No Pizza for gays

This is a guy I watch talking about a current event topic. His views are his own. What I find interesting about what he says is exactly that… what he says.

Every Jedi is going to have their own belief system. That’s awesome! But this is a guy that would tell you he does not agree with Jediism and what (parts at least) he says sounds very much like it was at least influenced by Jedi.

All that said, I will tell you now that I happen to like his channel and quite often agree with him. I do not agree with his interpretation of God, but his ideals tend to fall in line with mine very often. So I may be a bit bias.


Any opinions on what he is talking about?

He covers several topics or several subjects that could be topics of discussion within themselves, but I am curious as to what each of you got from this talk.

I like how he defines tolerance/intolerance at first and finishes up with saying everyone is always yelling its my right . .

I have the concern for future generations as well if we do not address the intolerance in relation to rights issue.

i enjoyed it and agree with much of what he says

my hope for the future is that people realize that being offended is a choice

no one is insulting anyone really - its in our heads

legal rights are different from social expectations

it defeats freedom to attempt to regulate based on what offends us regardless of what side we may be offended by on any given issue

i have my opinions on what is apporopriate and what is not

i accept the fact that no one else is required to respect my opinions or expectations and i feel no need to change them to meet anyone elses expectations

i do my best to be respectful of peoples feelings (i admit i fall short of this often) but general belifes and opinions are actually not the be all end all of who a person is and we can all see things very differently and still value each other and promote each other as human beings if we choose to

again, being offended is generally a choice

thanks for sharing this video

what I got from this video were the ideas of tolerance, respect and acceptance. All of which were claimed by people but only given if they actually agreed with your view or belief.
respect them enougth to allow them to be who they are even if you disagree with them. That is something that the world in general seems to struggle with, it very often seems to be that if your not in line with the generally held beliefs of your peers then you seem almost not worthy of respect.
I liked the bible story, it seemed to be a case of being an example of tolerance and love through actions and that influenced the tax collector.
No one is always going to agree with your point of view, but that doesn't make them wrong or against you, tolerance works both ways, if you show in your actions that okay I respect your opinion, its more likely they will be open minded than closed of in defense, which happens when there belief system is attacked. People identify strongly with there beliefs, spiritual or otherwise and mistakenly assume an attack on those beliefs are an attack on them
For all that is said by any group if there actions don't match there words, aren't lived then the words are just being used as weapons or for show and are meaningless

I posted something similar once, long ago, but it was a question I think relevant to this:

How many of us could attend a KKK barbeque with out blowing our top and condemning everyone around us? How many would take it for what it is: a barbeque among friends?

The point being, I may not agree with their views, but nobody was being lynched and everyone there just wanted to have a good time. I would be the interloper in that scenario if I started lecturing(something that is rarely effective any way) in the middle of their get together?

I'll be honest, Wes. While I appreciated his heartfelt commentary and agreed with some of what he talked about in the video (thank you for sharing it, by the way), my thoughts diverged from his pretty significantly.

I had a hard time getting beyond his initial assumptions about the "left" (pro-gay) and "right" (anti-gay). Issues involving gay people, marriage equality, cakes, pizza, etc., are no longer easily divided into left and right. There are plenty of people on the more conservative end of the spectrum who would feel comfortable serving or assisting gay people in business situations, despite their religious beliefs.

His comments on "indoctrination" in public schools and the possibility that gay businesses might turn away Christians (which would be incredibly unlikely), as well as his thoughts on what constitutes "unfair" treatment, were all frustrating to me. It was a tough video for me to watch, but I did my best to view it with an open mind. I now have a better understanding of where certain people are coming from... I just happen to see things quite differently.

Hi Arcade, a pleasure to meet you here.

Like you, I was uncomfortable watching this video. I simply did not agree with a lot of specifics.

Admittedly, I had one thought in mind while listening to him . . "where is he coming from", which is not always the expressions that are pointed to, points made or examples utilized.

It seems he attempted, to use a real-time scenario to talk about "looking" at more than one side and if we do not do that, how can we teach children that. This is an assumption on my part, perhaps that is why Wes likes him . . regardless of the specifics.

Wescli Wardest wrote: This is a guy I watch talking about a current event topic. His views are his own. What I find interesting about what he says is exactly that… what he says.

There are definitely points I agree with here. The problem I see, however, is that he essentially defines being gay as a "belief system" (or at least compares it to other belief systems). That's not the case. Being gay is a natural predisposition and one of many facets of human nature. So the core question should be: should we accept belief systems that deny core elements of human nature or is there a limit to acceptance if such a limit serves the greater good?

