Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Indiana Pizza Restaurant Closes Due to Threats

Indiana Pizza Restaurant Closes Due to Threats

Death and firebomb threats, hacking and more.

A family owned pizza shop in Indiana closed its doors until further notice yesterday after death and firebombing threats, as well as hacking.

The PJ Tatler provides a stunning account of how what happened:

Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing

The Huffington Post headline screams:

Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings

Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?

Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.

Eh…no.

Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

The issue is not the O’Connor’s opinions. People are allowed to have opinions you disagree with. And you are allowed not to shop at their business, or to organize a peaceful protest or boycott. And if they violate the law, you can sue them.

Or at least that used to be the case. Now, an internet mob seeks to destroy the business, in what has become an all-too-familiar internet phenomenon.

Megyn Kelly discussed the issue with Brit Hume last night:

Attempts to portray the closing as the result of the market speaking are ludicrous. People didn’t stop buying pizza, activists threatened physical harm and to burn the place down.

Gone are the days of persuasion, or winning the argument on the merits. Or even enforcing the law.

In are the days of mob rule.

A Go Fund Me campaign has been launched to support Memories Pizza. At the time of this writing, over $55,000 dollars has been raised.

This is just another example of what Andrew Breitbart correctly observed as the effort of progressives to destroy people’s lives.

It doesn’t matter how you feel about gay marriage, nor does it matter what Indiana’s new law really means.

As Erick Erickson of Red State says, you will be made to care.

Featured image via FOX News.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Or at least that used to be the case. Now, an internet mob seeks to destroy the business, in what has become an all-too-familiar internet phenomenon.”

I’m very much against discrimination by businesses, but threats of violence against those businesses and their owners are criminal acts that should be punished.

“This is just another example of what Andrew Breitbart correctly observed as the effort of progressives to destroy people’s lives.”

However, lets not kid ourselves that this problem is limited to progressives. The internet brings out the neanderthals on both sides…

    Vancomycin in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Nope, I’m judging you on past comments here and the people and ideas you’re choosing to side with. You’ve been siding with these sick, sick people, and you don’t get to walk that back.

      anoNY in reply to Vancomycin. | April 2, 2015 at 9:55 am

      How do you feel about abortion? Does your opinion mean you “side with” the people who make death threats to clinics, or who harass the patrons?

        smokeybehr in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        How do you feel about the “protesters” who are attacking innocent cops and looting businesses? Do you approve of the “Black Brunch” protesters who invade and disrupt businesses totally unrelated to any kind of civil rights “violations”?

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Just for the record, ya moron, when did the pizza place ever “discriminate”?

    Or is it the expression of mere religious belief that brought the Collectivist mob down on these people?

    You’ve been mischaracterizing this law for days here. Let’s see if you can pick out all the lies and direct assaults on democracy in this one short statement…

    “I do think in the mind of the president, the thought that we would have state legislatures in the 21st century in the United States of America passing laws that would use religion to try to justify discriminating against people for who they love is unthinkable,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.

      anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 9:59 am

      “Just for the record, ya moron, when did the pizza place ever “discriminate”?”

      Wait a minute, your other comment on the thread about the Arkansas RFRA said we all discriminate all the time!

      Just for the record, though, the pizza shop said they would refuse to make pizzas for gay weddings. They would refuse to do the job they normally do, due to the fact that the wedding is not between one man and one woman. They would refuse to sell a pizza that would be present, on a table, at a gay marriage ceremony.

      As another commentor said on the Arkansas thread, if this law doesn’t allow discrimination against certain customers, what is it’s purpose?

        Valerie in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:11 am

        When was the last time a gay couple asked a pizzeria to cater their wedding?

          anoNY in reply to Valerie. | April 2, 2015 at 10:21 am

          Oh I agree that this is kind of absurd. However, it was the pizza shop owner himself who suggested the catering example, it’s not just coming out of left field.

          Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | April 2, 2015 at 11:09 am

          Wow.

          THAT was stupid, even for you.

          Which is really going some.

        rick67 in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:22 am

        Let’s concede that they expressed a viewpoint that many find repugnant.

        The operative word here is “would”. In other words… what they would do in a hypothetical situation which has never actually happened. And probably never would happen (although that is besides the point). The level of intellectual dishonesty I have seen secular progressives display over this situation is astonishing. This is not about what someone did. This is about someone expressing a viewpoint that many find repugnant.

        Philip K Dick eat your heart out. Minority Report has become reality.

        I wonder how many (predominantly white, wealth, educated, and urban) secular progressives *would* refuse service to… *would* like to see traditional/evangelical Christians imprisoned or even killed. George Yancey (sociologist at University of North Texas) conducted a survey in which he found quite a few.

