Marcus Bachmann Refused Service in Indiana, Store Owner Assumed He Was Gay

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's a pile of utter carp, as are the similar laws in the other 30-odd states, plus the similar Federal law.

Still doesn't change my opinion that the original piece of "satire" was lame, half-rs'ed and lazy.

Clear enough?

Then try asking yourself why you needed to ask the question in the first place?

I asked because the two of you were dancing in circles. And I believe it's #######, not carp

MBD has a history of posting satirical articles in this vein for years now. And yet folks seem to get bent out of shape about it, I don't know why. There's way more hateful, anti-fill in the blank(black, gay, Muslim, Hispanic) threads here posted daily and this seems to get people more angry than those. Just confused on the logic.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's a pile of utter carp, as are the similar laws in the other 30-odd states, plus the similar Federal law.

Still doesn't change my opinion that the original piece of "satire" was lame, half-rs'ed and lazy.

Clear enough?

Then try asking yourself why you needed to ask the question in the first place?

Threads with no merit are easy enough to avoid. Me thinks thou protests too much.

[Pooky 3,343]

I asked because the two of you were dancing in circles. And I believe it's #######, not carp

So, Einstein, which one got caught in the banned word filter?

MBD has a history of posting satirical articles in this vein for years now. And yet folks seem to get bent out of shape about it, I don't know why.

I called the piece sad and tired, because it was poorly written. How is that getting bent out of shape?

There's way more hateful, anti-fill in the blank(black, gay, Muslim, Hispanic) threads here posted daily and this seems to get people more angry than those. Just confused on the logic.

And I have not been party to any of them. Yet one poster makes an open inference about me, with no basis whatsoever, and you feel the need to question me about my beliefs. So keep telling yourself your intentions were fair and honorable if it makes you feel good. We both know the truth. You just won't admit it.

Threads with no merit are easy enough to avoid. Me thinks thou protests too much.

And yet here you are. Why is that?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So, Einstein, which one got caught in the banned word filter?

I called the piece sad and tired, because it was poorly written. How is that getting bent out of shape?

And I have not been party to any of them. Yet one poster makes an open inference about me, with no basis whatsoever, and you feel the need to question me about my beliefs. So keep telling yourself your intentions were fair and honorable if it makes you feel good. We both know the truth. You just won't admit it.

And yet here you are. Why is that?

Pretty sure that you and not I felt that the OP was sad and tired. I got a chuckle from it. Guess you incorrectly inferred my feelings about it. ;-)

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So, Einstein, which one got caught in the banned word filter?

I called the piece sad and tired, because it was poorly written. How is that getting bent out of shape?

And I have not been party to any of them. Yet one poster makes an open inference about me, with no basis whatsoever, and you feel the need to question me about my beliefs. So keep telling yourself your intentions were fair and honorable if it makes you feel good. We both know the truth. You just won't admit it.

And yet here you are. Why is that?

And yet, you chose this piece to attack as sad and tired. Why? It's satire not paperchase theatre.

[Pooky 3,343]

And yet, you chose this piece to attack as sad and tired. Why? It's satire not paperchase theatre.

Such a violent description of a simple opinion. Must be your military background.

And yet you're totally okay with someone being accused, without foundation, of being a homophobe? Shows you as just as bigoted and intolerant as the people you rail against so much.

[Pooky 3,343]

Pretty sure that you and not I felt that the OP was sad and tired. I got a chuckle from it. Guess you incorrectly inferred my feelings about it. ;-)

I looked at the piece as I was interested in the subject. I found it lacking in humour and just lazy in its writing, hence my comment. It was more of a cheap shot than proper satire. So, in the end, we both inferred the wrong feelings of each other in thus thread. For my part, I apologise for the misunderstanding.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Such a violent description of a simple opinion. Must be your military background.

And yet you're totally okay with someone being accused, without foundation, of being a homophobe? Shows you as just as bigoted and intolerant as the people you rail against so much.

Who is accusing someone of being a homophobe? Are you talking about the article? Because as of right now, there are a few businesses using that idiotic law to do just that to gay people:

http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/27/8303925/christian-indiana-business-gay-refuse-service

Christian business owner in Indiana called a morning radio show today to express his support for the new state law that now allows him to discriminate against gay people. He told the Kyle & Rachel Show on 100.9FM that he's thrilled because he now doesn't have to have gay people in his restaurant.

He said he has already been discriminating against gay people by finding ways to get them out of the restaurant. The way he has gone about it in the past is to lie to the gay customers, telling them something in the kitchen was broken so he couldn't serve them. Lying - not gay people eating in a restaurant - is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. In fact, it's one of the Ten Commandments ("thou shalt not bear false witness"). So this business owner can break one of the most sacred laws against lying to keep gay people out of his business.

"I feel OK with it because it's my place of business," he told the radio station. "I pay the rent. I built it. It's all my money and my doing. It's my place. I can do whatever I want with it. They can have their lifestyle and do their things on their own place or at people that want to be with them in their type of place, not my place."

Now, I don't think Mr. Bachmann is a homophobe, but if he shares the same belief as his wife, since she has said publicly what her views are on same sex marriage, it's open to interpretation. This piece is satire, nothing more or less. It might not be on the same calibre as the NYT, but fighting over it is senseless.

Also, calling me a bigot when I'm known for calling out falsehoods in ALL threads that pertain to any minority group, or even a white person if they've been done wrong is a tad bit wrong. I don't join the fray just because it suits me, nor do I have to wait until something I like is attacked. You do it all the time or go home.

