Posted on 04/01/2015 2:36:25 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
A pizza parlour that said it will use Indiana's heavily-criticized new religious freedom law to deny services to same-sex couples provoked a massive backlash across the Internet on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Indiana's Republican governor Mike Pence responded Tuesday to national outrage over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by saying he'll "fix" the bill to ensure businesses cannot use the law to deny services to the LGBTQ community.
But, not before Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, chimed in.
"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," owner Crystal O'Connor told ABC 57 News on Tuesday.
"We are a Christian establishment," she said of the family business. "We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."
The O'Connors didn't stop there.
"That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual," said Kevin O'Connor, Crystal's father.
The reaction on the web was quick and almost universally negative.
Before their story made the news Tuesday night, the O'Connors' restaurant had two reviews on Yelp. By Wednesday afternoon, it had 1,400 and counting – almost 35 pages worth.
"Pizza is universal and you have disgraced its glorious name with your bigotry," one of them read.
"I'm ANGRY and will never order pizza from these people again because they're simply not discriminatory enough! I mean, just 'gays'? What about anyone who works on Sundays?" joked another.
The hits just kept coming.
But, others supported the owners for standing up for their rights and their religious views. About three pages of the more than 30 pages of reviews supported the stance.
Not to mention the obvious question, do a lot of people serve pizza at their wedding?
The response on Google reviews was much the same.
Someone also registered memoriespizza.com, which the owner's of the establishment had not done yet, and filled it with some graphic, and phallic, visual criticism.
The restaurant's Facebook page has been hit with a similar barrage of graphic imagery and angry comments.
The Internet backlash comes after many companies and entertainers vowed to boycott Indiana as a result of the new legislation. Now it seems businesses that attempt to make use of the law in Indiana may face boycotts of their own
dang I wish they were local so I could buy all my pizza there from now on
...”This is just simply the internet-age equivalent of mob rule. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Rush said today that the people using social media like Twitter to trash Indiana are not from there and are an organized group trained to do this kind of thing with only a few people. Of course, the media is pleased to help initiate Mob rule, just like in Ferguson, MO.
Someone also registered memoriespizza.com, which the owner’s of the establishment had not done yet,
Why on Earth did they let that happen? Wouldn’t that be the first thing a new business or even an old business would do buy the domain of their name? Yieks. The internet address is a mess now. Repulsive internet users messed up the domain badly.
Can we just get on with it? The inevitable I mean.
I saw something yesterday that was certainly thought provoking. What if two gay guys had a bakery and two Christians came in and asked for a cake to be made to celebrate their faith. And on the cake they wanted the verse Leviticus 20:13......’If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them’. Would the gays have ‘standing’ to deny the request?
“Did not read the story, but as a father working with his daughter to plan her wedding, I never would have considered a pizza shop as caterer”
Agree on the Pizza, but they may well do a full Italian menu for catering. Some on a budget or maybe for a Wedding rehearsal Dinner may partake.
RE: Mike Pence responded Tuesday to national outrage over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by saying he’ll “fix” the bill to ensure businesses cannot use the law to deny services to the LGBTQ community.
So, what does this “fix” entail?
Will this “fix” FORCE Christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists to service gay weddings now?
If so, why have the RFRA in the first place/
They would never be held to the same standards
Against brownshirts. Not against armies.
Don’t we have laws against bullying?
RE: There are 21 states that have a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enacted by their legislature:
I notice New Mexico is on the list.
Pretty useless RFRA there as a Christian photographer was taken to court for refusing to shoot a gay wedding.
SEE HERE:
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5537
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Elane Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. In 2006, Elaine received an e-mail from a woman about photographing a “commitment ceremony” between her and her same-sex partner and asking if Elaine would be “open to helping us celebrate our day….” Elaine politely declined to use her artistic expression to communicate a message at odds with her beliefs. The woman who approached Elaine, Vanessa Willock, easily found another photographer for her ceremony—and for less money. Nevertheless, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one-day administrative trial in 2008, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock.
The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system, and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the ruling. In a concurrence accompanying the court’s opinion, one of the justices wrote that the Huguenins “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”
Actually, the only good place to eat in my home town is a pizza place. They do great Italian food and they have a banquet hall I have used for office events.
You have a good point.
What a lot of folks do not realize is that the law was in place to protect folks like priests from marrying gays.
Most states have laws that require that service be provided without regard to discrimination stuff.
Fiction is no Stranger than reality.
RE: What a lot of folks do not realize is that the law was in place to protect folks like priests from marrying gays.
So, only priests are protected but not devout Catholics ( for instance )?
Pretty bizarre intent if you ask me.
Yes, I heard that, and noted it well. Rush also said somewhat cryptically that he had researched this phenomenon well, and that he knew what he was talking about. I had to turn the radio off and go back to work at that time, but I assume he had had his crack research staff check into the dynamics behind the "Stop Rush" agitators on Twitter (or was it Facebook?).
It's very interesting. It's a direct result of the "Wild West" aspect of the Internet. In the old-time west, a mob could do a lot of damage - including murder, even multiple murders - and no law could offer protection. In fact, the law might be on the side of the mob, which is what is happening in this case.
I’ve seen a lot of negative responses to this law, and I read some of the yelp “reviews” for this restaurant. I’m really ashamed to say that I live in the same country as such people.
no, no,no...
But the anti-discrimination laws would apply if you owned a diner for example. You have to server who ever comes through the door.
You cannot say, I will not serve you at the counter because you are gay.
Whereas, a priest cannot be forced to perform a wedding just because it is legal.
Does that make more sense?
RE: You cannot say, I will not serve you at the counter because you are gay. Whereas, a priest cannot be forced to perform a wedding just because it is legal.
_________________________
Well, THAT should be the intent for BOTH Priest and devout lay Catholic.
Let’s say a priest opens a school near his parish, I don’t think the RFRA will allow him to deny a gay kid enrollment just because he’s gay.
Similarly, if a gay priest is protected from officiating in a gay wedding, the law SHOULD protect the devout Catholic from participating and servicing the gay wedding.
As I see it, RFRA is or should be used to differentiate between WHO A PERSON IS and HIS BEHAVIOR, or WHAT HE DOES.
RFRA SHOULD protect religious people who object to what a person DOES, not who a person IS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