        I like how one secular progressive defended what was done to these people. “Who threw the first stone? What did Jesus say when the woman was caught in adultery?” The Internet Rage Mob stoned her to death because she threw first. Our secular progressive friend didn’t see the connection.

        Observer in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:29 am

        The purpose of RFRA laws is this: to allow courts to balance the equities when one person’s rights conflict with another person’s rights.

        We live in a diverse society. That is supposed to be a good thing (some progs even claim it is “our greatest strength”). We also live in a society which claims to respect its citizens’ right to the free exercise of their religion. So inevitably, there are going to be situations in which the respective rights of our diverse population conflict.

        The situation in which a gay customer wants to have his wedding serviced by a Christian baker (or pizza maker, florist, photographer, etc.) is one of those situations. The gay customer has the right to engage in commerce, and the Christian business owner has the right to freely exercise his religion. When the Christian business owner refuses to provide his services to a customer for a gay wedding, someone has to decide whose rights should take precedence.

        RFRA laws simply allow courts to balance the equities. If, as is often the case, there are many other nearby businesses that could provide the same service to the gay customer such that the inconvenience to the gay customer from using a different vendor would be minimal, then the balance tilts in favor of the Christian vendor, whose First Amendment rights would be significantly infringed if he were forced to service a gay wedding in violation of his religious beliefs.

        IOW, RFRA laws are all about promoting “fairness” and “tolerance.” Not just tolerance for gays, but also tolerance for various religious beliefs. (The original RFRA law came about in response to an Indian tribe that had been denied the right to use peyote in its religious ceremonies).

        So why do progs, who claim to love “freedom” and “fairness” and “tolerance” and “diversity,” have such a problem with laws whose sole purpose is to find a way to make those concepts work best for everybody?

          anoNY in reply to Observer. | April 2, 2015 at 11:06 am

          “The situation in which a gay customer wants to have his wedding serviced by a Christian baker”

          This hits the main issue: Christianity has nothing to do with baking!

          If someone is giving communion, and doesn’t want to give it to gays, that is his religious prerogative, since communion is a religious act.

          However, operating a for-profit bakery is not a religious act. The Bible does not say “go forth and bake”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | April 2, 2015 at 11:10 am

          Yeeeeup. You continue to excel at stupid. Amazing…!!!

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Observer. | April 2, 2015 at 11:36 am

          And the free market could work here as well, rather than the iron fist. A bakery puts a sign in their window “we will gladly cater your gay wedding”.

          They get a boost from all those gay rights advocates, for all their business, not just gay weddings. Or others can avoid them if that is so distasteful.

          It really shouldn’t come to that, but if the leftist mob wants to show its power, why not use a more positive method … by rewarding the “open society” baker? Instead they seek to burn/destroy any they can find that won’t participate in their (ir)religious ceremony. They want conversion or death, sort of like radical Islam. heh

        Radegunda in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:27 am

        “However, it was the pizza shop owner himself who suggested the catering example,” — because ABC sent a reporter to a small town hoping to find an example of the “hate” they imagine to be rife in such places, and especially at a business with visible signs of Christian identity.

        The owner was asked her opinion of the law, and she responded in a way that should have clarified the issue — saying that she (like virtually every other Christian) has no objection to serving gay people as such, but it’s another thing to be compelled to contribute to a specific ceremony that violates her religious beliefs.

        In other words: Christians do no hate gay people, but many (and many non-Christians too) believe it’s wrong to change the basic definition of the most fundamental social institution since time immemorial and COMPEL EVERYONE to acknowledge, endorse, and actively support that new definition or else lose their livelihood.

        It is simply obtuse to refuse to see that difference.

          Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | April 2, 2015 at 11:35 am

          Furthermore, it’s unlikely that the reporter was thinking in terms of a pizzeria catering a wedding. The reporter was probably thinking that an openly Christian business might refuse to serve gay people at all in their establishment.

          That is the false and groundless assumption that the hysterical (or dishonest) critics of the law are making. The pizzeria owner was simply explaining the real issue involved with her hypothetical of catering a wedding.

          anoNY in reply to Radegunda. | April 2, 2015 at 11:43 am

          I understand the difference, but it makes no difference to me. If the pizza maker offers catering services (which I understand this place actually doesn’t do), then it should not be allowed to discriminate against gay customers.

          We are not talking about a church, or someone practicing their religion. We are talking about a pizza parlor and someone baking a pizza.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 10:11 am

      So. ThoughtCrime.

      See? You have no concept of “tolerance”, or “diversity”.

