals whimpering and squealing when their anonymity is removed and they're suddenly liable for their actions, no?

As you can tell, I'm much more a fan of the rule of law and democracy than of someone using force to get what they want, or to issue ultimatums. *laugh*


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 16, 2012)

Explorer said:


> We will be experimenting with liquids which are normally clear in regular light, but which are visible under UV, to tag vandals who actually break things so they're soaked, and then when they remove the black clothing so they can't be identified, the dye will still be visible on their faces, hair and skin with the right cameras/lenses.
> 
> Nothing like seeing trolls and vandals whimpering and squealing when their anonymity is removed and they're suddenly liable for their actions, no?


 
Damned tricky I must say.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 16, 2012)

That's fucked up and I'm just as offended by the sign as you are Razzy, but Max is right. Bigots have as much a right to express their views as anyone else. Where this guy fucked himself is by using his business as a platform for his stupidity. Take comfort in knowing that he "outed" himself as a jackass and as a result he is going to lose valuable customers over it. Maybe he might rethink things when he can't pay the bills. If you still are determined to fight a war over it, organize a boycott. The thing people forget when they spout the free speech argument, is that by all means say whatever you want, but you are still accountable for every word you utter, and consequences apply to them, whether said consequences be good or bad.


----------



## Necris (May 16, 2012)

Razzy said:


>


Clearly the only relationship truly ordained by god is the one between a man and his rib, anything else is unnatural.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

I guess that guy does have freedom to express himself but..

...what if the sign read, "Mr. President, black people should not be allowed to get married!".


IMO, the sign is saying the same shit, not letting gay/trans/whatever people get married is just like not letting certain racial groups get married. This reminds of how in India, for the longest time, Sikhs could not get married as Sikhs and instead had to get married as Hindus/Christians or Muslims under Indian law. Except with this, people who aren't straight don't get the same legal status as they would if they were married instead of in a civil union or whatever it is. Without a doubt I would vandalize that guys property. Like no second thoughts, it would be hilarious too and I would enjoy it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 16, 2012)

I'm kindof confused as to why people seem to think Razzy saying he's going to call the guy and give him a piece of his mind is somehow an affront to freedom of speech. He didn't say he's going to try to have the sign taken down or lobby for new city ordinances that will make such signs illegal, he just wants to tell someone whose business he's been patronizing for years that he thinks it was a dick move and he's lost a customer. He didn't even _hint_ that he thinks the man wasn't within his rights to have the sign in the first place.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

Yeah, my post was aimed at people who think it would be wrong to vandalize the guys sign, switching a few letters around isn't going to make him die or anything, and J should definately call the fool and let him know how disappointed he is. 

On another note...what kind of retard makes any sort of political statements if they're running a business?


----------



## tacotiklah (May 16, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> On another note...what kind of retard makes any sort of political statements if they're running a business?



Insightful post is insightful. Taking ANY kind of political stance in a place of business is stupid because no matter what you support, you will offend customers and they will stop doing business with you. Like I said, he screwed the pooch by doing this, and if my suspicions are correct, he really enjoyed screwing that pooch.


----------



## broj15 (May 16, 2012)

You could give him a piece of your mind (trust me, I would too) but it will probably just a be a waste of your time. Some people will always have this backwards way of thinking, no matter how much you try to reason with him. Best you can do is to boycott and make the dude lose business. He needs to be shown that he can't just make these kind of polarized statements and not expect there to be any fallout.

Basically, you can't change this guys mind, but atleast you can make him go broke or feel like ass for stating his point so crudely.


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

ddtonfire said:


> Free speech much?



I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to put his sign out there.

I don't understand this attitude that people have that just because people have a right to their opinion, you're not allowed to say anything to them about it just because they stated it first.



jstraitiff said:


> Really? Cause its his opinion that bothers me...



Oh, don't get me wrong, I disagree with his opinion, but I can't stop people from having an opinion, and I wouldn't if I could. That fact that he took that opinion and put it on a sign outside of his business is what made me go .


----------



## ddtonfire (May 16, 2012)

It's just some of these poster's ideas for retaliation in this thread are much more scary and distasteful than the guy's sign in the first place.


----------



## ElRay (May 16, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm kindof confused as to why people seem to think Razzy saying he's going to call the guy and give him a piece of his mind is somehow an affront to freedom of speech. He didn't say he's going to try to have the sign taken down or lobby for new city ordinances that will make such signs illegal, he just wants to tell someone whose business he's been patronizing for years that he thinks it was a dick move and he's lost a customer. He didn't even _hint_ that he thinks the man wasn't within his rights to have the sign in the first place.



QFT

It confuses me why people think that free speech means that you should be isolated/protected from the effects of your speech. 

Free Speech would prevent one of the levels of government from banning the sign, but it doesn't protect customers from taking their business elsewhere, nor does it prevent a regular citizen from calling the owner out and telling them they're being a hypocritical ass.



Ray


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (May 16, 2012)

This is gonna sound brutal, but honestly this type of thinking is already dying, in every sense of the word. Retaliating at someone desperately holding on against the oncoming tide won't do much use.



Stealthdjentstic said:


> IMO, the sign is saying the same shit, not letting gay/trans/whatever people get married is just like not letting certain racial groups get married. This reminds of how in India, for the longest time, Sikhs could not get married as Sikhs and instead had to get married as Hindus/Christians or Muslims under Indian law.



The fuck? That used to actually happen? Even when everyone's brown people still fuck each other over


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

ddtonfire said:


> It's just some of these poster's ideas for retaliation in this thread are much more scary and distasteful than the guy's sign in the first place.



It's the internet. People say they want to do things they wouldn't actually do all the time.


----------



## ddtonfire (May 16, 2012)

Yeah, and it's pretty dumb. What a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

McKay said:


>






Razzy said:


> Using a public sign to joke about how you and your bigot friends want to shit all over equal rights in the name of a stupid religion actually IS offensive.





