Google Business Inclusivity?

[britechguy]

@nlinecomputers

Thank you. That is why I initially posted a link to reporting (of all slants, I hasten to add) on this issue. It does not present a picture consistent with the initial narrative given, regardless of whether the person giving it was local or not, which is utterly irrelevant.

The person giving said narrative stated, correctly, later: All media is slanted but this is close to the truth.
This applies to citizen reporters, too.

Examining the preponderance of evidence to draw the most accurate conclusion(s) is what one should be doing. And what that preponderance indicates is exactly what you've stated.

 

[phaZed]

I think jody is gadgetfixup.

Ya, I figured - I guess I just don't understand how an armchair warrior sitting in his house is more knowledgeable than everyone else in Illinois, as Lisa stated.

 

[callthatgirl]

So assumptions can be made, but none of you were there to know the local truth. We all know of stories that happen in our own areas that is not shared with the media. The hurricane Ian media stories proved that.

 

[britechguy]

We all know of stories that happen in our own areas that is not shared with the media. The hurricane Ian media stories proved that.

Scope, m'dear. The aftermath of a hurricane over a very wide area cannot be reported upon with the same depth of coverage "everywhere" that a small incident in a small town can. And when the national media (of all stripes) descends, you can be pretty darned certain that no stone has been left unturned.

One anecdote (regardless of whose it might be, and I want to make clear that I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but there is coloration in any report) does not wash away rafts of evidence that don't comport with it.

Cherry-picking is not helpful, ever. Evaluating the preponderance of evidence always is.

 

[phaZed]

So assumptions can be made, but none of you were there to know the local truth. We all know of stories that happen in our own areas that is not shared with the media. The hurricane Ian media stories proved that.

Ya, and neither were you - or Jody - yet, you guys wish to make up a whole new story based on essentially nothing, to fit your narratives.

It's OK, you guys think it's OK to discriminate against people - and others do not.

 

[callthatgirl]

@phaZed read all my posts in this thread, what narrative am I making up and where did I post anything discriminating? Go ahead....I'll wait.

 

[nlinecomputers]

So assumptions can be made, but none of you were there to know the local truth. We all know of stories that happen in our own areas that is not shared with the media. The hurricane Ian media stories proved that.

I think actual physical violence would be quickly reported. Flames coming out of storefront or an employee that is hospitalized after being beaten make good TV. You know the saying "If it bleeds it leads" Fox News reporters would have been all over it. And believe it or not, so would CNN.

 

[phaZed]

@phaZed read all my posts in this thread, what narrative am I making up and where did I post anything discriminating? Go ahead....I'll wait.

I never said that you posted anything discriminating - I said that you think it's OK to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation of which you have confirmed by agreeing with Jody and posting that he is correct - more so than the "people who know", reporters or the news.

So, you've gone out of your way to disregard "the official story" because 'Hurricane Ian'... only to defer to a guy that likely stays in his home (which is likely his business) and doesn't do reporting and has no journalistic background whatsoever. That makes no sense.

His take is that the poor Pizzeria Christians were persecuted - but fail to see that they (The Christians) did the initial persecution, in which you replied, "See, the gang up is already happening. Jody who is a local and knows more than what any media/blogger writes up is not to believed? Insane."

The "gang up" - so, because you're "wrong", everyone is "ganging up"? Notice how you didn't say, "Christians were ganging up on gays". Instead, "Christians are being persecuted".
That can be confirmed by your confirmation of Jody, "I watched in horror as the LGBTQ+ attacked and sent a Christian man and his daughter into hiding" - of which you emphatically agree... problem is, that didn't happen.

So far, Jody's track record of reporting has been piss poor, even for a local. It stinks of a religious zealot with preconceived biases against anyone not "like him". The definition of a "bad reporter".

I would hazard a guess, if you were not homophobic - you wouldn't take this stance. If you were inclusive of others, you wouldn't care about people's email taglines or how they choose to describe themselves - or really have any outrage for that type of thing... it's benign. The only people that have a problem with that (as a large group) are those that view it as "an attack against Christianity" - of which, if they had actually read the Bible, they would know they, themselves, were actually the heretics.

You know those Christians who wear those "What Would Jesus Do?" necklaces? I have an answer to that question: "Keep your mouth shut about gays." Jesus never talked about homosexuality at all.

