Memories Pizza Story Fabricated by local news

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Story About First Business to 'Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings' Was Fabricated Out of Nothing


Next: ABC-57 anchor Brian Dorman leads the evening newscast dramatically with this:

Only on ABC-57 News tonight. We went into small towns looking for reaction to the Religious Freedom Act. We found one business, just 20 miles away from a welcoming South Bend...with a very different view.

Notice that his city of South Bend is "welcoming," but that small-town business is not. It's very different. That's why ABC-57 "went into small towns," as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.

Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station's Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.

"Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night," said Woods.

At this point, even my old Leftist journalism professors would be grinding their teeth and rending their garments.

You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
But the actual fact that a pizza shop said they wouldn't cater gay weddings was a fact.

It's not "fabricated out of nothing", but it was perhaps forced more then it needed to be.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That's why ABC-57 "went into small towns," as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.

:lol:

But I think we know that so many of these "news stories" are greatly embellished, if not manufactured outright. I think there's no better example than the Duke "rape" story. The hooker became a "dancer"; the LAX players became "privileged white males"; the details got more and more sordid with every telling. Then, of course, you find out that it's all bull####. After that, I don't know why we trust the news media at all.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But the actual fact that a pizza shop said they wouldn't cater gay weddings was a fact.

It's not "fabricated out of nothing", but it was perhaps forced more then it needed to be.

And it certainly didn't deserve the attention it got, nor did those people deserve to be targeted by the rabid Left.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
If not getting a cake is worth $137,000 (oh the humanity.. the pain, and suffering those two must of suffered!!).. how would not getting a pizza delivered be worth??

My question is, why do the LGBTs always target the Christian bakeries.. and businesses.. you're committed to your cause? Start targeting the Muslim bakeries..
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
PE was being sarcastic. :lol: IMO, no business should be forced to cater to anyone. Why isn't it the same as 'no shoes, no shirt, no service'? Just kidding. I know why. It is because our country has become a bunch of puddin' heads. It is ridiculous. One amendment right at a time, and one sheep at a time. It just takes time, and has been going on for quite a while; right under our patriotic noses. If it is not stopped, America is dunskies. It is really scary when our news media and politicians can fabricate something out of nothing. Nite nite, y'all. Sleep well. Counting sheep will definitely put you to sleep. :snooze: or keep you awake :jet: depending on what side of the fence you are on.

Actually it's because for a long time black people weren't allowed to use the same bathrooms, water fountains, lunch counters, doors, etc. as white people.
 

tommyjo

New Member
Actually it's because for a long time black people weren't allowed to use the same bathrooms, water fountains, lunch counters, doors, etc. as white people.

But, you see, that is the America that "patriots" like LittleLady think we should return to. Everyone in their place...with LittleLady and all those who look, think and pray like her occupying the top rung of society and the only ones who are afforded the full freedoms of the Constitution.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
But, you see, that is the America that "patriots" like LittleLady think we should return to. Everyone in their place...with LittleLady and all those who look, think and pray like her occupying the top rung of society and the only ones who are afforded the full freedoms of the Constitution.

Do you have kids?

How do you feel about Bruce Jenner in the girls bathroom with say your 9 or 10 year old daughter? 14 year old daughter?? 16 year old daughter??

Are those the equal rights you are spouting off about??

Because I see Bruce and I don't see a "Transgender" I see an old man dressing up in women's clothes that has a cosmetologist on retainer.. Other than the great makeup he's no different than those same men dressing in women's clothes in Wal Mart.. NONE of them I want sharing a bathroom with any of my daughters.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
But, you see, that is the America that "patriots" like LittleLady think we should return to. Everyone in their place...with LittleLady and all those who look, think and pray like her occupying the top rung of society and the only ones who are afforded the full freedoms of the Constitution.

So can a store owner not exercise any kind of freedom in refusing patrons? Sooner or later, the Civil Rights movement made ANOTHER point which is overlooked, but is the primary reason it got started - there's too many of them to refuse their money. It may have taken the intervention of the government, but it was still unmistakeable - businesses could not prosper as long as most of their patrons weren't showing up.

But we don't have the same situation as was in that era - and blacks are particularly annoyed by the comparison, if not outraged. We don't have an underprivileged unempowered group of people denied simple basic rights, such as using the bathroom or drinking from a water fountain. We have a basically elite, privileged class - based on general economic data - who has access to all of those rights - who for some reason, feel slighted because SOME people still don't like them - and they are going around essentially PICKING fights to prove a point.

Seriously - just how many "Christian" businesses do you know of just around here? Heck, I've never even HEARD of a "Christian" bakery or pizza shop.

But moreover - should you be able to refuse business to someone - no shirt, no shoes - if they're clearly unsanitary - loud and disruptive - bothering other patrons and causing you to LOSE business. Can an auto insurance company be required to take your business? A lawyer, compelled to represent you? How about a doctor who says he can't accept new patients - does he HAVE to take anyone who comes in? I once worked in a liquor store - we refused to sell to people either obviously drunk or known to be blazing drunk in the shopping center often.

You can't dismiss all of these - somewhere, people SHOULD have the right to refuse to engage in commerce with people.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Actually it's because for a long time black people weren't allowed to use the same bathrooms, water fountains, lunch counters, doors, etc. as white people.

:confused:

So, because people used to be, decades and generations ago, discriminated against based on their skin color, it's ok to have the media fabricate stories about businesses today?
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
:confused:

So, because people used to be, decades and generations ago, discriminated against based on their skin color, it's ok to have the media fabricate stories about businesses today?