MaxOfMetal said:


> No one has the right to not be offended.





ddtonfire said:


> Free speech much?



He has freedom of speech sure, and no one is arguing that he doesn't, but I don't understand why everyone is saying that no one should say anything about it.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as advocating and actively pushing for the stripping of rights from other people. You can't say things like "I'm going to murder our jigaboo president" without any repercussions, can you? Not just because it's bigoted, but because murder is both illegal and strips away others right to life (liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, eh?), similar to how voting to not allow gay people to marry strips them of civil rights. 

If no one had ever said anything to people who didn't let sikhs get married, or made black people use separate (but equal, come on, it's fair! )bathrooms and schools and everything else, and didn't let women vote, etc. then we would still have tons of groups of people who are horribly discriminated against, all because some people can't understand the difference between freedom of speech (words) and advocating and actively pushing for the stripping/prevention of rights from other human beings (discriminatory and grief causing actions).


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

Exactly.


----------



## Electric Wizard (May 16, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> What I do think you should do is run that sign through an anagram app online and figure out something to sneak over there and rearrange the letters the evening before his day off.



My vote is for

MR PRESIDENT ITS
A MADAM
AT DOVE EVENTS


----------



## The Uncreator (May 16, 2012)

This guy has an opinion you don't like so lets make him jobless?

His retarded, dumbass opinion is ignorant and ill-founded, however this retard might be feeding a family so just suck it up and ignore it.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> This guy has an opinion you don't like so lets make him jobless?
> 
> His retarded, dumbass opinion is ignorant and ill-founded, however this retard might be feeding a family so just suck it up and ignore it.


So it's your opinion that it's better to continue to give this guy money, and compromise on his own values, even though what this guy is advocating would negatively affect an estimated 4 million people?

Nope, sorry. I'm not going to 'suck it up' just because bigots who want to ruin other people's lives just because they're different from them might have a bad time if I don't.


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> This guy has an opinion you don't like so lets make him jobless?
> 
> His retarded, dumbass opinion is ignorant and ill-founded, however this retard might be feeding a family so just suck it up and ignore it.



I guess he should have the common sense not to throw silly signs in front of his business.

I run a business where I'm at, (not own, but run,) and I'm always VERY mindful of what I do in public because it effects the business. When you're the face of a company, you're not just selling a product or service, you have to sell yourself. People have to want to do business with you. Unfortunately for this guy, I, and every one of my friends, and a lot of their friends, will never use his services ever again.

By your logic, I should just keep taking my car there because he might have a family. Who cares if he's a bigot who wants to treat me like a second class citizen? He's feeding a family!

OR, maybe, JUST MAYBE, he should've thought about that FIRST. It's not my job to feed his family, it's his.


----------



## The Uncreator (May 16, 2012)

You're not giving him money by not going, done. People who go there probably have the same ignorant opinion, there are LOTS of them, enough to sustain his business probably. 

Seeking to close down the business though is probably going to just harm other, possibly innocent people (workers who need the job there, his family, whoever). This man while obviously mentally ill, and maybe lacking a hemisphere of brain or two, isn't doing anything other than pissing people off.

He can advocate all he wants, he isn't some major player in the battle against gay/ lesbian rights, he is just an idiot with a business, and a sign. I think people are letting it affect them a little too much.

Ignore it, if you want to help with the fight for equal rights, your intelligence, will, and determination is better spent somewhere else other than this guy. Let it trickle down to him, cause boycotting his business, shutting it down, will not change his opinion.

EDIT

By putting this sign up, I am rather certain if you share a different opinion, he would be the douche to throw you out of his shop and never accept your business again because you dont think like him.

All I am saying is, efforts are better spent elsewhere.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> You're not giving him money by not going, done. People who go there probably have the same ignorant opinion, there are LOTS of them, enough to sustain his business probably.
> 
> Seeking to close down the business though is probably going to just harm other, possibly innocent people (workers who need the job there, his family, whoever). This man while obviously mentally ill, and maybe lacking a hemisphere of brain or two, isn't doing anything other than pissing people off.


  
He's not trying to close his business, he's just not spending his money there, and telling his friends who wouldn't want to give money to someone like that as well so they can decide to not go if they please.

You're the one overreacting  not him.


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> You're not giving him money by not going, done. People who go there probably have the same ignorant opinion, there are LOTS of them, enough to sustain his business probably.
> 
> Seeking to close down the business though is probably going to just harm other, possibly innocent people (workers who need the job there, his family, whoever). This man while obviously mentally ill, and maybe lacking a hemisphere of brain or two, isn't doing anything other than pissing people off.
> 
> ...



How am I seeking to close his business down? I've simply shared this with my friends, who, like me, don't want to support a dumb bigot. You're acting like I'm doing all kinds of mad-scientist planning and wasting brainpower on vindictive bullshit, when I'm not.

If this sign made enough people mad that he did go out of business? Fine. I don't give a fuck. It's not me who put the sign up. Why should I feel bad if his employees lose their jobs over something he did?

On a related note, I live in a town in the Texas panhandle with 13,000 people in it. I'm positive most of them are right on board with him.


----------



## Winspear (May 16, 2012)

It's strange - I never realised just how many people are against gay marriage until this whole thing. I thought it was just a small percentage of ordinary people plus some religious nuts. My girlfriend surprised me by saying lots of girls at her school are freaking over it, and that she thinks probably 50% of people are in opposition!


----------



## The Uncreator (May 16, 2012)

Alright, I jumped to conclusions it seems. I will be the first to admit when I am wrong so I read a bit too quick and took some stuff more serious than should be, my apologies. But still, all this rage for this sign is a little much I think. There have been far worse displays of ignorance than this. I am not the least bit surprised or taken aback by this. If I saw this next door, down the street, or anywhere I wouldn't be surprised.