Little gray words speak to me... they say...missing plug in

The Jedi in me says by the comment I've read... anything can be a belief. anything. When one says " I'm right your wrong, let me show u why..." that's when most people insert personal mistrust and personal vendetta s. if he believes as such allow them and keep them safe... ours is to defend the weak and helpless... even those who seem to know what's going on but don't. lol

I got as far as 'the thing I despise the most is....', when a nicely timed 'thanks' to one the replies refreshed the page and reset the playback. <facepalm> LOL!! I didn't pick it back up though.

I'm not sure why someones beliefs about sin would get in the way of providing a business service - unless they think its contagious, or a disease or something.... but then of course Jesus fed the 'sick' so it cannot be that. I dont know what they are thinking. Perhaps they are trying to make a social statement, well then they get to suffer or benefit from the resulting social reaction I guess.

But whatever, if they are getting a reward from doing what is basically discrimination, then it risks flaming broader increases in bigotry for financial gain... and I think that is a valid area to legislate to entrench human rights more firmly if they do not already exist. If shop's need some sort of license to sell food, then it should be a condition to not discriminate on sex, race, gender, age etc, without prior permission. So if the authorities have given them the 'right' to provide a business service to the area, then they should replace their beliefs with their legal obligations whilst in the workplace on things like this IMO.

I might be off the mark though, if anyone can run a food business with not license etc in the US then I guess its buyer beware or something. It just reeks of not meeting the most basic humanity test, the UDHR, but we could I guess throw different parts around and see how it might apply in different ways eg;

29.2 In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Here I'd say the shop exercises their religious rights and freedoms against the rights and freedoms of others, but if the law is weak, society will be weak.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

As a few others have already said, I agree that the video made me feel uncomfortable. As I am in a same sex relationship with a view to getting married, it was at points slightly difficult to listen to.

Now, I am not a Christian, although I was brought up as one. However, a statement of his towards the end,"If you're on the left, or a homosexual, or just opposite the Christian", kind of gives the impression that Christians can't be gay (I'd say that isn't necessarily true, although he may beg to differ) and that Christians can't be politically left-wing. I was raised in a very accepting family, and a left-wing one at that, so does that mean my religion wasn't "proper" Christianity?

I'll try not to get too off-subject, because I do agree with his view to be try and be kind to all, regardless of their views. I don't really think it's my place to judge people. I do, however, sometimes find it hard to be called a mortal sinner on account of whom I love. Thankfully I can generally just let it slide.

I don't expect to be accepted by everyone any time soon, so I guess his view of seeing everyone as sinners and treating everyone relatively equally based on that would be sound advice. I don't think he quite grasped the idea of homosexuality being a sexual preference rather than an ideology that would prevent me from serving Christians customers, but I think he did make a few points that, if taken on board by more people, there would be less squabbling about the issue.

Guy said (paraphrased 5:30) "Christ interjected himself into a place that was contrary to his teaching", no, Christ interjecting himself was the teaching

He says $800,000 was donated to this couple after they were forced to shut down, which is a nice gesture of course except when compared to the 3000 sponsors which stopped donating to children in poverty after the charity declared that they would hire married gay and lesbian couples.

He also compares the state school system to pedophiles :dry: "grooming" their children into believing that being gay is acceptable.

Ditto on the homosexuality is a belief stuff...

He just seems to be promoting the idea that people should just try to get on with each other which one can't really fault.

Thanks Adder for the UDHR.

Ref: UDHR articles
The articles are an excellent ideal in specifically quantifying what rights all humans shall have. ("shall have" is the language used in UDHR).

Were I to quantify for myself a list . .(which I have thought about doing) . It would look like these articles up to Article 28 (I am not including 29 and 30; because, they are written to different ends).

Ref: UDHR preamble
The first line of preamble: "Whereas the recognition of the inherent dignity and of equal inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

The first of the second paragraph: "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts. . . . "

The first is an implied two way street is: mine and yours.

The seconds states an act that works against foundation of freedom, justice and peace as "barbarous."

An act of intolerance need not be barbarous to impact large populace.

Were I to make a preamble for myself I might say "acts of intolerance against fellow humans as a means of defending one's own . . . . to be cont'd)

Thoughts/opinions about the video:
When I listened to the OP video the first time, the only thing I was certain of for myself was the "definition of tolerance" used, as well as, concern for how (not what) to teach the next generation to be open-minded.

It was clear that the speaker's ideals (tolerance versus rights, in relation to children had merit), yet I did experience intolerance/ discomfort as previously stated. In present day examination I am wondering if is he delivering the facts about a situation? or is he responding to propaganda media unbeknowns to him?

I believe a store closed based on a revision of state law. There is a lot of media about the storeowner . . . I can't find media about "a/the couple" because there isn't any?

Ref: http://time.com/3816667/indiana-religious-freedom-law-pizza-shop/ (dated 4/9/15)

Mareeka wrote: There is a lot of media about the storeowner . . . I can't find media about "a/the couple" because there isn't any?

