We are rapidly approaching the point of 'thoughtcrime'

[JTScribe]

If they got their money back then there's nothing to see here.

Do you really think it's going to end that way? He's already had to take his business Facebook page offline due to death threats.

 

[littletommy]

Ahhh......Jarrell threw out the word "bigot". I was wondering when that would happen, didn't take long. I love how some are always barking about tolerance and acceptance, then **** all over themselves trying to gig someone who disagrees with their "enlightened" opinion. Pathetic.

 

[HoughMade]

The name calling would make Fred Phelps proud.

 

[D-Ric902]

I think that I would have ebay'd the rings and gone somewhere else

 

[cobber]

You refuse to participate in our gay wedding ceremony by providing goods or services because you're a Christian? How dare you!

You provided U.S. goods and services for our gay wedding ceremony and you are a Christian? How dare you!

I think we can all cut to the chase: you're a Christian? How dare you!

This makes less sense than usual.

If you are referring to the chronically-outraged, you would be correct.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, the take away here is if I ask for a refund because I don't agree with the owner about something...that's a thought crime on his part?

No, that's common sense. Post things or say things that alienate potential customers, potential customers become alienated. It's why when gun folks want to force restaurants and coffee shops to pick sides they don't want to. They want to sell burgers and coffee to everyone, not just the half they didn't tick off with whichever stand they took. Remember how those neutral positions were painted as "anti-gun" right here on INGO? Simply being neutral wasn't enough. Think of how many of us will avoid stores with "no guns" signs posted. Did we make it a "thought crime" to be pro gun control?

 

[poptab]

im so sick of hearing lgbt people whine. Go play in traffic already...

 

[ModernGunner]

Libtards. 'Nuff said.

Newfoundland and Labrador? Bleh, except for the dogs, they got nuthin'...

 

[Dean C.]

Customers disagree with shop owner on important issue, customers ask for a refund because they do not want to support a buisness that contradicts their "deeply held beliefs". I see no problem here at all.

 

[oldpink]

This makes less sense than usual.

That's only because you are incapable of grasping the point, as usual.

 

[jamil]

So, the take away here is if I ask for a refund because I don't agree with the owner about something...that's a thought crime on his part?

No, that's common sense. Post things or say things that alienate potential customers, potential customers become alienated. It's why when gun folks want to force restaurants and coffee shops to pick sides they don't want to. They want to sell burgers and coffee to everyone, not just the half they didn't tick off with whichever stand they took. Remember how those neutral positions were painted as "anti-gun" right here on INGO? Simply being neutral wasn't enough. Think of how many of us will avoid stores with "no guns" signs posted. Did we make it a "thought crime" to be pro gun control?

Well, we've established no actual crime was committed. The idea is that the customer took offense to what the business owner said, at which point it's just a private matter between the jeweler and the customer. Neither the customer nor jeweler made this an issue of "thought crimes". Somehow, the public found out. And what brings in the discussion about "thought crime" is the public reaction and social media backlash that ensued afterwards. The jeweler didn't commit a thought crime. The customer didn't take it as a thought crime. The mob made it a thought crime and they punished the store owner for it. Indiana, in creating the RFRA did not commit a thought crime, but the mob sought to punish Indiana for its thought crime.

If it remained a private matter, no one would be discussing this. But no, people have to take sides and turn it into a cluster****. Well, here's the side I'm taking in that private matter between the jeweler and customer. The customer got what was actually bargained for: rings that they agreed to purchase. As far as we know there was no contractual requirement for the business owner to approve of the customer's lifestyle. It would be a good gesture for the jeweler to refund the couple's money. But it's not required. Mrjarrell's thin skin notwithstanding, there's no reason to hate either side at that point. Nothing is political about that situation until the mob made more of it than it was.

That said, you are spot on about businesses taking sides. Very well said. If you only want to serve people who agree with you, you'll put up signs announcing which side you're on. And then your potential customers will take sides. And if a business doesn't want to pick sides, that should be counted a win. And if we force a business to pick sides, they may chose the other. The jeweler took sides by putting up the sign. Although he should be able to do that without activists sending him death threats, he should understand that by taking sides, his customers will too.

 

[JTScribe]

Well, we've established no actual crime was committed. The idea is that the customer took offense to what the business owner said, at which point it's just a private matter between the jeweler and the customer. Neither the customer nor jeweler made this an issue of "thought crimes". Somehow, the public found out. And what brings in the discussion about "thought crime" is the public reaction and social media backlash that ensued afterwards. The jeweler didn't commit a thought crime. The customer didn't take it as a thought crime. The mob made it a thought crime and they punished the store owner for it. Indiana, in creating the RFRA did not commit a thought crime, but the mob sought to punish Indiana for its thought crime.

If it remained a private matter, no one would be discussing this. But no, people have to take sides and turn it into a cluster****. Well, here's the side I'm taking in that private matter between the jeweler and customer. The customer got what was actually bargained for: rings that they agreed to purchase. As far as we know there was no contractual requirement for the business owner to approve of the customer's lifestyle. It would be a good gesture for the jeweler to refund the couple's money. But it's not required. Mrjarrell's thin skin notwithstanding, there's no reason to hate either side at that point. Nothing is political about that situation until the mob made more of it than it was.