To put my general opinion forth, this man is not worth any attention. Ignore him, for he is not special and holds no sway.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

Dont stop the nazi's guys, otherwise they might be out of a job.


----------



## McKay (May 16, 2012)

> Seeking to close down the business though is probably going to just harm other, possibly innocent people (workers who need the job there, his family, whoever). This man while obviously mentally ill, and maybe lacking a hemisphere of brain or two, isn't doing anything other than pissing people off.


Not supporting gay marriage does not make you mentally fucking ill. Speaking as someone strongly _in favour_ of gay marriage, there are valid reasons to be personally against it. It's not just HURR DURR BIGOT IDIOT MENTALLY ILL DERP.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

No there arent. It does mean someone is a biggot


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

McKay said:


> Not supporting gay marriage does not make you mentally fucking ill. Speaking as someone strongly _in favour_ of gay marriage, there are valid reasons to be personally against it. It's not just HURR DURR BIGOT IDIOT MENTALLY ILL DERP.


 
There are reasons to be against it, though I'm not sure how valid they may be.


----------



## flint757 (May 16, 2012)

There are reasons people give to be against it and they think it is valid, but that is correct that they are not mentally ill just close minded and/or assholes. Note you can hate it, but if it doesn't affect you or you don't think there are a whole lot of gay people then why should you care. The dumbest thing I hear is the slippery slope applying to any gay issue. It is like they are saying that they will become gay if gay marriage is legalized or people are going to go to your home into your bed and make you watch them have sex 

I was 'd


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 16, 2012)

Yeah, if you are voting for the right of a minority to be suppressed because of your personal beliefs then yes you are an asshole.

IE. Black people shouldnt get married because the grand wizard said so


----------



## technomancer (May 16, 2012)

While I am an advocate of equal rights for everyone, I'm also an advocate of free speech. I may not like it but he has every right to express his opinion on a sign on his property 

Funny thing, that freedom stuff


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

technomancer said:


> While I am an advocate of equal rights for everyone, I'm also an advocate of free speech. I may not like it but he has every right to express his opinion on a sign on his property


But would you still go there if you had the option of not doing so, knowing his viewpoint (that he's free to express)?

I don't have time to reread the thread, but I don't think anyone said he didn't have the right to put that up on the sign, just that it was a stupid business decision, a way to put his bigotry on parade, and a good way to ensure that people who care about equality won't go there anymore.

Everyone seems to think that because some people wouldn't shop there anymore, that's somehow violating Bigot McCarplaceowner's freedom of speech. Which is dumb.


----------



## Jakke (May 16, 2012)

Quite frankly, there was never any Adam and Eve either, I say live and let live

I am a big fan of free speech, and we do have hate speech laws here. Interestingly enough, if I were to refer to stealth as a greedy ass long-nosed fucking jew (I know that is an extremely incorrect description of Mr stealth) in front of more than five people, I could get arrested for hate-speech, less than five though, the state has nothing on me

But that is a tangent however, I say boycott his bigotted ass. But other than that, let him spout his ignorant garbage in peace, that is unfortunately the drawback of free speech, you have to accept people with moronic opinons also having the right to speak.


----------



## Explorer (May 16, 2012)

I don't see any point in going over and talking directly to him.

However, I do believe in people having freedom of speech, and of people accepting the consequences of what they say. 

In this case... isn't it amazing that sites like Yelp and other sites allow one to post about business so that consumers can make up their own minds? A friend of mine, who uses a real name for such reviews and who has built up a lot of credibility, was dismayed at a restaurant, and the indifference to a situation which arose. She posted a simple picture entitled "Enough said."

The picture was of a roach wiggling in the food. 

In this case, if someone were to post this picture to such a review of that business, those who support the "Adam and Steve" argument can choose what they want to do, making up their own minds. *That* to me is the best possible course of action, to lay out the facts and let consumers make up their own minds. 

----

I'm greatly curious, since someone asserted this: Are there any good reasons to impose one's own definitions of marriage upon two consenting adults? It's not about the definitions, of course, but about the right to impose those definitions upon two consenting adults who don't share your beliefs. 

Bonus points if forms of the reasons can't be used to argue that blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. 

I'm really looking forward to this. Wouldn't it be strange if there did turn out to be a reason why one person could impose his or her beliefs on two other consenting adults, without their beliefs having equal weight?


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I don't see any point in going over and talking directly to him.
> 
> However, I do believe in people having freedom of speech, and of people accepting the consequences of what they say.
> 
> ...



This post wins the thread.


----------



## McKay (May 16, 2012)

The main argument _here_ against gay marriage is that it violates the religious institution. There's already a provision for anybody to have a legally equivalent civil union. The obvious middle ground is to allow homosexuals to have civil marriages but not religious ones, as that would be widely percieved as a direct attack on the fundamentals of their relgion.

I'm an atheist gay marriage supporter, I have no special interest here but I can at least see that and understand the source of the resistance isn't simple stupidity. What really bothers me is that most of the people in this thread are fine with supporting (and even suggesting) calls to ruin this guy's business. To boycott him and spread lies and fake reviews to drive him under. You suggest destroying the lives of him and his dependents because you disagree with him? 

I can't think of anything more immature. You're a collective disgrace, acting like a bunch of pathetic, overzealous imbeciles.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

McKay said:


> The main argument _here_ against gay marriage is that it violates the religious institution. There's already a provision for anybody to have a legally equivalent civil union. The obvious middle ground is to allow homosexuals to have civil marriages but not religious ones, as that would be widely percieved as a direct attack on the fundamentals of their relgion.
> 
> I'm an atheist gay marriage supporter, I have no special interest here but I can at least see that and understand the source of the resistance isn't simple stupidity. What really bothers me is that most of the people in this thread are fine with supporting (and even suggesting) calls to ruin this guy's business. To boycott him and *spread lies and fake reviews* to drive him under. You suggest destroying the lives of him and his dependents because you disagree with him?
> 
> I can't think of anything more immature. You're a collective disgrace, acting like a bunch of pathetic, overzealous imbeciles.


