Gay Patriot Header Image

If it weren’t for Double Standards….

Posted by V the K at 9:24 pm - October 6, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Culture

Apparently, only Christians give up their Constitutional Rights when they open a business. Gays (and Mohammedans) can discriminate against anybody they want.

The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with the coffee shop owner, but to no avail. In fact, it only seemed to make him angrier according to The Liberator, and soon the owner :
“So you’re not willing to tolerate our presence?” Sutherland asked.
“Will you tolerate my presence?” the man responded. Sutherland assured him they would. “We’re actually in your coffee shop,” he said.
“Really?” the owner demanded. “If I go get my boyfriend and f*ck him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that?”
“That would be your choice,” Sutherland answered. But the owner would not be persuaded. “Are you going to tolerate it?” he asked again. “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it!”
“Well, we don’t want to watch that,” said Caleb Head, another abolitionist.
“Well than I don’t have to f*cking tolerate this!” the man said. “Leave! All of you. Tell all your f*cking friends, don’t f*cking come here.”

My favorite part is when he threatens to sodomize his boyfriend in front of them. The LGBT activists used to claim it wasn’t about buttsex, but this guy seems pretty sure… it’s about buttsex

Share

30 Comments

  1. Washington state sued someone for declining to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony? I hope someone asks the state officials (and the ACLE) what they plan to do about this.

    It’s my opinion that people should be free to deny service to someone for any reason (with a few exceptions – emergency medical care or gov’t agency, for example). But if the lefties want to impose these rules, they need to be consistent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlene%27s_Flowers_lawsuit

    Comment by KCRob — October 6, 2017 @ 9:42 pm - October 6, 2017

  2. Seriously, even leftists would find the manager’s behavior unsuitable.

    Also, I think there is still a law on the books against public nudity in Washington, so the manager would be breaking the law and could likely get arrested for doing what he suggested the Christians had to not only tolerate but observe.

    Comment by Craig Smith — October 6, 2017 @ 9:48 pm - October 6, 2017

  3. “Seriously, even leftists would find the manager’s behavior unsuitable.”

    I would wager 95% of Progressives would condone this. Want to know how I can tell? This is not covered by CNN or MSNBC.

    The online ratings and reviews have not been lowered.

    Progressives and most leftist would think this is ok because Abortion/Christian.

    Now, if two Muslim men came in with leaflets about throwing gay men off buildings, the owner would have offered them blow jobs.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 6, 2017 @ 10:54 pm - October 6, 2017

  4. I didn’t realize tolerance required viewing actual sex acts.

    The left is hypocritical-look at how the MSM hasn’t covered this compared to Christian bakers, florists, and photographers. Compare the left’s reaction to Bill O’Reilly’s sexual harassment problems and Harvey Weinstein’s.

    For the left it’s about collecting enemy heads not having a consistent moral or ethical standard.

    Comment by Just me — October 6, 2017 @ 11:21 pm - October 6, 2017

  5. His entire statement is irrational. They were not confrontational with him. It was the other way around. What I really don’t understand is why he had to bring up the anal intercourse issue at all. And then, imagine if it had been a group of Muslims and he talked about having anal sex with Mohammed. Imagine the outrage and how fast his establishment would disappear. But to speak that way about Christ is perfectly acceptable. It’s not just double standards…it’s purposeful and willful desire to completely turn anything they disagree with on its ear until there is no one left who disagrees with them on anything. How is he being oppressed by their lack of desire to see him penetrate his boyfriend? I wouldn’t want to see it either, and I am gay!!! Evil, stupid people!

    Comment by TAD — October 7, 2017 @ 1:46 am - October 7, 2017

  6. It has never been about equal rights for all. It has been an ‘In your Face” agenda of the Left.

    Comment by fortdixmike — October 7, 2017 @ 5:53 am - October 7, 2017

  7. Steven Crowder did a video of moslem bakeries refusing gay cakes.

    OT:
    If anyone is in the path of Hurricane Nate think twice before attending any during storm bondage orgies.

    http://nypost.com/2017/10/04/suspect-arrested-in-deadly-hurricane-irma-threesome/

    Comment by Steve — October 7, 2017 @ 10:25 am - October 7, 2017

  8. TAD I wouldn’t want to watch any couple het or gay having sec while I relax with my coffee.

    I think he upped the ante because the Christians responded that they did tolerate him and paid money to have coffee in his establishment. But his question was ridiculous.

    Comment by Just me — October 7, 2017 @ 10:42 am - October 7, 2017

  9. Knowingly or not, this radical is playing the perfect Saul Alinsky game plan. Alinsky, the wet nurse of modern American radicalism, emphasized the supreme importance of language in framing a political issue.