      “They would refuse to do the job they normally do, due to the fact that the wedding is not between one man and one woman.”

      They would refuse to support, by their conduct, what they find runs against their conscience.

      You would force them to do what YOU think they should.

      Just as you’d force an Orthodox Jew to perform abortions because someone demanded it.

      AND you’d make sure that they were simply stripped of any RIGHT to make a case for their conduct (informed by their EXERCISE of religion or conscience) by crushing the RFRAs that have been passed by the people of the United States and the states.

      You’re just a little stupid, lying, fascist, and I think you know it.

        anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 10:28 am

        “So. ThoughtCrime.”

        Baking a cake is not the same as thinking of baking a cake.

        “You would force them to do what YOU think they should.”

        They bake cakes/pizzas for people already, I would not force them to do anything but sell those products to customers without reference to the gay-ness of their weddings.

        “Just as you’d force an Orthodox Jew to perform abortions because someone demanded it.”

        If the doctor regularly performed abortions as part of his job, I would say that he could not discriminate in his clientele based on gay-ness. However, if the doctor was an opthamologist or something, I would not force him to perform an abortion since that is not his job (he doesn’t offer that service to the public).

        “AND you’d make sure that they were simply stripped of any RIGHT to make a case for their conduct (informed by their EXERCISE of religion or conscience) by crushing the RFRAs that have been passed by the people of the United States and the states.”

        Untrue, RFRA is good when it is defending people against the government (like the native americans drinking peyote or something). What I don’t like is how it could be used to allow businesses to refuse to sell to people they don’t like. A business is open to the public, and thus it should sell to the public regardless of who that “public” is. If a Nazi went into a store that sold Jewish religious items, they should sell those items to that Nazi (although if the Nazi was wearing a swastika armband, they could of course kick him out for causing a disturbance, businesses can make rules on dress codes, etc.).

          Observer in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:42 am

          A business is open to the public, and thus it should sell to the public regardless of who that “public” is.
          ___________________________

          So essentially you’re arguing that a business owner surrenders his or her First Amendment rights when they go into business. Business owners can freely exercise their religion . . . but not when they’re at work.

          I wonder, would you support a printer who didn’t want to print a “God Hates Fags” banner for a Westboro Baptist customer to use at a gay soldier’s funeral?

          nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am

          So, since you are in favor of forcing people who own businesses to violate their conscience:

          Can we put you down in favor of forcing pharmaceutical suppliers to provide the drugs necessary for lethal injection, regardless of whether said suppliers support capital punishment?

          *If* you are consistent, you *have* to respond in the affirmative.

          If you don’t respond in the affirmative – well, logically, that means you’re a hypocrite.

          But we already know that shoe fits you perfectly ~

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:11 am

          “So essentially you’re arguing that a business owner surrenders his or her First Amendment rights when they go into business. Business owners can freely exercise their religion . . . but not when they’re at work.

          A business owner already surrenders his first-amendment rights, he cannot discriminate against black people / woman / etc.

          As for Free Exercise, operating a business is not a religious act.

          “I wonder, would you support a printer who didn’t want to print a “God Hates Fags” banner for a Westboro Baptist customer to use at a gay soldier’s funeral?””

          This isn’t a religious issue, unless the printer is doing it because he hates Christians (assuming you think Westboro is Christian, I don’t).

          gmac124 in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:12 am

          “If a Nazi went into a store that sold Jewish religious items, they should sell those items to that Nazi (although if the Nazi was wearing a swastika armband, they could of course kick him out for causing a disturbance, businesses can make rules on dress codes, etc.).”

          You do realize that this arguement is the same with regards to christian/gay wedding.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:14 am

          “You do realize that this arguement is the same with regards to christian/gay wedding.”

          Care to elaborate? I see a distinction. Kicking someone out of a store for making a disturbance isn’t really the same thing as refusing the sell a product to that person. If the gays aren’t wearing anti-christian shirts, why discriminate?

          gmac124 in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 1:13 pm

          “Care to elaborate?”

          Just because you can’t see the irony. The nazi is not refused service UNTIL they identify themselves as a nazi. Similarly the gay person isn’t refused service until they identify themselves as gay and request services be performed at a ceremony that is offensive to, and an attack on the foundation of Christian faith.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 10:39 am

        Annnnd, the little bent wheels bearing your rickety rational wagon go flying off in all directions.

        You are DONE. Turn off the oven.

          Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 12:45 pm

          As for Free Exercise, operating a business is not a religious act.

          “I wonder, would you support a printer who didn’t want to print a “God Hates Fags” banner for a Westboro Baptist customer to use at a gay soldier’s funeral?””