That right there:

is fucking bullshit.
Not ONE single person in this thread said that. Not a single one. What was said is that he's going to boycott it, and let people he knows wouldn't want to give their money to a bigot so that they can decide if they want their money going to him. NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON said anything about spreading lies, NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON said anything about spreading fake reviews.

I can't think of anyone more terrible at reading comprehension. You're a singular individual who can't understand what he's read, and who's too quick to judge people, imbecile.


----------



## Razzy (May 16, 2012)

McKay said:


> The main argument _here_ against gay marriage is that it violates the religious institution. There's already a provision for anybody to have a legally equivalent civil union.



For one, civil unions are NOT legally equivalent. For two, their religious institution should have nothing to do with law, at all, marriage long predates Christianity, not that it even matters, because their religion should have NO part in our laws.



McKay said:


> The obvious middle ground is to allow homosexuals to have civil marriages but not religious ones, as that would be widely percieved as a direct attack on the fundamentals of their relgion.



Here's a secret. Gay people don't give a fuck about "religious marriages." You think they care about the ceremony? We can do that anyway in the park, in the back yard, on a beach, Hell, there are tons of gay friendly churches out there. It's the rights and benefits that we want. Nobody wants to FORCE the churches to do anything.



McKay said:


> I'm an atheist gay marriage supporter, I have no special interest here but I can at least see that and understand the source of the resistance isn't simple stupidity. What really bothers me is that most of the people in this thread are fine with supporting (and even suggesting) calls to ruin this guy's business. To boycott him and spread lies and fake reviews to drive him under. You suggest destroying the lives of him and his dependents because you disagree with him?
> 
> I can't think of anything more immature. You're a collective disgrace, acting like a bunch of pathetic, overzealous imbeciles.



How is me calling him going to ruin his business? Because he might get sad and just decide to close up shop? Bullshit. All I said I wanted to do is let him know he lost a customer, and that I thought his sign was inappropriate.

That's a ridiculous jump.

Boycott him? I'm going to, as well as my friends. We have the right to do that because we think he's a bigot fuck, and he's sure as shit not getting any of my fucking money anymore.

Spread lies and fake reviews? How is me posting the picture I took on a review site fake or lying?

Oh right, it's not.


----------



## McKay (May 16, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> That right there:
> 
> is fucking bullshit.
> Not ONE single person in this thread said that. Not a single one. What was said is that he's going to boycott it, and let people he knows wouldn't want ot give their money to a bigot so that they can decide if they want their money going to him. NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON said anything about spreading lies, NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON said anything about spreading fake reviews.
> ...



..



Explorer said:


> In this case... isn't it amazing that sites like Yelp and other sites allow one to post about business so that consumers can make up their own minds? A friend of mine, who uses a real name for such reviews and who has built up a lot of credibility, was dismayed at a restaurant, and the indifference to a situation which arose. She posted a simple picture entitled "Enough said."
> 
> The picture was of a roach wiggling in the food.
> 
> In this case, if someone were to post this picture to such a review of that business, those who support the "Adam and Steve" argument can choose what they want to do, making up their own minds. *That* to me is the best possible course of action, to lay out the facts and let consumers make up their own minds.



I got the impression that the roach wriggling was a metaphor used for effect and explorer is calling for something similarly misleading. That's the only leg you've got to stand on, because it's an assumption on my part which obviously could be wrong.

The rest?



AxeHappy said:


> Start organising a grass roots movement to boycott his shop. Put the ignorant fuck out of business.





Michael T said:


> I totally agree with boycotting that business.





Stealthdjentstic said:


> Isn't there a website you can use to have poop delivered?





Stealthdjentstic said:


> Without a doubt I would vandalize that guys property. Like no second thoughts, it would be hilarious too and I would enjoy it.





Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah, my post was aimed at people who think it would be wrong to vandalize the guys sign





broj15 said:


> Basically, you can't change this guys mind, but atleast you can make him go broke or feel like ass for stating his point so crudely.



Sadly I can't quote the plethora of likes and rep these posts and others had, just the posts. The three combined illustrate how complicit people are being in this absolute horseshit approach to dealing with those we disagree with.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 16, 2012)

I didn't say that no one said they weren't going to boycott it or to boycott it, they did (and they're well within their rights to) and that's why I didn't bold that part of your post. The boycotting based on facts is perfectly fine, so you don't have a point there. Are people not allowed to shop wherever they want, especially if told something that's TRUE about the establishment in question and make a decision based on that? Last time I checked, there was absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about making informed shopping decisions. 

Changing letter on his sign, and sending him poop: neither of those are "spreading lies" or "fake reviews" so I don't see your point there either, and moreover, most of what Stealth says, neither me nor anyone else on here familiar with him, take seriously. 

EDIT: And since Explorer said "the food" and not just food or something similar, made me believe it was an actual picture from the restaurant, but I'll let him respond and clear that up.  

And Razzy posting the picture of what actually exists outside of the shop on the sign wouldn't be lying or a false review.


EDIT: At your post below: I agree that it's not equivalent to mental illness in all cases (remember that thread that Randy posted? ) but it is bigotry.


----------



## McKay (May 16, 2012)

Razzy said:


> For one, civil unions are NOT legally equivalent. For two, their religious institution should have nothing to do with law, at all, marriage long predates Christianity, not that it even matters, because their religion should have NO part in our laws.



Did you miss my qualifier? I said_ here_, where civil unions _do _have legal equivalency to civil marriages.



