No Pizza for you!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The lord works in mysterious ways.

How long before some gay sues God for using him as a tool to wield his power and might?



P.S. that is a couple hundred thousand more than my friends gay cat is getting.............

Hey Alphie I donated money to that little girl you were peddling on the other site..!!!
I sincerely hope she gets what she needs

I saw that and I thank you! Her parents are literally speechless and overwhelmed by the support of people they do not know. Her mom has been crying a lot......but in a good way.

I just donated to the pizza guy bringing my gofund me total for the month of March to $1150. I gotta quit doing this shit....but I am kinda addicted to go fund me.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Because gays have to tell everyone they are gay, the same way people that do cross fit do.

I dont know why this is, but I hate people that do that.

If the fags would just shut up and eat pizza, the world would be a much nicer place.

You've certainly got the eating pizza part down, but I doubt you're capable of shutting up.

Definitely not!

Or it would have kept me from saying this is funny coming from a guy that weighs more than I do!!!

[89Hen]

my gofund me total for the month of March to $1150. I gotta quit doing this shit....but I am kinda addicted to go fund me.

Note to self...

[Grizalltheway]

You've certainly got the eating pizza part down, but I doubt you're capable of shutting up.

Definitely not!

Or it would have kept me from saying this is funny coming from a guy that weighs more than I do!!!

Yup, I'm really tipping the scales at 180.

[dbackjon]

We should top the $25,000 mark soon on GoFundMe to help the pizza place survive this faux shit storm by the Nazis who want to drive them out of business...

Like the Elkhart teacher who tweeted "Who is with me to burn that place down?"...unemployment and/or jail will soon be in her future...she took the tweet down, but not before people forwarded to the local police...

Now if only a food bank would refuse a gay couple service.


Yup - very Christian to send money to bigots, but not to feed the poor.

[dbackjon]

Hey Alphie I donated money to that little girl you were peddling on the other site..!!!
I sincerely hope she gets what she needs

I saw that and I thank you! Her parents are literally speechless and overwhelmed by the support of people they do not know. Her mom has been crying a lot......but in a good way.

I just donated to the pizza guy bringing my gofund me total for the month of March to $1150. I gotta quit doing this shit....but I am kinda addicted to go fund me.

I need to set one up for my wedding - Alex keeps wanting to go over budget.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Why not, I donated to TJs wedding...........and hes internet black.....ish.

[travelinman67]

Since they've been in bidniz for nine years, they've already served hundreds of gay customers.


Tman citing a source called the tatler...

Which they acknowledged and said they had no trouble with...

They were asked by a stupid lib for a faux story if they would cater a gay wedding, which is a stupid question because only a stupid lib would think anyone would cater a wedding with pizza, and they said no, citing religious reasons. Reading is fundamental.

Earl's Tru Value in Hathaway Corners also stated the would refuse to sell paint and hardware to a gay wedding, while Glitter Coat Auto Paint and Body in West Indianapolis stated they would not give their lifetime undercoat special when used as a gay wedding gift.

Absolute f***ing Nazis!

[houndawg]

Since they've been in bidniz for nine years, they've already served hundreds of gay customers.


Tman citing a source called the tatler...

Which they acknowledged and said they had no trouble with...

They were asked by a stupid lib for a faux story if they would cater a gay wedding, which is a stupid question because only a stupid lib would think anyone would cater a wedding with pizza, and they said no, citing religious reasons. Reading is fundamental.

I read it. And I agree that it is much ado about nothing. What is interesting to me is how out-of-touch with the people of his State the governor of Indiana ( ) is. Spends his time with preachers and thinks that the general populace is just like those leeches. Boy was he surprised. Now watch the religious wack jobs switch to their favorite tactic of pretending to be a persecuted minority while they try to force-feed us their superstitious nonsense that most of us want no part of or they wouldn't have to keep trying to make their voodoo into law.

[JohnStOnge]

Apparently, it isn't. When the Constitution guarantees the free practice of religion, but when unofficial protected classes can persuade the government to sanction those who refuse to be forced to ignore their religious beliefs, I'd say the 1st Amendment doesn't mean much.

