Conservatives And Christians Are Denied Service By Liberals

[brinny]

I don't think it was meant as a complaint, but rather as an illustration that it seems accepted when it happens to Christians, but not when it happens to a gay person.

Exactly.

It was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Yarddog]

No they weren't. The people just went in there to get coffee.

They were distributing the material outside the café and along the street and the owner said that he found the poster in his establishment, though anyone could have brought it in. His anger is certainly understandable as it is an attack at his beliefs and Christians need to be prepared for this if they choose to express themselves in public areas.

 

[brinny]

They were distributing the material outside the café and along the street and the owner said that he found the poster in his establishment, though anyone could have brought it in. His anger is certainly understandable as it is an attack at his beliefs and Christians need to be prepared for this if they choose to express themselves in public areas.

No. An employee went outside and got it and then showed it to the owner. They then went upstairs, where the owner attacked the patrons where they were drinking their coffee, cursing them out something fierce, as he threw them out.

Apparently the vitriol was quite loud, and quite memorable by other patrons.

 

[Yarddog]

No. An employee went outside and got it and then showed it to the owner.

That may be true but that is not what the owner told the Seattle newspaper.

They then went upstairs, where the owner attacked the patrons where they were drinking their coffee, cursing them out something fierce, as he threw them out.

Apparently the vitriol was quite loud, and quite memorable by other patrons.

That was quite apparent by the video but his verbal message to them was no more vitriol than the message that the pamphlets, in the owners opinion.

 

[brinny]

That may be true but that is not what the owner told the Seattle newspaper.



That was quite apparent by the video but his verbal message to them was no more vitriol than the message that the pamphlets, in the owners opinion.

Read my post again.

What you stated in the beginning didn't happen.

I was merely clarifying what did happen.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Yarddog]

Read my post again.

What you stated in the beginning didn't happen.

I was merely clarifying what did happen.

Thank you kindly.

Rereading doesn't change anything. You said that an employee brought it in from outside and the owner told the newspaper that he found it inside. I'm not sure there is any proof which account is correct.

 

[brinny]

Rereading doesn't change anything. You said that an employee brought it in from outside and the owner told the newspaper that he found it inside. I'm not sure there is any proof which account is correct.

Sure it does.

I read it.

Just clarifying what i read when it was first circulated, along with the video.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Yarddog]

Sure it does.

I read it.

Just clarifying what i read when it was first circulated, along with the video.

Thank you kindly.

I read about the account as well. The article you read may say that an employee brought it in but the owner says that it was brought in by someone else. Now, if your article says that the owner admitted an employee brought it in, that is different.

 

[brinny]

I read about the account as well. The article you read may say that an employee brought it in but the owner says that it was brought in by someone else. Now, if your article says that the owner admitted an employee brought it in, that is different.

The server/cashier himself said that he went outside, got it, and took it to the owner AFTER the patrons were already upstairs with their coffee.

'Jus sayin'.

It is what it is.

 

[Yarddog]

The server/cashier himself said that he went outside, got it, and took it to the owner AFTER the patrons were already upstairs with their coffee.

'Jus sayin'.

It is what it is.

where can that article be found.

 

[brinny]

where can that article be found.

Where did you read it, before posting what you did?

I'd have to do some digging, but i remember it quite clearly because i did some research on the owner and the business and the accounts of the witnesses that saw and heard him attacking the patrons.

 

[Yarddog]

Where did you read it, before posting what you did?

I first read about it in the Seattle Times last year. Face Book had some things about as well but those don't exist anymore according to FB. The Washington Times, though, did have the back article where they posted what the owner said.
Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

I'd have to do some digging, but i remember it quite clearly because i did some research on the owner and the business and the accounts of the witnesses that saw and heard him attacking the patrons.

Oh, I've watched the video and he attacked the patrons and he is holding the pamphlet. They can be heard saying that they didn't bring it into his establishment but that doesn't change that he was offended by the pamphlet. (I think that he didn't actually read the item and probably assumed that the use of the rainbow applied to the gay rainbow use instead of the rainbow in Genesis.)

But, I don't see the activist as acting as they should either. Christians should expect people to disagree with them and should be prepared to turn their cheeks and not respond inappropriately.

 

[brinny]

I first read about it in the Seattle Times last year. Face Book had some things about as well but those don't exist anymore according to FB. The Washington Times, though, did have the back article where they posted what the owner said.