> Here's a secret. Gay people don't give a fuck about "religious marriages." You think they care about the ceremony? We can do that anyway in the park, in the back yard, on a beach, Hell, there are tons of gay friendly churches out there. It's the rights and benefits that we want. Nobody wants to FORCE the churches to do anything.


No shit, but people view changing the legal definition of marriage as an outside body forcing the change of their religious institutions. The point I was trying to make is that this is not equivalent to mental illness or bigotry as most would define it. Does that mean I agree with them? Does it fuck, but I'm not going to act like a complete moron to those who don't.


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> EDIT: And since Explorer said "the food" and not just food or something similar, made me believe it was an actual picture from the restaurant, but I'll let him respond and clear that up.  And Razzy posting the picture of what actually exists outside of the shop on the sign *wouldn't be lying or a false review.*



It wouldn't and if Explorer's post was literal then my assumption was wrong. However the rest of my post stands and the idea that it's fine for someone to call for (and congratulate) vandalism or 'a grass roots movement to destroy the guy's business' is contemptible.


----------



## flint757 (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> ..
> I got the impression that the roach wriggling was a metaphor used for effect and explorer is calling for something similarly misleading. That's the only leg you've got to stand on, because it's an assumption on my part which obviously could be wrong.
> 
> The rest?
> ...



Boycotting is legal, nobody has to agree with a boycott it is a choice. HE DID THIS TO HIMSELF. In Texas if I called my self an atheist business owner some people would boycott my business how is that any different? I wouldn't if I had a family either because I'm not an IDIOT. 

As for your broad assumption of the maturity level in this forum most people did not say commit violence and after those who did say something in a violent manner many were quick to say that is a poor idea, try not to make sweeping judgment's mmmckay 

As for explorer he was not advocating lying and he said a friend actually had a roach in her food. Are you suggesting not telling people of the health rating at food restaurants? Hate to break it to you, but that is the purpose of sites like yelp. If I had a roach in my food rest assured I'd never eat there again and tell everybody i know. People wanting to boycott stores do so because they don't want there money going there (it's a choice on all sides) he doesn't necessarily go out of business from this either.


----------



## flint757 (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> Did you miss my qualifier? I said_ here_, where civil unions _do _have legal equivalency to civil marriages.



In the US civil unions are not equal where this sign so happens to be posted dude...


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> It wouldn't and if Explorer's post was literal then my assumption was wrong. However the rest of my post stands and the idea that it's fine for someone to call for (and congratulate) vandalism or 'a grass roots movement to destroy the guy's business' is contemptible.


Vandalism I agree with you. Sign changing, I don't care either way. Trying to organize a boycott of like minded people based on facts, is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2012)

First off, there is no religion involved in a state marriage. That's why anyone can get one, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof. People can still get married in their faith, whether Hinduism or Judaism or whatever. All my friends have gotten their state marriage licenses, and the religious ones then have a marriage performed by whatever system they want, and the non-religious ones either by what their spouse wants, or by a judge.

Still waiting to hear a decent argument, but the idea of a state marriage being Christian is false. Only the Christians would insist that to be true.

It's also interesting that this mistaken idea insists that all marriages in this country, regardless if Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or non-religious, are unofficially Christian marriage. That's complete bullshit, but if anyone can make that argument, I'll be interested in hearing the reasoning. Otherwise, abandon that reasoning, because it isn't convincing.



McKay said:


> I got the impression that the roach wriggling was a metaphor used for effect and explorer is calling for something similarly misleading.



No. The roach was real, as was the indifference shown by the owner when shown the roach. 

I also don't appreciate the possibility that you might be calling me a liar. I didn't mislead anyone. I'm saying, if this person has posted a message which he hopes will get out, there is nothing wrong in reposting his message, and his involvement in said message. 

One can share facts without being misleading. If you don't believe so... then that definitely says a lot about any facts you might present, don't you think? 

Nothing misleading. I'll assume that you misunderstood, but please don't make that mistake again.


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Boycotting is legal, nobody has to agree with a boycott it is a choice. HE DID THIS TO HIMSELF. In Texas if I called my self an atheist business owner some people would boycott my business how is that any different? I wouldn't if I had a family either because I'm not an IDIOT.
> 
> As for your broad assumption of the maturity level in this forum most people did not say commit violence and after those who did say something in a violent manner many were quick to say that is a poor idea, try not to make sweeping judgment's mmmckay
> 
> As for explorer he was not advocating lying and he said a friend actually had a roach in her food. Are you suggesting not telling people of the health rating at food restaurants? Hate to break it to you, but that is the purpose of sites like yelp. If I had a roach in my food rest assured I'd never eat there again and tell everybody i know. People wanting to boycott stores do so because they don't want there money going there (it's a choice on all sides) he doesn't necessarily go out of business from this either.



As I said, if it was a literal roach then go ahead, fair enough. As for the earlier post, It wasn't a broad attack on the forum but those compliant with an attitude I find really hard to deal with.

It's entirely possible that people are just more chilled out here but I can't think of a christian who would hold my atheism against me and vice versa - I have no problem with people who find comfort in religion. I would be just as dismayed should a business be boycotted because the owner was an atheist.

Boycotting is legal and always should be but that doesn't mean the reasons behind it are always well measured. Consider me the gender feminist of this discussion, I have a problem with the cultural reaction to this. Why can't people just get along, even if they don't agree with you on a single issue? The guy's a mechanic, what the hell would it matter if he was a bigoted KKK supporter? It has no bearing on his ability to provide a service.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> I can't think of anything more immature. You're a collective disgrace, acting like a bunch of pathetic, overzealous imbeciles.



Thats funny, i didnt hear the hooves of the horse you rode in on.


The guy is clearly allowed to express his opinion, but IMO, your buisiness's sign is no place to put up a potentially offensive and contraversial opinion for his businesses sake. But its his right. As well as its the OP's right to call him and tell him he lost any potential business from him.