    The first job is to “create the issues and problems” by naming them: in this case it is “Tolerance.” Once the issue is named, you keep the heat on it. You own it. Through ridicule, you make it too hot to handle in a counter attack. Not to be tolerant is to be intolerant, bigoted and mean. You make it easier to acquiesce than to resist.

    There was Mao-speak and Lenin speak and the Language of the Third Reich. This is PC speak and its purpose is to block alternative views. PC speak owns “tolerance” and controls its definitions. The PC speaker worships tolerance and hates the violation of their special definition of PC tolerance. That keeps ordinary people for coming to their own definition of tolerance.

    PC speak avoids public debate concerning their PC speak and and they shut off debate with a dictatorial fervor. As a consequence, they are the very fascists they claim to abhor.

    The coffee shop owner is a certified “victim” and he has called out those who have taken a stand against tolerating his actions as a gay. He is painting them as NOT tolerating what is none of their business. They are trying to crush him with some sort of deity piousness which does not apply to him because he doesn’t accept the deity or the piousness. Therefore, they are trespassing on his personal business and they are unwelcome.

    If the same PC radical left had allowed proprietors to “discriminate” in terms of who they would serve and who they would not, this coffee-shop wizard could ban anyone for any reason.

    I am on his side. If he wants gays only, let it be, let it be, let it be. Its his cash register and his business plan and his little world. Christians have no right to try to burst his bubble. Even if he bans them on looks alone, it is his choice.

    On the other hand, I am opposed to acquiescing to Hollyweird, academia, the mainstream media and DemonizingRats in their drive to impose PC speak on the public square.

    The coffee shop guy is a jerk. He has no more “tolerance” than Genghis Khan. It is clear he thinks with, lives for and worships his butt. Forget morality or ethics, he is a raging hedonist with a very vacuous reason to live. What is his epitaph? “Here lies a worn out butt. Dead and soon forgotten.”

    And I am in favor of the Christians boycotting his coffeeshop on the public sidewalk and clearly expressing their disdain for him. It ain’t the prettiest form of debate, but it is debate.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 7, 2017 @ 11:17 am - October 7, 2017

  10. @7: Steve – I knew hurricanes could be dangerous but not in that sort of way. Who knew?

    Comment by KCRob — October 7, 2017 @ 11:43 am - October 7, 2017

  11. From the link

    Brandon Morse

    Caytie Davis and her fellows had been handing out pro-life pamphlets that targeted the homosexual community for the spread of the Gospel. I won’t pretend that the pamphlet’s designs and words were fully geared for opening up discussion with the gay community without agitation first — you can check out the pamphlet for yourself at The Liberator

    Comment by rusty — October 7, 2017 @ 12:48 pm - October 7, 2017

  12. V!,

    Here is my post on the issue (BTW, if I weren’t straight, I might date you) Christians Discriminated Against By Gay Coffee Shop Owner

    Comment by Papa Giorgio — October 7, 2017 @ 1:38 pm - October 7, 2017

  13. So, rusty agrees with the reaction of the coffee shop owner because of pamphlets that were NOT being passed out in the gay creep’s coffee shop?

    Because passing out a pamphlet is the same as asking someone if they want to see a sex act.

    And Progressives wonder why they lost the WH.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 1:46 pm - October 7, 2017

  14. Many gays have an allergy to any and all things religious.

    Comment by Niall — October 7, 2017 @ 3:24 pm - October 7, 2017

  15. Many gays have an allergy to any and all things religious.

    Unless it’s Islam, which is funny when you think about it. You’ll never catch a gay atheist mocking a Mohammedan about his “Invisible Magic Friend in the Sky.”

    Do left-wing gays give Islam a pass because they’re terrified of Mohammedans (i.e. Islamophobia) or because they don’t take Islam seriously as a religion?

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 3:47 pm - October 7, 2017

  16. #15, gays like Muslim men because they are exotic and supposed to be well hung. Also, the is a “dominate me” theme to the gay culture these days. All bottoms and no tops.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 4:15 pm - October 7, 2017

  17. @ TnnsNe1: I prefer Indian men, actually. Going to a university that has a very large population of both Arabs and Indians, the Arab men seem insular and reluctant to adapt to the host culture; Indian men seem much friendlier and outgoing. There’s something about their enthusiasm that I find endearing.

    In India, there’s cultural precedent for guys getting touchy-feely, even “helping a buddy out.” Homosexuality has traditionally been viewed in terms of acts in India; the first English translations of the Kama Sutra excised all references to sexual congress between members of the same sex, but the original text mentions sexual acts between men and between women very matter-of-factly.

    Comment by Sean L — October 7, 2017 @ 4:48 pm - October 7, 2017

  18. “The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with…”

    I made that mistake a lot in years past, until finally realizing that libs simply cannot be reasoned with.

    Comment by Southern Man — October 7, 2017 @ 5:57 pm - October 7, 2017

  19. Well, many bottoms and *few* tops, which can be advantageous depending on what side of the equation one finds oneself on.