Oh, I've watched the video and he attacked the patrons and he is holding the pamphlet. They can be heard saying that they didn't bring it into his establishment but that doesn't change that he was offended by the pamphlet. (I think that he didn't actually read the item and probably assumed that the use of the rainbow applied to the gay rainbow use instead of the rainbow in Genesis.)

But, I don't see the activist as acting as they should either. Christians should expect people to disagree with them and should be prepared to turn their cheeks and not respond inappropriately.

The patrons were fine. They were interrupted, drinking their coffee, upstairs.

They entered the establishment to purchase coffee and drink it. That's what they were doing when the the owner came raging upstairs (with the cashier behind him) and not only attacked them quite viciously, but made it a point to yell out with much profanity what he would sexually do to their Jesus.

It was quite memorable by many, other patrons included.

 

[Yarddog]

The patrons were fine. They were interrupted, drinking their coffee, upstairs.

They entered the establishment to purchase coffee and drink it. That's what they were doing when the the owner came raging upstairs (with the cashier behind him) and not only attacked them quite viciously, but made it a point to yell out with much profanity what he would sexually do to their Jesus.

It was quite memorable by many, other patrons included.

I didn't excuse what he said or did but pointed out that what they were doing was inexcusable in his opinion. To the owner, the patrons were not fine. To the owner, the message on their pamphlet was offensive. In America, his voice is equal to theirs.

 

[brinny]

I didn't excuse what he said or did but pointed out that what they were doing was inexcusable in his opinion. To the owner, the patrons were not fine. To the owner, the message on their pamphlet was offensive. In America, his voice is equal to theirs.

Yes they were. They had every right to be inside, to purchase coffee, to sit upstairs with the coffee, and drink it.

The material that the patrons had before coming into the coffee shop was outside.

 

[Yarddog]

Yes they were. They had every right to be inside, to purchase coffee, to sit upstairs with the coffee, and drink it.

So, you then disagree with the bakery shop owner who refused service to the gay couple who wanted the wedding cake and that he should serve them.
[/quote]
The material that the patrons had before coming into the coffee shop was outside.[/QUOTE]
You keep saying that but haven't offered proof that the pamphlet was outside.

 

[brinny]

So, you then disagree with the bakery shop owner who refused service to the gay couple who wanted the wedding cake and that he should serve them.

The material that the patrons had before coming into the coffee shop was outside.[/QUOTE]
You keep saying that but haven't offered proof that the pamphlet was outside.[/QUOTE]

Sure it was outside. The cashier who went outside to get the material stated so.

And regarding the bakery shop, no one refused service. They refused to bake a specific cake which would've violated what their beliefs are.

Did they throw the askers of the cake out, rage at them, curse at them, and/or say or yell vile things at them?

They simply refused to bake a specific cake.

 

[Yarddog]

Sure it was outside. The cashier who went outside to get the material stated so.

She doesn't say that on the video. You hear the patrons saying that they were doing it outside and asking the owner but it is unclear what his reply was. [

And regarding the bakery shop, no one refused service. They refused to bake a specific cake which would've violated what their beliefs are.

This is a set of contradictory statements. If they refused to make the cake which was ordered them they were denied service.

Did they throw the askers of the cake out, rage at them, curse at them, and/or say or yell vile things at them?

No, but they were not distributing pamphlets which the owner felt was obscene. He just refused to make a cake that would have been obscene to him.

They simply refused to bake a specific cake.

Which was illegal. Not sure that is true in the Seattle incident.

 

[brinny]

She doesn't say that on the video. You hear the patrons saying that they were doing it outside and asking the owner but it is unclear what his reply was. [

This is a set of contradictory statements. If they refused to make the cake which was ordered them they were denied service.

No, but they were not distributing pamphlets which the owner felt was obscene. He just refused to make a cake that would have been obscene to him.

Which was illegal. Not sure that is true in the Seattle incident.

The cashier was a he.

Regarding the Bakery shop, there is not a refusal to serve a customer simply because one refuses to bake a specific cake because the particular cake violates their beliefs, when they were willing to sell any other product that was already available in the bakery.

 

[Yarddog]

The cashier was a he.

Glad you could tell that but the owner was talking on the video.

Regarding the Bakery shop, there is not a refusal to serve a customer simply because one refuses to bake a specific cake because the particular cake violates their beliefs, when they were willing to sell any other product that was already available in the bakery.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.