Its one thing to go out of your way to call someone out for their differing opinion for no reason, but when someone flagrantly shoves their opinion in the publics face then they have signed up for a possible reprisal from the public.


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Vandalism I agree with you. Sign changing, I don't care either way. Trying to organize a boycott of like minded people based on facts, is perfectly acceptable.



And if you remember, my main point of contention was with people suggesting (and the congratulation of said suggestion) people destroy the guy's life, which you have no apparent problem with.



> No. The roach was real, as was the indifference shown by the owner when shown the roach.
> 
> I also don't appreciate the possibility that you might be calling me a liar. I didn't mislead anyone. I'm saying, if this person has posted a message which he hopes will get out, there is nothing wrong in reposting his message, and his involvement in said message.
> 
> Nothing misleading. I'll assume that you misunderstood, but please don't make that mistake again.


Have a sincere apology, I reached the wrong conclusion and I'm sorry.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> It's entirely possible that people are just more chilled out here but I can't think of a Christian who would hold my atheism against me and vice versa - I have no problem with people who find comfort in religion. I would be just as dismayed should a business be boycotted because the owner was an atheist.
> 
> Boycotting is legal and always should be but that doesn't mean the reasons behind it are always well measured. Consider me the gender feminist of this discussion, I have a problem with the cultural reaction to this. Call me a hippy but why can't people just get along, even if they don't really agree with you on a single issue. The guy's a mechanic, what the hell would it matter if he was in the KKK? It has no bearing on his ability to provide a service.


It's not that he's a christian, it's that he's a bigot, and apparently an outspoken one. He's stating his opinion that rights should be denied to people who aren't the same as him based on HIS religious views. Here in the US that's illegal, and anywhere in the world, it'd be fascism.

We can't get along, because people like the shop owner believe that they have the right to take away or limit the rights of other people (who are harming no one, and who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions) based on their own PERSONAL (caps for emphasis) religious beliefs. It's not that he's a christian that we take issue with. If someone had a sign saying NIG GERS SUCK we'd be just as dismayed, and just as likely to say "Yeah, none of my money's going to that." *EDIT:* *And our reason for being dismayed would NOT be because the guy who put it up was white :lol*: And if he's outspoken enough about this bigotry to put a sign up, who's to say what else he may do if he had more money/means to spread/support his bigotry? If I know someone is an outspoken racist, and advocates things like shooting minorities, I'm sure as hell not give that asshole my money to afford a gun/ammunition, Just as I wouldn't give this guy MY money to spend on hate signs/billboards/or contributing to politicians who share his hateful, rights-limiting views.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 17, 2012)

I was going to write something for McKay but he lives in Plymouth, enough said.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> And if you remember, my main point of contention was with people suggesting (and congratulation of the suggestion) people destroy the guy's life, which you have no apparent problem with.



Well, the shop owner has no issue with depriving some people from something that will make them happy and wouldnt hurt him a bit. Sounds like a dickhead position to me.


Personally i think its silly. The gay rights issue. 
100 years ago women couldnt vote, now we look at how ridiculous that is.
50 or 60 years ago black people couldnt even sit where they wanted to on a bus, now we look at how ridiculous that is.
Sometime in the future, we are going to look back and see how ridiculous this whole depriving gay people certian rights for no reason other than bigotry


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 17, 2012)

Exactly Mr Seregay


----------



## flint757 (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> As I said, if it was a literal roach then go ahead, fair enough. It wasn't a broad attack on the forum but those compliant with an attitude I find really hard to deal with.



Understandable, you posted that while I was writing my post.



> It's entirely possible that people are just more chilled out here but I can't think of a Christian who would hold my atheism against me and vice versa - I have no problem with people who find comfort in religion. I would be just as dismayed should a business be boycotted because the owner was an atheist.



In Texas people really care every politician is a "good moral christian conservative" according to all the fliers I've gotten as of late. If I made it blatantly public people wouldn't come, even some of my family. On this forum and other places around the world yes it is far more subdued. (Even different places in the States)



> Boycotting is legal and always should be but that doesn't mean the reasons behind it are always well measured. Consider me the gender feminist of this discussion, I have a problem with the cultural reaction to this. Why can't people just get along, even if they don't agree with you on a single issue. The guy's a mechanic, what the hell would it matter if he was a bigoted KKK supporter? It has no bearing on his ability to provide a service.



I agree and disagree. I feel it is necessary to show that he is hurting himself by loudly broadcasting his opinion. After all if his business hurts chances are he'll yank the sign and keep his mouth shut (by choice, not force) about his rude opinions from that point on. I do have the why can't we be friends attitude, but I'm not friends with assholes who passively or violently attack another person/group of people out of bigotry. Yes the message itself is really kind of underwhelming, but what he is trying to say isn't.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Exactly Mr Seregay



I make fart sounds with my mouth!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 17, 2012)

That was a legit spelling mistake, Im typing from my phone


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> That was a legit spelling mistake, Im typing from my phone



Then that makes it even MORE comic gold than it was


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> It's not that he's a christian, it's that he's a bigot, and apparently an outspoken one. He's stating his opinion that rights should be denied to people who aren't the same as him based on HIS religious views. Here in the US that's illegal, and anywhere in the world, it'd be fascism.



Forgive me, I was referring specifically to flint's example. It wasn't a particularly on topic observation.

I know it's illegal in the US and I support the legalisation of it. I just find the reaction pretty severely out of proportion.



> We can't get along, because people like the shop owner believe that they have the right to take away or limit the rights of other people (who are harming no one, and who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions) based on their own PERSONAL (caps for emphasis) religious beliefs. It's not that he's a christian that we take issue with. If someone had a sign saying NIG GERS SUCK we'd be just as dismayed, and just as likely to say "Yeah, none of my money's going to that." And if he's outspoken enough about this bigotry to put a sign up, who's to say what else he may do if he had more money/means to spread/support his bigotry? If I know someone is an outspoken racist, and advocates things like shooting minorities, I'm sure as hell not give that asshole my money to afford a gun/ammunition, Just as I wouldn't give this guy MY money to spend on hate signs/billboards/or contributing to politicians who share his hateful, rights-limiting views.