          This isn’t a religious issue, unless the printer is doing it because he hates Christians (assuming you think Westboro is Christian, I don’t).
          _________________________

          I never said that operating a business was a religious act. But you are arguing that business operators have no right to exercise their religion and operate their business at the same time, which is clearly not the law in the U.S.

          It’s not relevant whether or not I think Westboro Baptist is Christian or not. The point of my example was that you argue that every business owner should be required to service every customer, so long as the customer’s request is for the usual services that the business provides. Printers print banners. So should the printer be required, as a matter of law, to print the banner or not? You didn’t answer the question.

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm

          “I never said that operating a business was a religious act. But you are arguing that business operators have no right to exercise their religion and operate their business at the same time, which is clearly not the law in the U.S.”

          I am arguing they have no right to discriminate against their customers due to their own religious beliefs. Businesses are open to the public and religious beliefs are private.

          “It’s not relevant whether or not I think Westboro Baptist is Christian or not. The point of my example was that you argue that every business owner should be required to service every customer, so long as the customer’s request is for the usual services that the business provides. Printers print banners. So should the printer be required, as a matter of law, to print the banner or not? You didn’t answer the question.”

          Since the business owner does not have a religious objection to the Westboro church, I can’t see how this applies to our current debate. The printer can set rules about what messages he will print, excluding messages that are hateful. He can then apply those rules to all customers equally. However, he cannot make some rules for some customers and other rules for others.

    Sanddog in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    You’ve never owned a business, have you? You’ve never started one from the ground up, assumed all the financial liability, legal liability and worked 100+ hours a week, perhaps with very little financial compensation just to keep your doors open and your employees paid. And then when you finally obtain some measure of success, you’re told by some idiot progressives that your hard work has been nothing more than a privilege granted by the almighty State…. and by the way, they’re going to use you, your labor and your name to fulfill their agenda.

    Give it a try sometime, jackass. You wouldn’t last a year.

Pro-LGBT businesses should put big rainbow signs in their windows/webistes saying they support the self-serving in-your-face LGBT mob. Then, let’s see what the market forces do

And, first things first: let’s take care of our veterans. Unlike homosexuals, bisexuals, et al., the vets don’t whine and mob-protest-bully others when being overlooked.

    Ragspierre in reply to jennifer a johnson. | April 2, 2015 at 9:56 am

    A market solution, as you’ve seen, is utterly unsatisfying to these queernazis. No, indeed, nothing can be left to choice or individual conscience. Those bigots who will not confess that “gay marriage” is “normal” must be punished, and forced to bend the knee.

    By the lawsuit or by fire. All good to them.

    They don’t trust or believe in markets, or persuasion. They JUST DO default to compulsion. They HATE people, and they HATE liberty.

    I guess you are suggesting that the pro-LGBT businesses would be boycotted or would lose business? Not sure Apple et.al. would agree, but whatever…

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:23 am

      No, you moron. But I’m not even slightly surprised your weak mind ran in that direction.

      What markets do is provide people choices. Market players who provide goods or services eagerly look for unfilled niches that they can exploit.

      Would a “gay-friendly” provider of any goods or service gain the custom of gay people and their sympathizers? Sure. Would they lose the custom of some people? Maybe. Very few.

      And, see, ya moron, THAT is the reality at work in America via the wonder of free markets. I don’t care about anybody’s sexual orientation when they come to me to represent them in a lawsuit for a breach of contract. I’ll never know it or inquire, unless they tell me.

      Now, I would not represent someone in a lawsuit against a provider of a good or service who refused to provide that good or service on the grounds it violated their conscience.

      THAT is, of course, “discrimination” on my part. I also don’t represent liars, so you and I would never do business. That also is “discrimination”.

      You lying SOS.

        anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2015 at 10:34 am

        “I don’t care about anybody’s sexual orientation when they come to me to represent them in a lawsuit for a breach of contract. I’ll never know it or inquire, unless they tell me.”

        Wow, you are an attorney? That just blew my mind! Your internet comments do not come off as being that well-educated.

        If you did divorce work, would you do gay divorces?

        Anyway, the “free market” argument would also open the playing field to discrimination based on race/gender/etc.

          The free-market, I repeat, the Free-Market, is already place of free-will discrimination. A discriminating person in such a market decides what is of value to purchase, to consume and/or what service is worth their dollars. A person will not buy that which does not conform to their values. Will a person buy from someone who does not conform to their values? Perhaps. Think Starbucks.

          If a person is in your face about their social values like the CEO of Starbucks recently was with his “Let’s Race” campaign then people back away and/or the market place complains. Starbuck’s customers had only placed their value on the coffee and, later, the freedom from the CEO’s in your hand and face social preaching.