That said, you are spot on about businesses taking sides. Very well said. If you only want to serve people who agree with you, you'll put up signs announcing which side you're on. And then your potential customers will take sides. And if a business doesn't want to pick sides, that should be counted a win. And if we force a business to pick sides, they may chose the other. The jeweler took sides by putting up the sign. Although he should be able to do that without activists sending him death threats, he should understand that by taking sides, his customers will too.

Exactly. The social paradigm of what is acceptable very much seems to be a moving target, and if you do not conform, you will suffer the consequences. Simply being opposed to the idea of gay marriage without any antipathy toward homosexuals is now considered 'hate'. Less than 8 years ago that was Obama's position!

Perhaps Christians should wear arm bands so as not to offend our LGBT brethren. Perhaps they should have to hang identifying marks in their store windows.

 

[MisterChester]

im so sick of hearing lgbt people whine. Go play in traffic already...

Yeah, forget them for wanting to be treated like equal human beings. How dare they!

 

[Rhoadmar]

Yeah, forget them for wanting to be treated like equal human beings. How dare they!

How were they mistreated? Your knee seems to be a little jerky.

 

[ModernGunner]

So NOW we have full-grown adults because 'he (or she) doesn't like me'?

"Mommy, that 'mean' man doesn't like me! He's offended my gentle sensibilities. You have to make him like me!"

"And Mommy, because he doesn't like me, everyone must hate him! Maybe make death threats, that'll teach that intolerant s.o.b.!"

We have men out there wanting to saw YOUR head off because of their own psychotic ideology and THIS is what people are screaming about?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So NOW we have full-grown adults because 'he (or she) doesn't like me'?

"Mommy, that 'mean' man doesn't like me! He's offended my gentle sensibilities. You have to make him like me!"

"And Mommy, because he doesn't like me, everyone must hate him! Maybe make death threats, that'll teach that intolerant s.o.b.!"

We have men out there wanting to saw YOUR head off because of their own psychotic ideology and THIS is what people are screaming about?

Is that why many here won't patronize businesses they consider anti-gun? Just a hissy fit?

 

[miguel]

Thought crime is not the next exit. Rather, it is the current stretch of road we are driving on.

Is that why many here won't patronize businesses they consider anti-gun? Just a hissy fit?

I support and encourage anyone who doesn't like or agree with a business owner's position on an issue to say, "**** that guy. I'm not shopping there!" Hell, I've had wait staff get lippy with me while placing an order and said, "Go **** yourself!" and gotten up and walked out after being seated, leaving my compatriots behind, much to their delight. (because of the show, not because I left...)

However, I think there is a point in a transaction between a customer and a proprietor where the transaction becomes binding. Once you have requested custom work from a craftsman and put coin down on it -- rather than just buying something generic in his inventory -- there has to be a certain level of maturity that makes one bite the bullet and complete the transaction.

The couple's spokesperson said, and I quote the article:

"They were great to work with. They seemed to have no issues. They knew the two of us were a same-sex couple," White said.

"I referred some of my friends to them, just because I did get some good customer service and they had good prices."

But then she found out they were big ole' meanies! Get me a ****ing Kleenex!

If every person on Earth one deals with has to be in complete lockstep with everyone else then the social contract is broken beyond repair.

Can you imagine hiring someone to paint your house and after he shows up with all the paint and puts up the scaffolding the owner comes out and says, "Hey, who owns this car with the Chicago White Sox stickers on it? I'm a Cubs fan -- take your **** and go!"

A large number of people might call that person an *******. But throw a rainbow t-shirt on them and it's time to reconvene things in Nuremberg.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thought crime is not the next exit. Rather, it is the current stretch of road we are driving on.



I support and encourage anyone who doesn't like or agree with a business owner's position on an issue to say, "**** that guy. I'm not shopping there!" Hell, I've had wait staff get lippy with me while placing an order and said, "Go **** yourself!" and gotten up and walked out after being seated, leaving my compatriots behind, much to their delight. (because of the show, not because I left...)

However, I think there is a point in a transaction between a customer and a proprietor where the transaction becomes binding. Once you have requested custom work from a craftsman and put coin down on it -- rather than just buying something generic in his inventory -- there has to be a certain level of maturity that makes one bite the bullet and complete the transaction.

The couple's spokesperson said, and I quote the article:



But then she found out they were big ole' meanies! Get me a ****ing Kleenex!

If every person on Earth one deals with has to be in complete lockstep with everyone else then the social contract is broken beyond repair.

Can you imagine hiring someone to paint your house and after he shows up with all the paint and puts up the scaffolding the owner comes out and says, "Hey, who owns this car with the Chicago White Sox stickers on it? I'm a Cubs fan -- take your **** and go!"

A large number of people might call that person an *******. But throw a rainbow t-shirt on them and it's time to reconvene things in Nuremberg.

What in that prohibits asking for a refund? Asking.

 

[jamil]

What I'm wondering, how did this become a public issue? Did some activist see the sign and seek out gays to complain about it? Did the gay couple sic the rainbow gestapo on the store owner? Did the store owner set this up to make a point? Someone made a stink about it. Someone politicized it and publicized it. That's the thing I oppose.

 

[Dead Duck]

What I'm wondering, how did this become a public issue? Did some activist see the sign and seek out gays to complain about it? Did the gay couple sic the rainbow gestapo on the store owner? Did the store owner set this up to make a point? Someone made a stink about it. Someone politicized it and publicized it. That's the thing I oppose.

One major thing that I learned while living in California-

Tolerance is best served shoved down your throat.




This is the crap I don't miss at all...