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 6:01 pm - October 7, 2017

  20. So, rusty agrees with the reaction of the coffee shop owner because of pamphlets that were NOT being passed out in the gay creep’s coffee shop?

    It’s a popular progressive variation on the “She had it coming because she was wearing a short skirt” rape defense.

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 6:33 pm - October 7, 2017

  21. I would have told the owner – we didn’t pay for the floor show option when we bought the coffee.

    I would have been tempted to say butt ugly amateur floor show option but the owner seemed really unhinged so I doubt he would have taken that comment very well.

    Comment by Sandra — October 7, 2017 @ 7:46 pm - October 7, 2017

  22. Speaking of bottoming

    https://twitter.com/DanRiehl/status/916688326526210056

    Comment by V the K — October 8, 2017 @ 12:04 am - October 8, 2017

  23. […] Gay Patriot discusses double standards in business […]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — October 8, 2017 @ 9:46 am - October 8, 2017

  24. @9 Heliorope, yes. That is the modus operandi of the Left, and frankly, envious people in general. Your explanation is perfect. The logic would fry their brains. But that’s why they cannot let these sorts of words be seen, heard, and if they can help it, even thought. This is their kryptonite.

    Comment by RGB — October 8, 2017 @ 9:58 am - October 8, 2017

  25. RGB @ #9: I am glad you agree. Don’t you find it frustrating that only Tucker Carlson seems to care to catch them at their game? In my opinion, repeating what they are trying to get away with over and over eventually gains traction with others and the framing the definition tactic becomes old and subject to mockery. Like Reagan: “There you go again.”

    Comment by Heliorope — October 8, 2017 @ 11:41 am - October 8, 2017

  26. From what I’ve read, these bible thumpers were booted for handing out religious propaganda both outside and inside his store. By law, the merchant can boot someone else if they are being disorderly or disruptive.

    In the Oregon baker case, the baker was sued b/c Oregon has laws protecting gay people from discrimination.

    Business owners in more than half of the states can discriminate against gay people for supposed “religious reasons”, However, in NO state can a merchant discriminate against some religious person b/c the owner is an Atheist or is gay or is mulsim etc. TOTAL double standard. Christians are the majority in this country. They always do what they want why do they need to be protected?

    Comment by kyle — October 8, 2017 @ 9:02 pm - October 8, 2017

  27. One more important point: If you are honest with yourselves, you will admit this “religious freedom” nonsense is BS. Unless the patron asks the same sex owner to have sex w/ them, what skin is it off their back to provide them a service?

    Is your faith that fragile that baking a cake for a gay person going to emotionally wreck you and send you into a deep spiral?/ “love thy neighbor” – Christian, indeed.

    Comment by kyle — October 8, 2017 @ 9:05 pm - October 8, 2017

  28. “but the pamphlet’s blunt message aside, the group did not bring it into the coffee shop with them.”

    Kyle, is the coffee shop owner’s sexuality so fragile that a pamphlet sends him into a rage? Come on, you can’t possibly be defending that sort of behavior from an adult? If so, you have no reason to e upset when the Senate GOP has a working majority and Trump gets a second term. This guy is going to be the face of the Progressive movement and he ain’t pretty.

    Kyle, should Muslims be forced other handle pork and alcohol while they are working? If not, why not? Should Muslim bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings? How come me the LBGTQXTYFEYHVXTGB haven’t targeted those bakeries?

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 9:30 pm - October 8, 2017

  29. Kyle it says in every story the group was not handing it out in the shop. They had been handing it out earlier on the streets in the neighborhood.

    I personally would have no issues with the man asking them to leave had the gay left not already shut down bakeries, florists and photographers.

    But the left never admits it’s own hypocrisy.

    Comment by Just me — October 9, 2017 @ 12:18 pm - October 9, 2017

  30. Actually, I’m not as offended by this group being asked to leave as by the way the owner did it, which speaks more about his lust for power over others b/c he knows he can get away with it. That’s where this is wrong and why this direction we’re heading in for the USA is disturbing.

    Now, I really would like to see people quit this nicety crap and if they truly want to fight back, tell dumb-asses like this shop owner to “bring it on, drop your drawers, and bring the boyfriend out and let’s see what you got. Go for it. And we won’t leave until you do so and we are thoroughly satisfied at what you prescribed for us. We insist.”

    General pussy-footing around isn’t going to make things better for true freedom in this country until we can stand up to people who think they can be disturbingly rude while supposedly operating within their legal rights. I even wonder if there are laws allowing a person to physically defend themselves against someone who is cursing at them, like this shop owner was? If so, then a good slap in the face would have been a justifiable answer to his lewd outburst.

    Comment by RGB — October 10, 2017 @ 2:46 pm - October 10, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.