The first amendment (like all of the Bill of Rights) is limited.

The only thing to argue about is how much to limit it.

example: Wahabbists flying a plane into a building is "excersising" their religion?

Same old same old. The limit should be the point at which you positively attack someone else. If I walk up and punch someone in the face, I'm positively attacking them. If I opt not to help them or opt not to engage in commerce with them, I'm not.

Obviously, those people who flew planes into buildings were engaging in positive attacks. Opting not to cater a "wedding" between two members of the same sex is not.

It goes beyond this though. This whole thing is an illustration of the point that the whole "civil rights" concept of forcing people to engage in commerce with others is crap. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea is to provide people with liberty with respect to government. People should be free to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction with anybody they want to and they should not be forced to engage in such commerce on either side of the transaction with people they DON'T want to engage in commerce with.

If I I don't like a store owner, for whatever reason, I should be able to (and can) opt not to shop at that store. And if the store owner doesn't like me, for whatever reason, that store owner SHOULD be free to opt not to sell stuff to me. Government should NOT be involved.

The current generation has been socialized to accept the premise that "anti discrimination" law is desirable. But it's not. When you tell someone they can't discriminate you are seriously infringing upon their liberty. You are taking the right to make decisions with respect to their personal lives away from them. And, yes, a decision one makes pertaining with respect to engaging in commerce is a decision with respect to personal lives. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea, at least, is supposed to be liberty.

[travelinman67]

Why not, I donated to TJs wedding...........and hes internet black.....ish.

6p PST...$314,000...and rising...

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

Mama Mia!

[JohnStOnge]

Sitting here watching MSNBC and I am just completely baffled by the fact that ANY human being would want a situation in which government FORCES people to do things that are against their religious beliefs when all they want is just to opt not to deal with somebody because the particular deal would facilitate something that violates their beliefs. This country has truly lost its way; truly lost touch with what it is supposed to be about.

And, of course, our intellectually dishonest Judiciary is at the root of the problem. Take this quote from the judge who ruled against Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman:

For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief,” Ekstrom wrote. “The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.

Here's the problem with that paradigm: If you're going to go with the principle reflected in the first Amendment, you're not talking about "belief." You're talking about acting upon belief:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's not saying it's "hands off" for Congress only with respect to what people believe. It's saying it's "hands off" with respect to the exercise of those beliefs. There is nothing in there that says, "Oh yeah, Congress, you can prohibit the exercise if it is discriminatory."

And, BTW, there is NOTHING in the Constitution saying Congress has the power to prohibit discrimination on the part of private businesses, etc. And it's not intellectually honest to say that giving power to Congress to regulate commerce between the States is giving it power to regulate what businesses do in terms of who they deal with, who they hire, who they fire, etc.

But intellectual honesty has never been an issue for our Judiciary on any level.

[HI54UNI]

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

Holy shit! Up to $417,000.

Hey dback - if I start saying my business won't cater to gays will you raise a stink about it? I'll split the money with you.

[Chizzang]

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

Holy shit! Up to $417,000.

Hey dback - if I start saying my business won't cater to gays will you raise a stink about it? I'll split the money with you.

Ha!
You beat me to it...

[travelinman67]

BREAKING!!!

Pence Hate Policy Creates "Rocky Road" For Indiana Rights Advocates

Goshen (NYT) - Stephanie, day manager at Gunderson's Frozen Custard in Goshen today told NY Times investigative reporters Emily Parson, Hagin Dahl, Shandra Abuzilil and Winston Selzberger, that she would not provide free sprinkles for ice cream if she knew the order was for a gay wedding.
Neighbors of the controversial manager, interviewed at their homes, had no idea Stephanie would commit such hateful, discriminatory business practice.
Goshen Chamber of Commerce President Walter Timmons released the following statement:

It is the mission of the Greater Goshen Chamber of Commerce to support our members endeavours in creating vibrant, fruitful business environment for the residents of the City of Goshen. The Goshen Chamber of Commerce only support lawful practices. Thank you.