I think we're pretty much on the same page as far as passive resistance goes. I suppose where I'm drawing the line at is actively trying to hurt the guy. Perhaps a sit down and a chat would help him more than boycotting? Have him meet a friend of mine who even the most die hard republican would love, the guy kills and eats all his own food, does survivalism and keeps bees. Meeting a gay guy like that can open a bigot's mind to how narrowly they were viewing things and doesn't hurt any potential family who depend on him.



> Personally i think its silly. The gay rights issue.
> 100 years ago women couldnt vote, now we look at how ridiculous that is.
> 50 or 60 years ago black people couldnt even sit where they wanted to on a bus, now we look at how ridiculous that is.
> Sometime in the future, we are going to look back and see how ridiculous this whole depriving gay people certian rights for no reason other than bigotry


As I've stated, nothing but agreement here, the only thing I said on the matter otherwise was providing a British perspective as our situation is similar but slightly different.



Stealthdjentstic said:


> I was going to write something for McKay but he lives in Plymouth, enough said.



Now who's a bigot?


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2012)

I have no problem with freedom of association, including deciding what businesses to patronize. I don't think anyone is entitled to someone's custom... although that kind of thing was common with company stores, and workers not being allowed to shop elsewhere. 

Is the argument that someone should always be entitled to business, and that people should be forced to be customers? That's weird. 

If you think that his posted beliefs, that someone should be deprived of rights, to be ruinous to his business, and that his "right" to customers should be preserved... how far do you think one should go to preserve the rights of those whom he would deny? I just find that a very interesting conundrum, that one would argue for one person's "right" to someone's purchases while that person is arguing against another's rights. 

Once again, we come back to the core question: Can one person's beliefs override the rights of two consenting adults? And, in this case, is one entitled to someone else's money while arguing that those people should support someone who wants to rob them or loved ones of rights?

I must not be understanding. Either that, or your arguments are inconsistent, and that's why they don't parse out very well. 

Aha! I thought this kind of persistence and reasoning was familiar! I've seen it in the Martin/Zimmerman thread! I guess there's not much more to discuss.


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Understandable, you posted that while I was writing my post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I more or less agree with you here. Cheers for the heated but fun discussion man.

Sorry if I pissed anyone off earlier, chalk it down to me having a bad day and a love of big hyperbolic posts. I suppose I was being a bit of an asshole.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> I more or less agree with you here. Cheers for the heated but fun discussion man.
> 
> Sorry if I pissed anyone off earlier, chalk it down to me having a bad day and a love of big hyperbolic posts. I suppose I was being a bit of an asshole.




It seems like a lot of it was just the difference between the issues that homosexuals face in the UK vs the US and not quite getting what we were getting it. No worries.

EDIT: And your gay friend sounds cool (says the vegan ).


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2012)




----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I have no problem with freedom of association, including deciding what businesses to patronize. I don't think anyone is entitled to someone's custom... although that kind of thing was common with company stores, and workers not being allowed to shop elsewhere.
> 
> Is the argument that someone should always be entitled to business, and that people should be forced to be customers? That's weird.



From a legal standpoint I agree, I'm still allowed to find people's decisions within the law baffling. 



> If you think that his posted beliefs, that someone should be deprived of rights, to be ruinous to his business, and that his "right" to customers should be preserved... how far do you think one should go to preserve the rights of those whom he would deny? I just find that a very interesting conundrum, that one would argue for one person's "right" to someone's purchases while that person is arguing against another's rights.


I haven't really argued from a 'rights' standpoint and I think as the conversation has progressed my stance has become a little clearer: I find it slightly odd to aggressively express intent to destroy a business because the owner said something bigoted. Life goes on and as always, there are other ways to solve bigotry than hurting someone and as a consquence any dependents they have.



> I must not be understanding. Either that, or your arguments are inconsistent, and that's why they don't parse out very well.


I hope what I've just written is clearer then.



> Aha! I thought this kind of persistence and reasoning was familiar! I've seen it in the *Martin/Zimmerman thread*! I guess there's not much more to discuss.


That one's still up for debate as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Razzy (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> I haven't really argued from a 'rights' standpoint and I think as the conversation has progressed my stance has become a little clearer: I find it slightly odd to aggressively express intent to destroy a business because the owner said something bigoted. Life goes on and as always, there are other ways to solve bigotry than hurting someone and as a consquence any dependents they have.



I'm not seeking to destroy his business, I just want to make sure my level-headed friends and I don't give our money to a bigot. If his business suffers because of it, boo-hoo, He's never doing so much as another oil-change for me. I'll take my car to WalMart.


----------



## McKay (May 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> It seems like a lot of it was just the difference between the issues that homosexuals face in the UK vs the US and not quite getting what we were getting it. No worries.
> 
> EDIT: And your gay friend sounds cool (says the vegan ).


----------



## Kodee_Kaos (May 17, 2012)

I think it is good he did this. Why? It is very honest advertising. I would rather see his douche banner from a mile away and know to avoid him, than to have him service my car and find out he sabotaged my brakes or something.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 17, 2012)

Imagine an economic system where making terrible decisions, like posting political and religious viewpoints, can have a negative impact on your sales and profits, and because the person that ran the business made that decision, they have no one to blame but themselves. What dumbass country would allow such an economic system? 

Wait...


----------



## Jakke (May 17, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Imagine an economic system where making terrible decisions, like posting political and religious viewpoints, can have a negative impact on your sales and profits, and because the person that ran the business made that decision, they have no one to blame but themselves. What dumbass country would allow such an economic system?