The question was about the law, not about the media fabrication. And it's not a fabrication. The story is true. What it was is another example of a media based around outrage and shock and negativity, which had to stretch itself to find some place that would garner said shock outrage and negativity.

So can a store owner not exercise any kind of freedom in refusing patrons? Sooner or later, the Civil Rights movement made ANOTHER point which is overlooked, but is the primary reason it got started - there's too many of them to refuse their money. It may have taken the intervention of the government, but it was still unmistakeable - businesses could not prosper as long as most of their patrons weren't showing up.

But we don't have the same situation as was in that era - and blacks are particularly annoyed by the comparison, if not outraged. We don't have an underprivileged unempowered group of people denied simple basic rights, such as using the bathroom or drinking from a water fountain. We have a basically elite, privileged class - based on general economic data - who has access to all of those rights - who for some reason, feel slighted because SOME people still don't like them - and they are going around essentially PICKING fights to prove a point.

Seriously - just how many "Christian" businesses do you know of just around here? Heck, I've never even HEARD of a "Christian" bakery or pizza shop.

But moreover - should you be able to refuse business to someone - no shirt, no shoes - if they're clearly unsanitary - loud and disruptive - bothering other patrons and causing you to LOSE business. Can an auto insurance company be required to take your business? A lawyer, compelled to represent you? How about a doctor who says he can't accept new patients - does he HAVE to take anyone who comes in? I once worked in a liquor store - we refused to sell to people either obviously drunk or known to be blazing drunk in the shopping center often.

You can't dismiss all of these - somewhere, people SHOULD have the right to refuse to engage in commerce with people.

Except the law clearly distinguishes between those two cases.

You can discriminate based upon behaviour, safety, and health. You cannot based upon race, gender, creed, religion, or political affiliation.
 

LC_Sulla

New Member
The question was about the law, not about the media fabrication. And it's not a fabrication. The story is true. What it was is another example of a media based around outrage and shock and negativity, which had to stretch itself to find some place that would garner said shock outrage and negativity.



Except the law clearly distinguishes between those two cases.

You can discriminate based upon behaviour, safety, and health. You cannot based upon race, gender, creed, religion, or political affiliation.

:yay:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
You can discriminate based upon behaviour, safety, and health. You cannot based upon race, gender, creed, religion, or political affiliation.

Ok. Can the law compel a Muslim to provide service for a Jew? Or basically, can the law force someone to go against what they believe is part of their religious faith?

Further - religions don't necessarily regard sexual preference as ANYTHING other than - preference. A form of behavior. A choice. Just like the drunk at my liquor store.
They are discriminating because of their belief, but their belief is based on behavior.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Ok. Can the law compel a Muslim to provide service for a Jew? Or basically, can the law force someone to go against what they believe is part of their religious faith?



a couple of Muslim cab drivers HAVE gotten jammed up for refusing fares coming out of liquor stores with a bag ...

but those stories are not NATIONAL News, because ya know Muslims ...
... if it were a Christian Cab driver refusing a gay a ride to a wedding :yikes: look out
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
Ok. Can the law compel a Muslim to provide service for a Jew? Or basically, can the law force someone to go against what they believe is part of their religious faith?

Further - religions don't necessarily regard sexual preference as ANYTHING other than - preference. A form of behavior. A choice. Just like the drunk at my liquor store.
They are discriminating because of their belief, but their belief is based on behavior.

Luckily we live in a secular state and not a theocracy. So sexual orientation is not something you're allowed to throw a customer out for. Disruptive behaviour? Absolutely.

If a gay guy walks into your store and is perfectly polite and isn't a problem, him being gay isn't a disruptive behavior. If he comes in throwing glitterbombs with a boombox on his shoulder playing "I'm To Sexy (For my Shirt)" then yea, that would be disruptive and something you could throw him out for.

And yes, a muslim cannot refuse to serve a jew because the jew is jewish, because it violates the law. Race, gender, reed, religion, or political affilation and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Since apparently you all think gayness is a choice, then I guess I have to properly spell that out, since it would fall under "creed".
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Now NYC has added a new law, mis-genger a trans ... get fined $ 250k
so no more referring to Jenner as a male in New York City



Political Correctness further run amok
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
The question was about the law, not about the media fabrication. And it's not a fabrication. The story is true. What it was is another example of a media based around outrage and shock and negativity, which had to stretch itself to find some place that would garner said shock outrage and negativity.



Except the law clearly distinguishes between those two cases.

You can discriminate based upon behaviour, safety, and health. You cannot based upon race, gender, creed, religion, or political affiliation.

We need to start wearing tattoos on our foreheads to distinguish what we are W B I. M F ?. Creed? never figured that one out. C J M,A, B, etc, R D I C..clueless

Otherwise how do we know who we are discriminating against....too many minorities to little time

I'll be the one with WM?CI or maybe just have all the above on our smartphones
 
Last edited:

TheLibertonian

New Member
We need to start wearing tattoos on our foreheads to distinguish what we are W B I. M F ?. Creed? never figured that one out. C J M,A, B, etc, R D I C..clueless

Otherwise how do we know who we are discriminating against....too many minorities to little time

I'll be the one with WM?CI or maybe just have all the above on our smartphones

That's rather the point. You can't, at a glance, distinguish someones religion, creeds, beliefs, values, guilt, innocence, forbearance, credit score, or anything else.

What people do, which is the illegal bit, is see someone of a certain race and assign them traits based on that and then throw them out.

And even then, even if YOU think being a homosexual is a horrible thing and unamerican, you can't deny them service merely for being a homosexual.

Rule of thumb: If it looks and smells like Jim Crow but isn't applied to black people, it's still unamerican and illegal.
 
Top