[Pooky 3,343]

Who is accusing someone of being a homophobe?

Please re-read the first page of the thread, specifically MBD's interaction, and then tell me if there is any way a rational person would not have interpreted those comments other than him accusing me of being a homophobe.

Also, calling me a bigot when I'm known for calling out falsehoods in ALL threads that pertain to any minority group, or even a white person if they've been done wrong is a tad bit wrong. I don't join the fray just because it suits me, nor do I have to wait until something I like is attacked. You do it all the time or go home.

Then understand why I interpreted MBD's comments and your line of questioning in the same way as the OP interprets the attitude of the salesperson. The irony should not be lost on you.

It's precisely because you are selective when you comment, and that you chose to comment as you did, that I made the accusation.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Pooky

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Please re-read the first page of the thread, specifically MBD's interaction, and then tell me if there is any way a rational person would not have interpreted those comments other than him accusing me of being a homophobe.

Then understand why I interpreted MBD's comments and your line of questioning in the same way as the OP interprets the attitude of the salesperson. The irony should not be lost on you.

It's precisely because you are selective when you comment, and that you chose to comment as you did, that I made the accusation.

I"m going to go out on a limb and say that MBD was talking about Indiana's treatment of gay people as being spot on. The story was false, but given the current situation of people openly discriminating against gay people in that state by the link I posted above, it's clear that's what he's talking about.

You haven't familiarized yourself with the religious nuttery they just committed in Indiana, have you?

You said the allegations are unfounded. This whole article was false, but gay people are being discriminated against in Indiana under this new law. Fact. That's why MBD finds this to be spot on. He's talking about the law, not Mr. Bachmann. That's why he asked your opinion about the law. It's almost sad to a degree, because in my opinion satire shouldn't come this close to be true. They're doing that there to folks right now. And being proud of it.

[GandD 5,966]

Then why not actually post a true article supporting the low lying allegations of this article? Posting satire and patting each other on the back with mutual assumptions is a cop out.

Edited March 30, 2015 by GandD

[Pooky 3,343]

I"m going to go out on a limb and say that MBD was talking about Indiana's treatment of gay people as being spot on. The story was false, but given the current situation of people openly discriminating against gay people in that state by the link I posted above, it's clear that's what he's talking about.

You can try to excuse his words as much as you like, but to any rational person his comments were directed at me in person. At least be that honest.

You haven't familiarized yourself with the religious nuttery they just committed in Indiana, have you?

I have, as I stated earlier in this thread. You can read, can't you?

You said the allegations are unfounded. This whole article was false, but gay people are being discriminated against in Indiana under this new law. Fact. That's why MBD finds this to be spot on. He's talking about the law, not Mr. Bachmann. That's why he asked your opinion about the law. It's almost sad to a degree, because in my opinion satire shouldn't come this close to be true. They're doing that there to folks right now. And being proud of it.

Are you serious? Let me quote your earlier question and my reply.

Okay Pooky, let's play this straight and by the numbers. Tell me your opinion on this Religious Freedom bill.

It's a pile of utter carp, as are the similar laws in the other 30-odd states, plus the similar Federal law.

Still doesn't change my opinion that the original piece of "satire" was lame, half-rs'ed and lazy.

Clear enough?

Then try asking yourself why you needed to ask the question in the first place?

We are on the same side of the discussion. I disagree with the law and all the laws similar to it. That's pretty clear from my response. And yet a number of times, you have either carelessly or deliberately misinterpreted me, in what appears to be an attempt to portray me as supporting this law. I expect that from MBD, because he has a clear history of doing that. I thought you were smarter than that, or at least more honest. Evidently, I was mistaken.

This will be the only time that happens.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Pooky

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Then why not actually post a true article supporting the low lying allegations of this article? Posting satire and patting each other on the back with mutual assumptions is a cop out.

I did.

http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/27/8303925/christian-indiana-business-gay-refuse-service

But this is MBD's schtick. Not in this case I believe, but most of the rage comes from people who don't take the time to see it's satire and then go nuclear because they really think Obama is giving away free gas or guns are about to be confiscated worldwide.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

You can try to excuse his words as much as you like, but to any rational person his comments were directed at me in person. At least be that honest.

I have, as I stated earlier in this thread. You can read, can't you?

Are you serious? Let me quote your earlier question and my reply.

We are on the same side of the discussion. I disagree with the law and all the laws similar to it. That's pretty clear from my response. And yet a number of times, you have either carelessly or deliberately misinterpreted me, in what appears to be an attempt to portray me as supporting this law. I expect that from MBD, because he has a clear history of doing that. I thought you were smarter than that, or at least more honest. Evidently, I was mistaken.

This will be the only time that happens.

I think my quote might have been mistaken. That was MBD qoute, not mine. I can't turn off the bold when I use it. Here's what I meant to copy:

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:08 PM

You haven't familiarized yourself with the religious nuttery they just committed in Indiana, have you?

That's him, not me. I read this as he's talking about the Indiana law. Not the person. To me, this is a clear case of misunderstanding. MBD thought you were talking about the law, not the satire. But like I said, in hindsight I think it's sad because this "satire" is as you said sad and tired, since it's actually more truth than fiction.

Sorry if I didn't come off clear before.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Is this the time I get to ask about pis$ing in Cheerios?