Oooooo! I know!


----------



## The Uncreator (May 17, 2012)

McKay said:


> Not supporting gay marriage does not make you mentally fucking ill. Speaking as someone strongly _in favour_ of gay marriage, there are valid reasons to be personally against it. It's not just HURR DURR BIGOT IDIOT MENTALLY ILL DERP.



Taken a bit out of context it seems, my general point was the he is ignorant, not ACTUALLY suffering from metal diseases, otherwise he wouldnt really be responsible for his actions then would he?

And not trying to be an ass, but what is a valid reason to be personally against it?


----------



## Razzy (May 17, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> And not trying to be an ass, but what is a valid reason to be personally against it?



I'll go ahead and field this one.

There isn't one.


----------



## The Uncreator (May 17, 2012)

^Honestly what I am thinking as well, I just can't honestly see a valid reason for it.

Not trying to troll or anything, genuinely curious.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 17, 2012)

I don't think anyone here genuinely believes gay people don't have the right to get married.


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> Taken a bit out of context it seems, my general point was the he is ignorant, not ACTUALLY *suffering from metal diseases*, otherwise he wouldnt really be responsible for his actions then would he?








I would think that a member of SS.org would be at risk for such a thing.


----------



## BrianUV777BK (May 18, 2012)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## groph (May 18, 2012)

Oh well, at least the guy's read the Bible. Indeed, there is nobody named Steve anywhere in there who is affiliated with Adam. I'd endorse a traveling band of people who go around places like this to kick the owner in the nuts three or four times before moving on to the next.









I think they'd get a bit backlogged in North Carolina a bit, though.


----------



## The Uncreator (May 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I would think that a member of SS.org would be at risk for such a thing.



Ha, that was a good catch, ironic considering the community too


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 18, 2012)

I'm with Razzy however he can voice his opinion. I wouldn't do that in front of my business because that can drive customers away. Bad move on his part.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2012)

So, now that the one person, arguing that we all have to financially support someone who is against some people's rights, is on a short ban... is everyone else in agreement that not only can bigots express their views, but anti-bigots can do the same?

I have to admit, I still have no idea how a member could argue for one person's rights *and* entitlements (to your money, in this case), but against the rights of others to patronize who they want. What was up with that? *laugh*


----------



## tacotiklah (May 19, 2012)

Perhaps he thought the bigot was entitled to some sort of compesation for the lively entertainment we had in this thread. 

I keed, I keed...

Honestly though Razzy, if all else fails, perform the black sacrament and summon the dark brotherhood. Bigots tend to shut up after that.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 19, 2012)

Thats wat drakkar does


----------



## Razzy (May 19, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Perhaps he thought the bigot was entitled to some sort of compesation for the lively entertainment we had in this thread.
> 
> I keed, I keed...
> 
> Honestly though Razzy, if all else fails, perform the black sacrament and summon the dark brotherhood. Bigots tend to shut up after that.





Stealthdjentstic said:


> Thats wat drakkar does


----------



## Osiris (May 22, 2012)

ddtonfire said:


> It's just some of these poster's ideas for retaliation in this thread are much more scary and distasteful than the guy's sign in the first place.



I hope to never reach an age where jokes about shitting on a guy's counter in retaliation to anti-gay advertisements aren't funny.


----------



## Jakke (May 22, 2012)

groph said:


> Oh well, at least the guy's read the Bible. Indeed, there is nobody named Steve anywhere in there who is affiliated with Adam.



I agree, there is no Steve in the bible. So technically he is correct


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 22, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I agree, there is no Steve in the bible. So technically he is correct


Which means his argument is the equivalent of:
I don't like Superman. 
Why?
Because when I don't wipe after pooping my butt gets crusty.


----------



## Jakke (May 22, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Which means his argument is the equivalent of:
> I don't like Superman.
> Why?
> Because when I don't wipe after pooping my butt gets crusty.



Nah, I just mean that there is no mention of Steve in the bible, so he is factually correct. It does not make bigottry more right, but it is just an observation.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 22, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Nah, I just mean that there is no mention of Steve in the bible, so he is factually correct. It does not make bigottry more right, but it is just an observation.


Yeah, my point was exactly what yours was.

He has his standpoint, and then something unrelated but true as his reason for his standpoint.


----------



## Jakke (May 22, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Yeah, my point was exactly what yours was.
> 
> He has his standpoint, and then something unrelated but true as his reason for his standpoint.



Ah, I got confused by Superman


----------



## renzoip (May 22, 2012)

Razzy said:


> This disgusts me, and it's right in my home town, almost next door to where I work. I may call the owner tomorrow and give him a piece of my mind over this.



I agree with your sentiment, and with the general sentiment that that he is doing is extremely stupid both morally, and business-wise. I also agree that he does have freedom of speech, and this it's his business. However, here is my reservation:

As far as Im concerned, the extent in which one can discriminate or express discriminatory ideas is not the same for a private business that serves the greater public. In other words: your business is not like your home. So, even if it's his business, it's an establishment that serves the greater public. If he were to put a sign saying something offensive to the African-American community, or the Jewish American community, I'm sure he would get in some trouble. 

IMO, the difference here is that the government does not give homosexuals, as a group, the same level of protection as it does to other racial or religious minorities, facilitating this kind of public displays of bigotry. Now, I'd be interested in knowing the following: Will he actually refuse to give service to a same sex couple, or a homosexual that goes into his shop? Cause if he does, then he is very likely to get in trouble.

Lastly, I think calling out a bigot when you see it is not a violation of anyone's freedom of speech. In fact, I think it only makes sense to take action against oppressors who are playing the free speech/private property card.


----------



## Explorer (May 22, 2012)

Fuckin' prawn...

*laugh*

(i like the avatar)


----------