It is true that the Old Testament--the Hebrew scripture--does consider male-to-male sex to be an "abomination," but this appears in the Leviticus "Holiness Code" which is concerned only with religious purity and Jewish national identity, not with what we would consider moral behavior:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
That word "abomination" means "unclean, for religious purposes," and it is used to describe many other things that we do not consider to be crimes, or even (if you are religious) sins. Menstruation, giving birth, eating the meat of certain animals whose characteristics seemed "abnormal," and so on, were somehow thought to sully the purity of the holiness of God.

The verses just before and after that disapproval of homosexuality command the same punishment for a man who has sex with his daughter-in-law or mother-in-law, because "they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them."

In that same Holiness Code, disobeying your parents was an "abomination" that threatened the stability of Jewish identity, an act which merited the death penalty. Do modern anti-gay Christians stone their sons to death for refusing to take out the trash? Such an outrageous thought is no less preposterous than denying gays the freedom to marry.

Modern homophobic Christians pick-and-choose their moral issues. They would never imagine that the Old Testament death penalty for adultery should be applied in today's world, yet they insist that the Jewish ritual "uncleanliness" of male homosexuality should be made into law.

Probably the most important religious ritual in the bible was circumcision. No uncircumcised male was worthy to worship god. Yet we don't see today's right-wing Christians lobbying to deny the rights of uncircumcised men to get married or adopt children or join the military. And why not? It is because we all know this is not a moral issue; it was only a matter of religious identity.

The same is true with homosexuality. The ancient Israelites and the Apostle Paul and modern right-wing Christians are free to set up their little religious regulations to show how "pure" they are, but in America, they are not free--or they should not be free--to insist that the rest of us must follow their barbaric rules.

What Would Jesus Say About Gay Rights? by Dan Barker (August 2006) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker A version of this "Pagan Pulpit" commentary ran on Freethought Radio on August 12, 2006. The opposition to gay rights is orchestrated ma...

ffrf.org

See, this is the problem - people using their religion to "do things" against others they don't like - and they use their religion as the reason - even if it says nothing about it or anything but. I believe that's actually a sin to go to hell for, right?

 

[gadgetfixup]

Because of the way he worded it can be misinterpreted.

Did the business get visited by a reporter? Yes. Did the business get death threats? Yes but that soon moved on. Did the business close? Yes Was it because of threats? Doubtful? The owners claim to have retired. Was the business "destroyed" as @gadgetfixup claims? No, I can find no actual reports of violence against the owners, employees, or acts of vandalism against the building. It is possible that a bad reputation caused the demise of the business but that is the risk you take when you openly proclaim your discriminatory religious beliefs. Calling it destroyed right after you post about violent threats is engaging in hyperbole as it can obviously be misinterpreted as being destroyed by violence and not financial ruin.

Indiana coach fired for tweet threat to burn down Memories Pizza - PMQ Pizza

High school coach Jessica Dooley fired over threats made to Memories Pizza

www.pmq.com

 

[gadgetfixup]

Frankly it's unbelievable the number of business owner defending this violence towards a business that never refused service to any gay person and actually had many gay customers. When the pack howls, facts become irrelevant.

The restaurant tried to reopen but the damage was done and anytime they tried to reopen the pack came and damaged the place. After 3 years they gave up and "retired". Even after they closed a Memories Pizza opened up in Wisconsin and the LGBTQ crowd attacked them although they weren't associated at all with the Walkerton business.

Into the Christian Closet

This may not be the America gay rights advocates wanted, but this is the America they have created

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[phaZed]

Indiana coach fired for tweet threat to burn down Memories Pizza - PMQ Pizza

High school coach Jessica Dooley fired over threats made to Memories Pizza

www.pmq.com

That isn't violence. Tweeting that is a violation of the law (First Amendment does not protect that), but not violence. It's a threat - and threats precede violence.

And if you get to "call out sources" - WTF is "Pizza Media" - so, then, you must agree that my source was fully qualified, seeing you're trying to qualify Pizza Media as a reputable Source... or do you only gather outrage for, "sources not good enough" only when others do so, excluding yourself? The definition of "Cherry Picking" - a negative journalistic trait.

Here's real violence:

Christians Are a Cause of LGBT Oppression So We Have to Be a Part of the Liberation!

There is a deplorable and tragic common thread that ties together recent, global acts of oppression against LGBT people: Christian complicity.

www.huffpost.com

 

[britechguy]

The restaurant tried to reopen but the damage was done and anytime they tried to reopen the pack came and damaged the place.