Federal Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Efinay'la Didmore released a statement that though normally the FBI only investigates potential civil or criminal complaints when there is a complainant or victim, due to the serious nature of the incident, a complaint would be forwarded to the Department of Justice Civil Rights/Witch Hunt Division for prosecution.

New York Times reporters Emily Parson, Hagin Dahl, Shandra Abuzilil, Winston Selzberger, Cyndi Olberdern, Antonio Bonielo, Loren Silverbach, Natalie Turin, Kassandra Popovich and Suzanna Mars contributed to this story.

[Brock Landers]

When you tell someone they can't discriminate you are seriously infringing upon their liberty.

Ok, then when the Griz host McNeese we should charge anyone with a Lousiana address an admission fee of $1000 for being an incestuous Confederate rapist. We also get to stamp that on your forehead when you walk through the gate. Don't like it? Don't watch the game.

[travelinman67]

http://www.examiner.com/article/indiana ... reedom-law

Indiana pizzeria closes after death threats over religious freedom law

April 1, 20158:30 PM MST

On Tuesday, the Walkerton, Indiana, restaurant Memories Pizza became an Internet sensation when owners announced they would not cater gay weddings. Restaurant owners said they would serve everyone, including gays, but that did not shield the company from outraged liberals. After receiving a torrent of hate, including death threats and a threat of arson, the company closed, The Hill reported Wednesday.
Business owner Kevin O’Connor said the hatred was so intense that he decided to close until further notice, The Hill added. The company became the first in the state to declare it would withhold some service from gays after Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a religious freedom law.
"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” owner Crystal O'Connor said. “We are a Christian establishment,” she added. “We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything.”
Unfortunately, that's no longer the way things work in America, as the O'Connors have discovered. As a result of liberal outrage, the hashtag "#MemoriesPizza" began trending on Twitter and, the Daily Caller added, "outraged Internet denizens responded by bombarding the pizzeria’s Yelp page with one-star reviews."Conservative talk show host Dana Loesch said she spoke to the company's owners, who reportedly said they had received death threats. "
Just got off the phone with #MemoriesPizza; they’re considering never opening again. Receiving a lot of death threats," she tweeted. "O’Connor of #Memoriesizza said many threats also came through Facebook," she added in another tweet."
Hope liberals all enjoyed their two minute hate today!" one person said on Twitter. "Gay Mafia strikes again," another person added." So, not serving a gay wedding is evil, but death threats are okay?" another person said in response to Loesch's tweet. "Leftists are nuts."
A GoFundMe page was set up Wednesday to help the O'Connors survive the onslaught of hate. In four hours, the page has raised more than $30,000.
This is not the first time pro-gay liberals have engaged in overheated rhetoric and death threats. In 2012, a conservative teen received death threats after posting a video opposing gay marriage. Last year, an Arizona business owner and her children were targeted with death threats for supporting a religious freedom law in that state. As we reported recently, liberals have even demanded President Obama attack Indiana with nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, it seems that cooler heads are unlikely to prevail. Some on Twitter are now comparing LGBT supporters to ISIS and dictators like Adolf Hitler."ISIS takes your head for not denying your beliefs," one person said. "The Left takes your business, home, and lifetime savings.""ISIS member: Support my religion or I will kill you," another person added. "Gay Liberal: Support gay marriage or I will kill you." "[S]o Gays and ISIS and Hilter all have something in common," said a third Twitter critic. "Liberals and estaishment (sic) DC must be so proud."
In February 2011, we first said that liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of rage and hate. Liberals, like those who threatened Memories Pizza, prove that assertion correct on just about any given day.

[Baldy]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4[/youtube]

[GannonFan]

Sitting here watching MSNBC and I am just completely baffled by the fact that ANY human being would want a situation in which government FORCES people to do things that are against their religious beliefs when all they want is just to opt not to deal with somebody because the particular deal would facilitate something that violates their beliefs. This country has truly lost its way; truly lost touch with what it is supposed to be about.