My mistake, I must have been thinking about anohter story.

Wescli Wardest wrote: This is a guy I watch talking about a current event topic. His views are his own. What I find interesting about what he says is exactly that… what he says.

Every Jedi is going to have their own belief system. That’s awesome! But this is a guy that would tell you he does not agree with Jediism and what (parts at least) he says sounds very much like it was at least influenced by Jedi.

All that said, I will tell you now that I happen to like his channel and quite often agree with him. I do not agree with his interpretation of God, but his ideals tend to fall in line with mine very often. So I may be a bit bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wZgcZ6NuM

Any opinions on what he is talking about?

He covers several topics or several subjects that could be topics of discussion within themselves, but I am curious as to what each of you got from this talk.

I think the quick concept of tolerance could be a great topic with a few members here.

for myself this is the first time i have seen someone who presents themselves as being firmly in the christian rightwing camp who clearly unambiguously states that tolerance means respecting other peoples right to live and to belive differently, even if you dont like how they live or what they belive

ive been waiting to hear a christian say that for almost twenty years and to me this represents the turning point in the debate

once that basic definition of tolerance is accepted, both sides will haveto respect it as the standard

and also i want to mention that it is ten times more important for people claiming equality and tolerance to actually feel a sense of tolerance towards those we disagree with than it is for us to force others to tolerate us

otherwise youre not really after freedom but rather just pushing to be the new emperor yourself

Mareeka wrote: There is a lot of media about the storeowner . . . I can't find media about "a/the couple" because there isn't any?

thanks for the frame Akkarin . . .i was not clear whether I meant media articles or the existence of "a couple" I meant the latter.

The speaker says the family owned pizza parlor ......"is not willing to cater a wedding for a gay couple" and why; then, he goes into the left's and right's response to it. That is fact. No problem.

I felt discomforts; with specifics. . . but I wasn't sure exactly how and why.

I researched the topic in the media. Yes, there were other facts. Getting more facts on "the topic" was helpful for me to tie the whole video together. What I quoted the speaker saying can be understood more than one way.

All the facts or a few facts . . . I still support what I believe is the effort and intention of the speaker on True Tolerance or Real Tolerance which is, I feel, at the heart and center of what TotJo Jedi believe. I have yet to research the relative laws.

My discovery was to identify my internal intolerance which "was" triggered simply by what "seemed" and is somewhat ambiguous in one of the speaker's opening quotes (see above). . . . yet matters not anymore . . . . yet was a springboard for me.

Adder wrote: I got as far as 'the thing I despise the most is....', when a nicely timed 'thanks' to one the replies refreshed the page and reset the playback. <facepalm> LOL!! I didn't pick it back up though.

I'm not sure why someones beliefs about sin would get in the way of providing a business service - unless they think its contagious, or a disease or something.... but then of course Jesus fed the 'sick' so it cannot be that. I dont know what they are thinking. Perhaps they are trying to make a social statement, well then they get to suffer or benefit from the resulting social reaction I guess.

But whatever, if they are getting a reward from doing what is basically discrimination, then it risks flaming broader increases in bigotry for financial gain... and I think that is a valid area to legislate to entrench human rights more firmly if they do not already exist. If shop's need some sort of license to sell food, then it should be a condition to not discriminate on sex, race, gender, age etc, without prior permission. So if the authorities have given them the 'right' to provide a business service to the area, then they should replace their beliefs with their legal obligations whilst in the workplace on things like this IMO.

I might be off the mark though, if anyone can run a food business with not license etc in the US then I guess its buyer beware or something. It just reeks of not meeting the most basic humanity test, the UDHR, but we could I guess throw different parts around and see how it might apply in different ways eg;

29.2 In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Here I'd say the shop exercises their religious rights and freedoms against the rights and freedoms of others, but if the law is weak, society will be weak.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

from the perspective of the "traditional" christian
the idea of catering a same sex wedding would be similar to the idea of say pumping gas into someones getaway car after they have robbed a bank

im not arguing that it is the same
i am explaining the perception

the perception is that they believe the action is wrong in and of itself and therefore to contribute to it in any way would be wrong on their part

i dont say that they are correct in the idea of what is wrong orright
thats a personal issue
but i support evereyones right to say "i dont agree with this and im not going to participate with it"

thats a very important right for everyone to have

Some of the problem seems to stem from the idea that being Gay is a belief or a choice. If being Gay is a belief or a choice then from the Christian perspective they see their own beliefs being restricted to cater for the Gay people's "beliefs". Why am I not allowed to behave how I believe, but you're letting them behave how they believe?

Of course the two positions are not comparable in this way which leads perhaps to a lot of misunderstanding, not that despite this misunderstanding people should be allowed to publicly discriminate against others, but it might shed some light on why they feel justified in doing so.