          No one should discriminate against a person of another race or gender.

          Our natural, I repeat, natural, rights ensure equality of opportunity and non-discrimination for all races of males and females. Period. Our natural rights do not Constitutionally secure rights for privileged and protected classes of people.

          Homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals, pedophiles, et al. do not classify in and of themselves as either a race or a gender.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:38 am

          “The free-market, I repeat, the Free-Market, is already place of free-will discrimination. A discriminating person in such a market decides what is of value to purchase, to consume and/or what service is worth their dollars. A person will not buy that which does not conform to their values. Will a person buy from someone who does not conform to their values? Perhaps. Think Starbucks.”

          But we are not talking about “buying” here, we are talking about “selling”. I agree that anyone can decide for themselves what to buy, but my problem is when someone decides not to sell that item based on an unrelated religious objection (or racist objection, etc).

      Paul in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:30 am

      Tim Cook is pompous, grand-standing douchebag. If he is so concerned about LGBTXYZ Rights he should pull out of China, Saudi Arabia and every other country around the world (of which there are many) where people are physically threatened and sometimes killed for their behavior.

        anoNY in reply to Paul. | April 2, 2015 at 10:49 am

        Oh I agree. I think Cook is just taking advantage of the good publicity his move might generate.

      Radegunda in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:41 am

      Probably not much, because conservatives would mostly ask themselves, “Do they provide a good product and good service at a decent price?” If so, a conservative will generally put politics aside for the sake of a mutually beneficial economic exchange.

      It’s leftists who take a different approach. Leftists say: “Those people disagree with me, so they shouldn’t be able to make a living or havie their voices heard!”

    That approach works with sane people, and in fact there was an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about a florist whose business expanded as a result of acquiring a reputation for being “gay-friendly.”

    These people aren’t sane. These people threaten to kill others, based on sensationalist news reports, and we all know how reliable news reports really are.

    In California, the state records marriages, and also domestic partnerships, which, by statute, have the SAME rights as marriages. Prop 8 was an attempt to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, the standard religious view. (This prop was heavily supported by the local black churches — a lesson for you Conservatives.) The State Supreme Court took the unusual step of stating that, if Prop 8 passed, it would have no effect, because the statute states that domestic partnerships have the same rights as marriage.

    Nevertheless, and AFTER Prop 8 was defeated, the gay “activists” sought out information about contributors to the Prop 8 campaign, making economic and physical threats against people for participating in a political campaign.

    They called it a “civil rights” issue.

    These people are not sane, and they are not of good will.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to jennifer a johnson. | April 2, 2015 at 11:40 am

    good idea … I should have read all the comments before posting mine above. Still a good answer. 🙂

nordic_prince | April 2, 2015 at 9:56 am

There is no doubt that the Left *hates* religion. And they harbor a special hatred for the *Christian* religion in particular.

Perverts, however, are A-OK, apparently.

There are bigots in America all right: They wrap themselves in rainbows – aka “the Gaystapo” or “the Pink Mafia.”

    I for one think that Jesus was pretty good. It’s other Christians throughout history that have ruined his teachings.

    Jesus was strong enough to forgive even those who whipped and killed him, but some folks these days are not as strong when it comes to “perverts”.

      nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:10 am

      The more you comment, the more you reveal your ignorance. You think Jesus was “pretty good,” yet you are utterly clueless as to who he was, what he really taught, and what he really stood for.

      Take a lesson from Abe Lincoln:

      Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

        Ha, why not educate me then? What have I been wrong about in describing Jesus?

          nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:50 am

          I don’t have to tell you – all that’s necessary is for you to find a Bible and start reading it. But you evidence poor reading comprehension, so you’d likely glom onto the stuff that suits your purposes and ignore the rest, instead of trying to read the book as a whole and allow yourself to be educated and informed.

          If you think that Jesus is hunky-dory with homosexuality, or would condone homosexual “weddings,” it’s obvious that whatever Bible reading you’ve done (if any) has been highly selective.

          Lots of people hang their hat on the “God is love” parts of the Bible, completely ignoring the parts that tell us that “God is holy,” “God is righteous,” “God is truth,” and “God hates sin.” Good luck with that on Judgment Day ~

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 11:12 am

          Uh, Leviticus was written long before Jesus, pal. I am still waiting on some juicy anti-gay quotes from Jesus…

          nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm

          See, I could tell that you know absolutely nothing about Jesus. As an observant Jew, he would have affirmed the Torah, which includes the prohibitions against all extramarital sexual activity and perversions. Furthermore, whenever he spoke about marriage, he *always* positively affirmed as the union of one man and one woman, for life. Never did he lend credence to the mockery of homosexual “marriage” – and it’s not like that wacky idea hadn’t been floated before – go check out the decadence of ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

          So, those who shoot off their mouths about “Jesus never said anything against homosexuality” are displaying their ignorance for all the world to see.