And, of course, our intellectually dishonest Judiciary is at the root of the problem. Take this quote from the judge who ruled against Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman:

For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief,” Ekstrom wrote. “The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.

Here's the problem with that paradigm: If you're going to go with the principle reflected in the first Amendment, you're not talking about "belief." You're talking about acting upon belief:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's not saying it's "hands off" for Congress only with respect to what people believe. It's saying it's "hands off" with respect to the exercise of those beliefs. There is nothing in there that says, "Oh yeah, Congress, you can prohibit the exercise if it is discriminatory."

And, BTW, there is NOTHING in the Constitution saying Congress has the power to prohibit discrimination on the part of private businesses, etc. And it's not intellectually honest to say that giving power to Congress to regulate commerce between the States is giving it power to regulate what businesses do in terms of who they deal with, who they hire, who they fire, etc.

But intellectual honesty has never been an issue for our Judiciary on any level.

Man, you must have been really bummed when they said that "coloreds" had to be allowed to eat at the same lunch counter as you. Not too many people yearn for the return to segregation and Jim Crow but apparently you do.

[houndawg]

The first amendment (like all of the Bill of Rights) is limited.

The only thing to argue about is how much to limit it.

example: Wahabbists flying a plane into a building is "excersising" their religion?

Same old same old. The limit should be the point at which you positively attack someone else. If I walk up and punch someone in the face, I'm positively attacking them. If I opt not to help them or opt not to engage in commerce with them, I'm not.

Obviously, those people who flew planes into buildings were engaging in positive attacks. Opting not to cater a "wedding" between two members of the same sex is not.

It goes beyond this though. This whole thing is an illustration of the point that the whole "civil rights" concept of forcing people to engage in commerce with others is crap. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea is to provide people with liberty with respect to government. People should be free to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction with anybody they want to and they should not be forced to engage in such commerce on either side of the transaction with people they DON'T want to engage in commerce with.

If I I don't like a store owner, for whatever reason, I should be able to (and can) opt not to shop at that store. And if the store owner doesn't like me, for whatever reason, that store owner SHOULD be free to opt not to sell stuff to me. Government should NOT be involved.

The current generation has been socialized to accept the premise that "anti discrimination" law is desirable. But it's not. When you tell someone they can't discriminate you are seriously infringing upon their liberty. You are taking the right to make decisions with respect to their personal lives away from them. And, yes, a decision one makes pertaining with respect to engaging in commerce is a decision with respect to personal lives. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea, at least, is supposed to be liberty.

..same goes for religion.

Really John you're such a drama queen. You really are.

[kalm]

The first amendment (like all of the Bill of Rights) is limited.

The only thing to argue about is how much to limit it.

example: Wahabbists flying a plane into a building is "excersising" their religion?

Same old same old. The limit should be the point at which you positively attack someone else. If I walk up and punch someone in the face, I'm positively attacking them. If I opt not to help them or opt not to engage in commerce with them, I'm not.

Obviously, those people who flew planes into buildings were engaging in positive attacks. Opting not to cater a "wedding" between two members of the same sex is not.

It goes beyond this though. This whole thing is an illustration of the point that the whole "civil rights" concept of forcing people to engage in commerce with others is crap. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea is to provide people with liberty with respect to government. People should be free to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction with anybody they want to and they should not be forced to engage in such commerce on either side of the transaction with people they DON'T want to engage in commerce with.

If I I don't like a store owner, for whatever reason, I should be able to (and can) opt not to shop at that store. And if the store owner doesn't like me, for whatever reason, that store owner SHOULD be free to opt not to sell stuff to me. Government should NOT be involved.

The current generation has been socialized to accept the premise that "anti discrimination" law is desirable. But it's not. When you tell someone they can't discriminate you are seriously infringing upon their liberty. You are taking the right to make decisions with respect to their personal lives away from them. And, yes, a decision one makes pertaining with respect to engaging in commerce is a decision with respect to personal lives. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea, at least, is supposed to be liberty.

Does a person have an unlimited right to engage in commerce? On either side? What if it's in the state or municipality's best interest for a business to be open to everyone?

