Australian Ben&Jerry's Ban 'Same-Flavor Scoops'

[Nithavela]

until same-sex marriage is recognized. No cones with two scoops of vanilla.

Perhaps more practically, "Ben & Jerry's said it is collecting pro-same-sex-marriage post cards from customers to deliver to members of Parliament, and it directed customers to the Equality Campaign, a joint initiative of the LGBTQ advocacy groups Australian Marriage Equality and Australians for Equality."

Luckily, as CNN has taught us, only Trump gets two scoops.

 

[Nithavela]

Ben and Jerry's should stop discriminating against straight people.

I'm straight and rarely put more then one scoop of the same icecream flavor into a cone.

 

[Hank77]

I think we've found a pretty good solution in Denmark. Same sex couples are legally allowed to get married in church (I don't know why they'd want to, but there you go) - but no individual member of clergy is obligated to perform the ceremony. If the priest at your local church doesn't want to pronounce you mr. and mr. he can simply refer you to someone who does. Everyone wins.

We already have same sex marriage and no clergy or church is obligated to host or perform any marriages of any kind. Freedom of religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

In most western countries, clergy have never been obligated to marry anyone if they objected to the union.

 

[Belk]

The key words are 'hatred and intolerance'. One can not agree with the other person's opinion without acting in 'hatred and intolerance.'

One can. It remains something that I have seen rarely from Christians. The more vocal subset tends to be what we see and they are decidedly not loving.

 

[Hank77]

One can. It remains something that I have seen rarely from Christians. The more vocal subset tends to be what we see and they are decidedly not loving.

Sometimes it is hard to be tolerant when the opposition is so intolerant.

Several years ago my state voted on Civil Unions and same-sex marriage. I voted yes to civil unions and no on same-sex marriage. If you would like me to explain why, I will.

 

[Belk]

Sometimes it is hard to be tolerant when the opposition is so intolerant.

I guess homosexuals can be forgiven for pushing back forcefully then. They have not been treated well in this country.

Several years ago my state voted on Civil Unions and same-sex marriage. I voted yes to civil unions and no on same-sex marriage. If you would like me to explain why, I will.

By all means, please share.

 

[Hank77]

I guess homosexuals can be forgiven for pushing back forcefully then. They have not been treated well in this country.

You mean they should be forgiven for being bigots?

By all means, please share.

Two main reasons I voted yes for civil unions,
I felt and still do that it was immoral for families of medical patients to be able to interfere in visitation rights and medical decision rights. It was harmful to the patients and the people that they considered their closest relative. That is just cruel.
I felt that families should not be able to interfere, and succeed, in overruling what one partner chose to will to the other. Most often these families acted as though they had a right to assets that they had not contributed to in anyway simply because of blood relationship. The theory wouldn't work with a partner in a business relationship, it shouldn't be allowed here either.

I voted no to s-s marriage,
For me that would be going against my Christian belief that marriage is only man and woman and allows for the continuation of the human race with children from marriages. So for me s-s marriages are a fraud.

 

[Belk]

You mean they should be forgiven for being bigots?

Just as much as the Christians who persecuted them. We all get to own our own misdeeds no matter how justified we think ourselves.

Two main reasons I voted yes for civil unions,
I felt and still do that it was immoral for families of medical patients to be able to interfere in visitation rights and medical decision rights. It was harmful to the patients and the people that they considered their closest relative. That is just cruel.
I felt that families should not be able to interfere, and succeed, in overruling what one partner chose to will to the other. Most often these families acted as though they had a right to assets that they had not contributed to in anyway simply because of blood relationship. The theory wouldn't work with a partner in a business relationship, it shouldn't be allowed here either.

That is a good reason.

I voted no to s-s marriage,
For me that would be going against my Christian belief that marriage is only man and woman and allows for the continuation of the human race with children from marriages. So for me s-s marriages are a fraud.

That strikes me as a valid reason to not have a SS marriage. What were you thoughts on why your belief should override their ability to get married? (Trying to phrase it in a non judgemental way without presuming your beliefs so if I have made some sort of misstatement please let me know.)

 

[Hank77]

That strikes me as a valid reason to not have a SS marriage. What were you thoughts on why your belief should override their ability to get married? (Trying to phrase it in a non judgemental way without presuming your beliefs so if I have made some sort of misstatement please let me know.)