          The reason why Christians stand firmly against homosexuality and homosexual “marriage” is because it is pure mockery and an affront to God. It could even be considered blasphemous, since Christians view marriage as a type that represents the union of Christ and his bride, the (universal) Church.

          Of course, secular progressives will NEVER understand this, and they are not content to “live and let live.” They HAVE to destroy Christianity, because Christianity provides a mirror that demonstrates how dark the hearts of unrepentant progressives are.

          I understand, however, that your piss-poor reading comprehension means that anything I say, anything anybody ever says, anything the Bible says is an exercise in futility ~

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 2:14 pm

          “So, those who shoot off their mouths about “Jesus never said anything against homosexuality” are displaying their ignorance for all the world to see.”

          I noticed that you didn’t include any quotes. At least gregjgrose tried to give me a quote (Mark 7:21).

          nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 7:03 pm

          Why, what good would it do? You’ve got your mind made up, since you read what fits your preconceptions and ignore stuff that doesn’t. I’ve already summarized Jesus’ position regarding homosexuality, and you’ve chosen to disregard that.

          Here is a verbatim quote from Jesus, which you undoubtedly will ignore: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

          As for me, I am finished casting my pearls before swine ~

      Clinger in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 10:25 am

      I look forward to the day you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, to tell Him He is “pretty good”, and to defend the attitudes you show here.

      That WILL be your last defense, and you will know the truth.

        anoNY in reply to Clinger. | April 2, 2015 at 10:36 am

        Jesus seems pretty forgiving to me…

          gregjgrose in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 12:49 pm

          Your mileage is certain to vary but here is a ‘garden-variety’ response to the “Jesus never mentioned…”

          In Mark 7:21 we see that Jesus condemns “sexual immorality” in addition to the sin of adultery. The Greek word translated as “sexual immorality” is porneiai — and in the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, this word was used to refer to all forms of sexual immorality condemned by the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20, including the prohibition against consensual homosexual behavior.

          http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=3303

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 1:50 pm

          “In Mark 7:21 we see that Jesus condemns “sexual immorality” in addition to the sin of adultery. The Greek word translated as “sexual immorality” is porneiai — and in the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, this word was used to refer to all forms of sexual immorality condemned by the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20, including the prohibition against consensual homosexual behavior.”

          Jesus also mentions greed as defiling a person, thus the business owner is also defiled.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 2:05 pm

          “In Mark 7:21 we see that Jesus condemns “sexual immorality” in addition to the sin of adultery. The Greek word translated as “sexual immorality” is porneiai — and in the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, this word was used to refer to all forms of sexual immorality condemned by the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20, including the prohibition against consensual homosexual behavior.”

          I looked into this further, it seems that my KJV Bible doesn’t mention anything in Mark 7:21 except “evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders.”

          I guess we can all find a Bible version that supports us, looks like the Bible might not be the best guide after all!

Who knew the Gay Community was so violent and bigotted?

Anybody got a convenient link to the text of the Indiana law as passed? I have read that the law mirrors a Federal law signed by Bill Clinton and approved by Sen. Barack Obama, and yet today’s San Diego Union-Tribune published an editorial stating that the law was pernicious because it had two clauses that differed from the Federal law.

Of course, there is no citation to any of the language, that I have found, so far.

The last time we had a huge brouhaha over a State law, it was the “draconian” Arizona immigration law that MIRRORED THE FEDERAL LAW. Most of the controversy was fueled by the New York Times, which had published a scathing review of a draft that differed from what actually passed.

So, I have no idea what anybody here is talking about. Are we talking about the text of a law that was passed, or somebody’s idea of what somebody said were the possible implications of the law somebody imagined was passed?

    anoNY in reply to Valerie. | April 2, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Technically it is slightly different in text, but in effect it is probably not much different at all. I think the two differences are as follows:

    1.) the Indiana law explicitly applies to businesses, not just individuals

    2.) the Indiana law can be used as a defense in lawsuits that don’t involve the government (private lawsuits)

    Ironically, the Obama admin took the position a while back that the federal law can also be used in private lawsuits where the government is not involved, but I don’t know if the Supreme Court has applied it like this.