[kalm]

My brothers!

Paganism is the 5th largest and fastest growing religion in 'Murica.

Preach on!

“If they are going to up this can of worms,” he said, “we are going to shove it right in their face.” For example, he explained, many Wiccans believe “that love is the law,” so while polygamous marriages are not a tenet of Wiccan theology, “whatever we want to do with marriage we can do. Carte blanche. If I want to marry a horse, I can marry a horse.”

Wiccans would also legally be able to refuse drug tests in states with religious freedom laws, because “natural” substances like marijuana and hallucinogens are “herbs” used to enhance experience at officially sanctioned religious ceremonies. Moreover, Dionne explained, giving the blood or urine samples required for such tests would run contrary to their belief that the “body is a temple,” and “if you come for a piece of my temple, I can say no.”

They would also be free to dance naked on state Capitol steps so long as the moon was full, as a Wiccan holy text — “The Charge of the Goddess” — sanctions the practice.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/wicc ... e-capitol/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

My brothers!

Paganism is the 5th largest and fastest growing religion in 'Murica.

Preach on!

“If they are going to up this can of worms,” he said, “we are going to shove it right in their face.” For example, he explained, many Wiccans believe “that love is the law,” so while polygamous marriages are not a tenet of Wiccan theology, “whatever we want to do with marriage we can do. Carte blanche. If I want to marry a horse, I can marry a horse.”

Wiccans would also legally be able to refuse drug tests in states with religious freedom laws, because “natural” substances like marijuana and hallucinogens are “herbs” used to enhance experience at officially sanctioned religious ceremonies. Moreover, Dionne explained, giving the blood or urine samples required for such tests would run contrary to their belief that the “body is a temple,” and “if you come for a piece of my temple, I can say no.”

They would also be free to dance naked on state Capitol steps so long as the moon was full, as a Wiccan holy text — “The Charge of the Goddess” — sanctions the practice.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/wicc ... e-capitol/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm cool with that, but...
Refuse a drug test, get automatically fired or not hired.
Get pulled over for driving while stoned and refuse a test. Automatic DUI.

Pretty much a non issue.

[CAA Flagship]

Can we get a ruling from Flaggy on this Pizza issue?

Wedding pizza? THAT would be fucking awesome.

But there is nothing wrong with gays eating pizza. What IS wrong is "gay pizza". Fucking fruit and broccoli has no place on pizza.

[travelinman67]

Same old same old. The limit should be the point at which you positively attack someone else. If I walk up and punch someone in the face, I'm positively attacking them. If I opt not to help them or opt not to engage in commerce with them, I'm not.

Obviously, those people who flew planes into buildings were engaging in positive attacks. Opting not to cater a "wedding" between two members of the same sex is not.

It goes beyond this though. This whole thing is an illustration of the point that the whole "civil rights" concept of forcing people to engage in commerce with others is crap. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea is to provide people with liberty with respect to government. People should be free to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction with anybody they want to and they should not be forced to engage in such commerce on either side of the transaction with people they DON'T want to engage in commerce with.

If I I don't like a store owner, for whatever reason, I should be able to (and can) opt not to shop at that store. And if the store owner doesn't like me, for whatever reason, that store owner SHOULD be free to opt not to sell stuff to me. Government should NOT be involved.

The current generation has been socialized to accept the premise that "anti discrimination" law is desirable. But it's not. When you tell someone they can't discriminate you are seriously infringing upon their liberty. You are taking the right to make decisions with respect to their personal lives away from them. And, yes, a decision one makes pertaining with respect to engaging in commerce is a decision with respect to personal lives. It shouldn't be happening in a country where the idea, at least, is supposed to be liberty.

Does a person have an unlimited right to engage in commerce? On either side? What if it's in the state or municipality's best interest for a business to be open to everyone?

HELLO?

Govt. as business arbiter?



Classic Progtard.

I'll bet you support Operation Chokepoint...

...until we elect a Prez who feels wasting time playing golf isn't in the best interest of our nation.