A load of hooey, and you know it. There is a ton of reporting about the years between "the incident" and the closing that absolutely does not comport with your spin, and that's precisely what it is. In fact, they are reported to have massive crowds of supporters upon their initial reopening.

And while I find any threat, by any means, of physical violence repugnant, your own cited report clearly indicates the person who made it paid a very high price indeed, as is entirely appropriate.

And the poor, put-upon, Christians who still retain absolute majority status and wield power well beyond their actual numbers are whiners, plain and simple. Suddenly experiencing anything vaguely like what many minority groups have lived with for far longer than I have been alive brings out the poor, persecuted Christian crap. And that's what it is - crap.

This was an situation where an outrageous statement was met with justifiable outrage from a large part of your own community. That seems to upset you, but it certainly doesn't upset me.

 

[phaZed]

Frankly it's unbelievable the number of business owner defending this violence towards a business that never refused service to any gay person and actually had many gay customers. When the pack howls, facts become irrelevant.

The restaurant tried to reopen but the damage was done and anytime they tried to reopen the pack came and damaged the place. After 3 years they gave up and "retired". Even after they closed a Memories Pizza opened up in Wisconsin and the LGBTQ crowd attacked them although they weren't associated at all with the Walkerton business.

Into the Christian Closet

This may not be the America gay rights advocates wanted, but this is the America they have created

www.theamericanconservative.com

"It’s coming. TMZ reports this afternoon that the Social Justice Warriors have forced the closing of the pizza parlor. A pizza parlor that has never refused a gay customer, and that has never been asked to cater a gay wedding, but would decline the wedding invite if they were ever asked."

Well, your entire source is wrong. So, your article would have us believe that they never refused a gay customer - yet they admit they did. They say they never got asked to cater a wedding - yet, they admit they did, they just didn't refuse service in the shop (so they say). They said they retired - and didn't close because of that... so, I guess we'll go against the owner's own story to fit your narrative.

See, that article was written as an opinion piece at the time the news broke in 2015 - and is not updated with the facts of the case. So, again, you have cherry picked an article that says what you want to convey, not what is the truth. That is telling.

Now that that your article has been debunked by the Pizzaria owners themselves - don't you see how "The American Conservative" is simply there to cheer on the hate and further "a Christian Nation"? They arrived at all of the preconceived notions before the evidence was even available - and they wrote it as fact. Read whomever you want.. but then don't go around telling everyone their sources aren't good enough when yours are blatant lies.

You still have not shown where my article was incorrect, have offered no rebuttal to it other than to discredit it based on it's namesake and associating to other articles cited (both are a logical fallacy).

Calls to gather a crowd to go burn down a business is a crime in the State of Indiana. Maybe not where you're from but in my State you can't incite a crowd to go torch a place.

I gave you the facts you can pick any new source you like with the facts I gave if you believe those events didn't happen. Facts and Huffpo in the same sentence should never happen.

Well, that's silly "maybe not where you're from" - no, from where I'm from, too, it's called the United States. But you seem unable to differentiate between different classifications of crime. Is theft from Target, "violence"? Is not paying your taxes, "violence"?
If you rightfully answer, "no" - then I fail to see how typing on Twitter is "violence". If you somehow do equate that - then I've got years of violence to show you during the Trump years, or from Christians, or from Conservatives (as groups and groupthink) of which you are part of and hence partially responsible for.

It's not violence. Someone must be physically harmed - who was physically harmed by gay people? No one. Where's the big group of gays that showed up to burn the place down? Oh, that didn't happen either! Damn, those freaking violent gays!

The threat of violence - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence is in section 18 U.S. Code 373 - and we don't define it as violence. I'm sorry, you lose based on "the law". I know you wish that conservatives and Christians could just have a big safe space - but this isn't a nation of Christians.. in fact, they are the minority.