    Here is the text:

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

It amazes me that we have now “legalized bullying”. When a group of people can’t accept the way a person chooses to run their business, they get to bully the business. Our media is doing the same thing. If I choose to not serve someone, then I’m losing the business. Move on and find a place that will. Our countries sense of entitlement is beyond embarrassing and sick. We cannot always have it our way. You need to consider others. I wish the “sleep giant” in our nation would wake up! Christians, we need to show grace and the love of Christ in these moments with giving Christ “a black eye” in the process. So many of you are sitting silent. You have a responsibility! Step up.

Henry Hawkins | April 2, 2015 at 11:37 am

Memories Pizza owner O’Connor was interviewed on Glenn Beck this mmorning.

Re: Catering – O’Connor says they don’t cater, never have, and would refuse to cater a gay wedding for religious beliefs and because, um, they don’t do catering and never have. (Show of hands… how many have attended a wedding reception catered by a pizzeria?)

Re: ‘Out of business’ – O’Connor said they are not permanently closed, but day-to-day until things calm down. This is a mom & pop shop in a town of 2,300 people. Their business phone is ringing off the hook making doing business impossible (90% of pizza sales begin with a phone call for delivery or pick up). He also cited that his daughter is needed to do business and she is currently too shook up over the death and arson threats to feel safe at the shop right now.

Re: Discrimination – O’Connor says his pizzeria has never refused service to anyone for any reason since opening over nine years ago.

Re: “Business festooned with Christian paraphernalia” as was reported by the local media assassin. O’Connor said the only Christian related ‘paraphernalia’ present in his store is an Easter decorative display so small it fits on top of an upright piano in the store. There is no ‘festooning’, and what if there was?

—-

Whatever one’s position on Indiana’s RFA, the O’Connors have done absolutely nothing wrong, are ‘salt of the earth’ type people by all accounts, and were picked out for the slaughter by media because they are Christian and can be made to fit the narrative by simply lying about them. This atheist (and business owner) stands 100% behind the O’Connor family.

    Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 2, 2015 at 11:48 am

    ABC-57 must have been expecting or hoping to find a Christian business that was determined to turn away gay people at the door. They didn’t find one; they just found someone who tried to explain the real issue.

    The gaystapo and their supporters aren’t interested in explanations. They want to compel everyone to support their agenda — or go bankrupt.

anoNY, regarding your response to my previous comment:

anoNY: “But we are not talking about “buying” here, we are talking about “selling”. I agree that anyone can decide for themselves what to buy, but my problem is when someone decides not to sell that item based on an unrelated religious objection (or racist objection, etc).”

You mean like when Apple’s Tim Cook and other CEOs and NY’s governor decided to not do business with Indiana and Arkansas based on their ‘socio-religious-like’ objections.
And, again, you continue to equate homosexuality with race. They are NOT equal.

If you want a racial or gender natural right then show me the DNA that says you were “born that way”.

    I don’t think one state has to do business in any other state, and they can choose where to send their employees and whatnot. I don’t have a problem with one state “boycotting” another.

    “If you want a racial or gender natural right then show me the DNA that says you were “born that way”.”

    We prohibit discrimination based on religion, which is not a genetic trait. We also prohibit discrimination based on national origin, also not genetic.

Evil Evil Christians…tonight libs are gonna party like its 1939.

I don’t recall any muslim taxi’s being put out of business for refusing to carry service dogs.

Midwest Rhino | April 2, 2015 at 12:58 pm

I don’t view the Bible as God’s perfect Word, but this is instructive in how (I think) Christians “rightly” view “alternative sex” as sin, along with many sins of our “animal nature”, against which Christians always struggle.

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. …

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

… O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

And Paul was very disciplined. Paul’s epistles were not just doctrine, but also reproof as Christians kept going off the ball. Much of being Christian is striving for the higher calling, but dealing with “wretched sin nature”, the human condition.

As Christians they are not “wrong” on calling homosexual sex “sin”. LGBTs are not civilly wrong even if they’re seemingly “anatomically incorrect”. Neither group should demand the other submit to their “religious beliefs”.

But even Andy Levy said “they can hold those beliefs, but they should recognize they are wrong”. That is the problem with much of the left (and Andy in this case), they really demand rejection of Christian beliefs in public, as if their atheist Marxism is straight from the throne of the God (in which they don’t believe). They want Christians to be “second class citizens”, denying our constitution’s Christian parents.

At the least, children need some protections from the “everything your Christian parents taught you is oppressive, here’s some things you 7th graders should know about gay sex” dogma of the radical left. But the battle lines are way over in the “pizza places must submit” territory at the moment.

    “They want Christians to be “second class citizens””

    More irony! The folks who want to discriminate in the running of their business complain that THEY are the ones being turned into second-class citizens!