I think your question was stated well, thank you.
I will try to explain. It wasn't that my belief should override their ability to get married. It was simply a matter of an honest vote. I couldn't vote for what I believe is fraud. I don't know how to explain it any better than that.
But I can tell you if I were a county clerk I wouldn't refuse to have my name on their marriage license because my name would be on all marriage licenses, even other marriages that are not Biblical. In my view that would be hypocrisy.
It would not show that I approved of that marriage, only that they had the legal right to do so.

 

[Belk]

I think your question was stated well, thank you.
I will try to explain. It wasn't that my belief should override their ability to get married. It was simply a matter of an honest vote. I couldn't vote for what I believe is fraud. I don't know how to explain it any better than that.

It sounds like you are saying that their ability to get married was never really something that impinged upon your thoughts? Your overriding concern was that you saw the whole proposition as invalid and could not in good conscious support it?

But I can tell you if I were a county clerk I wouldn't refuse to have my name on their marriage license because my name would be on all marriage licenses, even other marriages that are not Biblical. In my view that would be hypocrisy.
It would not show that I approved of that marriage, only that they had the legal right to do so.

That makes sense but a lot of people do not seem to share your nuance of opinion on this.

 

[Hank77]

It sounds like you are saying that their ability to get married was never really something that impinged upon your thoughts? Your overriding concern was that you saw the whole proposition as invalid and could not in good conscious support it?

That's true.

 

[Belk]

That's true.

Fair enough, but it still results in LGBTQ people being denied marriage. You can, I hope, appreciate that no matter your reasoning it is still going to be upsetting to them?

 

[Hank77]

Fair enough, but it still results in LGBTQ people being denied marriage. You can, I hope, appreciate that no matter your reasoning it is still going to be upsetting to them?

Sure. But they are not denied as I'm sure you know that the whole US now has gay marriage.

 

[Belk]

Sure. But they are not denied as I'm sure you know that the whole US now has gay marriage.

That they do. Yet there are still Christian boycotts of any business that is seen as catering to LGBTQ causes. There are still LGBTQ people who rail at Christians who have done no wrong. There are always bad actors on both sides of the aisle. How do we get to a place of actual understanding and compassion? It seems to me the whole debate is being framed as confrontational.

 

[Hank77]

That they do. Yet there are still Christian boycotts of any business that is seen as catering to LGBTQ causes. There are still LGBTQ people who rail at Christians who have done no wrong. There are always bad actors on both sides of the aisle. How do we get to a place of actual understanding and compassion? It seems to me the whole debate is being framed as confrontational.

Sorry but I don't have any new answers, I wish I did.
imho,
I think it has to begin with mutual respect for the other person simply because they are another human being with strengths and flaws just like ourselves. We need to have respect for their right to have their own views and deeply held convictions even when we don't agree with them and cannot understand them. Both sides need to put down their swords. From this place maybe compassion can be achieved on both sides.

Christians, in my view, need to condemn acts of violence and hatred perpetrated against the LGBTQ community. We need to make the message public, loud, and clear.
The LGBTQ community, in my view, need to condemn acts of hatred perpetrated against the Christian community. They need to make the message public, loud, and clear.

 

[rambot]

Advocates in favor of homosexual perversion generally treat black people and homosexuals as interchangeable. Certainly nearly every single discussion with them about the nature of marriage always ends in the claim "if you don't think that the government should say that two men can get married, then you must also oppose marriages between blacks and whites, you racist."

"nearly every single discussion with them...." PFffffft.

I have literally never read that anywhere. And there have been numerous discussion about this on this board. (EDIT: Full disclosure, I remember reading it once...though I thought it ridiculous at the time).

That said, we certainly liken your treatment of homosexuals with the treatment of blacks by racists in midcentury America.


Frankly, I think this is such a fantastic form of protest. I don't know how impactful it will be; and frankly, it's probably about 95% PR. But I sure like the idea. Protesting with ice cream is my kind of protest.

Besides, what kind of monster would get the same flavour of ice cream? DOn't you get multiple scoops FOR the varietY?

 

[rambot]

ps....Belk and Hank77...
That was a really beautiful exchange. Thanks for that.

 

[rambot]

That they do. Yet there are still Christian boycotts of any business that is seen as catering to LGBTQ causes. There are still LGBTQ people who rail at Christians who have done no wrong. There are always bad actors on both sides of the aisle. How do we get to a place of actual understanding and compassion? It seems to me the whole debate is being framed as confrontational.

Sadly Belk, while it may not be true of all people who are anti-SSM, there is a contingent that believe that the quality of LGBTQ people is lower than heterosexual people. Convincing these people that maybe gays aren't rotten to their core could be impossible sadly.

 

[Go Braves]

All for them wanting to support gay marriage being legalized but this is a silly way to do it.