White Christians are now a minority of the U.S. population, survey says

The share of Americans who identify as white and Christian has dropped below 50 percent, a transformation fueled by immigration and by growing numbers of people who reject organized religion altogether, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

www.pbs.org

Get used to it. The faster, the better. Anyone that wants to discriminate against "anyone" - get ready for a reckoning and to have protests outside your business... just like all those "very nice Christians" burning down Planned Parenthood building across the nation. It's a two way street. Sure, go protest for your Christian causes.. but you get to sit down and shutup when others come to exercise the same rights this country has afforded YOU... otherwise you are quite literally, and by definition, a bigot.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Indiana coach fired for tweet threat to burn down Memories Pizza - PMQ Pizza

High school coach Jessica Dooley fired over threats made to Memories Pizza

www.pmq.com

@phaZed beat me to it. What he said. There is very little evidence of any of those threats lasting beyond a month or so. Such things are quickly forgotten for the next meme. It's unfortunate that they were threatened but it wasn't the disaster that you allude to. The restaurant had a GoFundMe account created for it and crowds of locals showed up to open it back up. It failed because it is in a small town and died as many places did during the 2016 recession.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Frankly it's unbelievable the number of business owner defending this violence towards a business that never refused service to any gay person and actually had many gay customers. When the pack howls, facts become irrelevant.

The restaurant tried to reopen but the damage was done and anytime they tried to reopen the pack came and damaged the place. After 3 years they gave up and "retired". Even after they closed a Memories Pizza opened up in Wisconsin and the LGBTQ crowd attacked them although they weren't associated at all with the Walkerton business.

Into the Christian Closet

This may not be the America gay rights advocates wanted, but this is the America they have created

www.theamericanconservative.com

Bull.
From the article: "A pizza parlor that has never refused a gay customer, and that has never been asked to cater a gay wedding, but would decline the wedding invite if they were ever asked. " I'm sorry which is it? Are they serving gay clients or are they turning them away?

"Who, gay or straight, hires a pizza parlor to cater their wedding? The TV reporter had to go trolling for a business to feature on her story." I agree they were baited but they fell for the bait. They flat said they WOULD NOT serve such an event. Doesn't sound all accepting to me. And as far as I can tell they never backed down from that statement. The owner could have EASILY said that the daughter doesn't speak for the business and issued a statement welcoming them. People might not have believed them but it would still be his word against the news reporters.

 

[britechguy]

As an aside, it constantly amazes me how many people seem to believe that having the right of free speech should include the right of having no consequences from whatever is said. That's never been true, nor should it be true.

The free speech rights (and, in fact, all other rights) enshrined in the Constitution are strictly in relation to the government and the governed. I cannot be stopped (legally) from telling someone that they may not say something in my living room, nor should it be possible for me to be taken to court for doing so. One of my own creations when the free-speechers who seem to believe there should be no consequences whine is:
Suppression of expression by the government is censorship.
Suppression of expression by a publisher or broadcaster over what it disseminates is editorial oversight.
Suppression of expression of the wrong thing by oneself is discretion, restraint, and good manners.
Suppression of expression of children by their parents is necessary socialization and good parenting.

Entities that employ have, within reason, the right to expect decorum from their employees that fits their position. A member of faculty or staff of a school that makes threats of violence (note - threats) should expect swift and certain punishment for same. In this case, she got just that.

But if you say something, anything, others are entirely free to state their reactions to same and to do things such as boycotting your business. Having the right of free speech does not mean that you have a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when you say something outrageous. The people who owned and ran that pizza shop did not get anything besides what they deserved (and should have been expected) as a reaction to what they said. And those who went beyond the pale in their reactions got what they deserved, too.

 

[callthatgirl]

@phaZed go find my exact post that matches your post here

I said that you think it's OK to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation of which you have confirmed by agreeing with Jody and posting that he is correct

I do not think it's ok at all! I'm just saying that Jody knows more as he lives in that area. This is horrible you'd say that!

 

[britechguy]

This is horrible you'd say that!

It is a logical, completely logical, conclusion to draw. You might want to think about how what you agree with, and give support to, reflects on you.

I am glad to hear you explicitly decry anti-gay bigotry. But you would not have had to do that except that what you chose to support implied precisely the opposite.

 

[callthatgirl]

Oh I get it, so if was a gay Trump loving conversative....then what?

 

[britechguy]

@callthatgirl,

You really love being disingenuous when it suits your purposes, and this is no exception.

Post #20, by @gadgetfixup, could not possibly be read as anything except anti-gay. And if Jody thinks otherwise, I will not apologize for pointing out that he is wrong.

You came along in Post #36 claiming that a “gang up” was occurring because many were giving credible sources that refuted what was stated in Post #20. That “gang up” was an entirely justified, and measured, reaction to outrageous claims. It’s what should occur when someone makes claims like @gadgetfixup did in that post. And we’d have a better world if many more people were as concerned about the facts as we’ve had here.

What you chose to support should (and did) reflect on you, and not in a good way. Own what you say, and what goes with it. Your attempts to deflect are failing, miserably.