      Midwest Rhino in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Maybe if you repeat the phony “discrimination” line enough it will become true?

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 2, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      The upshot is that any business owner in America (or his or her offspring) can be asked hypothetical questions about gay rights agenda items and, if they give the “wrong” answer, will be abused and perhaps run out of business. Even worse, we may not be far from a state of affairs when any employee in America can be grilled about gay rights. Give a wrong answer, and your employer can come under pressure.

      Who will stand up to the increasingly totalitarian tactics of the gay rights movement and its leftist supporters? Religious Christians will, but doing so tends to result in being fined and/or forced out of business.

      Republicans may or may not stand up. Mike Pence, a pretty strong conservative, is backing down.

      Corporate America won’t. In fact, it seems firmly allied with the gay rights absolutists (history teaches that corporations are hardly a bulwark against totalitarianism, creeping or otherwise). This, of course, is why Republicans tend to back down.

      John concluded his post with the old saying that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” What frightens me is that, like the man to whom the saying is attributed, the gay rights movement and its allies seem to enjoy breaking the eggs. What frightens me more is that the majority, though appalled, may be powerless to stop the spectacle.
      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/memories-pizza-and-the-gay-rights-movements-flirtation-with-totalitariansim.php

      And the happy lil’ fascist who has plagued these threads is unaware that the majority of Americans STILL support tolerance, diversity of thought, and religious (and conscience) freedoms. Everywhere.

      So, he/she has lied repeatedly about what the law says and intends, along with various other laws he/she has no understanding of, what various religions teach, and has made irrational argument after nonsensical example.

      And there’s no way he/she can be reasoned with. He/she doesn’t care for reason or reality. They are a Collectivist.

      This is who they are.

anoNY said:
“This hits the main issue: Christianity has nothing to do with baking!

If someone is giving communion, and doesn’t want to give it to gays, that is his religious prerogative, since communion is a religious act.

However, operating a for-profit bakery is not a religious act. The Bible does not say “go forth and bake”.”

Religious tenets extend well beyond what happens inside a church building. Authoritarians like you, if you were to have your way, would relegate individual acts of conscience to within church walls. Thank you for providing a perfect example of why many people think this legislation is unfortunately necessary.

I’ll admit that I haven’t read it, but doesn’t Plato’s The Republic make this exact point that a democracy is, and can not be anything other, than the most unjust form of government?

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | April 2, 2015 at 4:22 pm

Well, it seems we’ve, the collective LI commenter bunch as a collection of mostly great and good folks, has attracted the ire of an unannounced and stubborn troll; anoNY, that person of unspecified gender seeking fame and maybe fortune by swimming by everyone who comments here at LI.

The person, or groups of persons, otherwise known as “anoNY” has succeeded in getting reactions from several different people here.

No hard and fast way of dealing with scum like anoNY yet doubt seriously that that entity’s comments add value to anything said here or elsewhere.

So, we could ignore what that idiot says or live with the sheer frustration of anoNY attacking everything said here by us. Whatever this anoNY has said to date has no added value to any of the conversations here.

So, anoNY, respond to this comment as you wish, I will not reply to your idiocy and inane comments. Begone foul person, begone. Your stench is foul, your comments worse.

    I see your point. But it does serve a purpose for those unfamiliar with these issues to see the arguments and rebuttals. I think many a lurker (like myself) has learned a great deal. Besides, it looks like some entertainment value can be derived from taking a smug adolescent mind to the woodshed without much effort.

The selective exclusion supported by the trans-equality movement has created moral hazards; but, not more than the pro-choice (i.e. selective) abortion of wholly innocent human lives when we are uniquely vulnerable. The Democrats continue to languish in their religious, or rather immoral legacy.

inspectorudy | April 2, 2015 at 5:20 pm

I would like to throw out a few items that would come up with the RFRA law. One, Under this outrage against it what would happen to the muslims in Minnesota who refuse to allow a seeing eye dog into their cabs or the tourists carrying big yellow boxes of booze. Two, What would happen to the muslim working in a grocery store who refuses to handle pork? Three, How about a NAMBLA event where the perverts want it catered? Four, How about being an event photographer who is asked to cover a Santeria event where they slit the throats of live animals during their “Religious” ceremony? Six, How about a person who wants their abortion filmed by a pro life filmer? Seven, How about a Jewish butcher shop being sued because it won’t sell pork? Eight, How about a photographer being asked to shoot a muslim wedding where a ten year old girl is the bride, against her will? Nine, Or the “Straight” couple who want their sky dive wedding filmed by a non skydiver? There is no end to the situations where the business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone who demands it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend