First a Pizzeria, then a Baker, now a Jeweller except ...

[Lockout Casualty]

Ok

Now. Tell me honestly here

IF a straight couple were to go to the media because the nice shop owners had a gay an LGBT rainbow flag in their window supporting same sex marriage saying they thing it is wrong as it goes against their beliefs and what they deem to be acceptable and was seeking a refund

You don't think that would be an issue? You'd be ok with that?

This is a VERY serious question so please avoid the use of the word bigot or the like. This is at the heart of equality

So please do let us know what you think. Would a straight couple be ok in demanding a refund and going to the media as well? Would they receive the same treatment?

Absolutely they can ask for a refund and go to the media. There's no laws against it. Don't expect them to be very successful, but they certainly can and I would never say they shouldn't be able to. Were it Alabama, though, and your hypothetical would probably go over about as well as this story is in Canada.

It seems like you're interpreting this story as much worse than it actually is. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. Nobody is prohibited from doing anything. The gay couple aren't demanding anything (they requested a refund, they're waiting a month until the maker returns, they aren't consulting lawyers [not that they'd have a case]).

So no, this story isn't about equality. It's not about homosexuality. It's about a couple that wants a refund and may or may not get one, and a store owner who is facing public backlash for his public display of his beliefs.

[Warhippy]

Absolutely they can ask for a refund and go to the media. There's no laws against it. Don't expect them to be very successful, but they certainly can and I would never say they shouldn't be able to. Were it Alabama, though, and your hypothetical would probably go over about as well as this story is in Canada.

It seems like you're interpreting this story as much worse than it actually is. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. Nobody is prohibited from doing anything. The gay couple aren't demanding anything (they requested a refund, they're waiting a month until the maker returns, they aren't consulting lawyers [not that they'd have a case]).

So no, this story isn't about equality. It's not about homosexuality. It's about a couple that wants a refund and may or may not get one, and a store owner who is facing public backlash for his public display of his beliefs.

You're taking ti way out of context.

The end result is the couple in question are demanding equality. They are unhappy about the beliefs of the shop owner and as such do to THEIR beliefs they want a refund.

BUT!

They are not respecting his beliefs or equality as it stands. They can ask for and demand a refund all they want.

But you cannot demand equality for your beliefs or orientation yet ignore someone else's It doesn't work like that. Obviously you're passionate about this which is fine but you cannot demand rights while trampling others. It's not how equality works and is at the heart of the PC issue plaguing our society today.

Look no further than the modern day femin-nazi. Rights for me, none for you. Check that straight white privelege at the door.

[Lockout Casualty]

You're taking ti way out of context.

The end result is the couple in question are demanding equality. They are unhappy about the beliefs of the shop owner and as such do to THEIR beliefs they want a refund.

BUT!

They are not respecting his beliefs or equality as it stands. They can ask for and demand a refund all they want.

But you cannot demand equality for your beliefs or orientation yet ignore someone else's It doesn't work like that. Obviously you're passionate about this which is fine but you cannot demand rights while trampling others. It's not how equality works and is at the heart of the PC issue plaguing our society today.

Look no further than the modern day femin-nazi. Rights for me, none for you. Check that straight white privelege at the door.

So tell me, what's the context?

How is the couple demanding "equality"? By requesting a refund? By going to the media to publicize the shop owner's public anti-gay marriage stance? Neither of these things have any relation to equality.

You're way out in the left field here. Sure, they're not respecting his beliefs, but they're certainly respecting his right to publicize them (they even helped him). Do you think all beliefs deserve respect? I don't. Are they pushing for him to remove the sign? No, they're not.

What rights of the owner are being violated, or "trampled" as you put it?

This is not a PC issue. You're trying to make it such, but the facts don't support your stance.

The shop owner is allowed to display his opinion, and the couple are allowed to request a refund, and the shop owner is allowed to decline this request. So again, what inequality?

[6YPE]

Pretty sad that in this day and age a person is not allowed to have a their own opinion, and people are shoving theirs down someone else's throat. If you dont go along with what the masses and the media say is the standard, you're considered a bad person.

We have all lost our right to have our own views and opinions on just about everything because of "political correctness" ...an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have, or to have had, a disadvantage. .... And it doesnt matter if you are offended or upset....

Get in line sheeple, you are all being programed to do and act exactly what Big Brother wants you to.

[Warhippy]

So tell me, what's the context?

How is the couple demanding "equality"? By requesting a refund? By going to the media to publicize the shop owner's public anti-gay marriage stance? Neither of these things have any relation to equality.

You're way out in the left field here. Sure, they're not respecting his beliefs, but they're certainly respecting his right to publicize them (they even helped him). Do you think all beliefs deserve respect? I don't. Are they pushing for him to remove the sign? No, they're not.

What rights of the owner are being violated, or "trampled" as you put it?

This is not a PC issue. You're trying to make it such, but the facts don't support your stance.

The shop owner is allowed to display his opinion, and the couple are allowed to request a refund, and the shop owner is allowed to decline this request. So again, what inequality?

Ok.

Ask yourself. What purpose does it serve for them going public instead of just asking him for a refund? Honestly. This is a matter that could have EASILY been handled on a personal basis. Going public does nothing more than blows this out of proportion.

They went public because he displayed a sign, his beliefs caused them to go public. This has caused him hardship. He was not hurting anyone, harming anyone nor was he going out of his way to deny them service. But instead of simply dealing with this on a personal level they went public because HE had a belief or HE had a specific view on marriage.

He states himself the backlash has been furious. In a day and age where digital marketing is massive, he cannot because of the reprisals.

So again. He displayed a sign, they took offense and took it public. While he may or may not still display the sign he stated very clearly what the effects have been. A couple that goes from admitting the shopkeep was nice and pleasent and went out of his way to ensure quality service to now taking his beliefs public is in fact very inequitable. Especially after the fact.

Do you deny that taking this public was overkill? do you deny he might suffer some hardship because of this, a decline in business and the inability to market digitally via social media?

Again. If we flip the tables and a straight couple was doing this, the backlash would be horrendous. That is in fact inequitable no matter how you try to avoid or deny or deflect the issue.

Which you in fact have. While they have the right to take their business elsewhere, he also has the right to display a sign free of the attacks he says have happened due to this couple going public instead of dealing with it like mature adults.

Not all bigotry is blatantly displayed with signs and protests.

[kyledude]

These girls need to cool it with the righteous indignation.

What purpose does going to the media serve, other than annoying the crap out of everybody? Get a life!

[etsen3]

I was on the same-sex couples' side on the bakery issue, but I'm on the jeweler's side on this one. By that I mean in the sense that they should be allowed to post a sign stating their beliefs, as long as it doesn't incite harm to same sex couples (as per hate speech laws). I still think they are bigots, and if the couple wants to ask for a refund that's fine, but the jewellers are within their rights to refuse the refund.

In fact posting a sign makes it easier for those of us who disagree with them to avoid the store.

[Lockout Casualty]

Ok.

Ask yourself. What purpose does it serve for them going public instead of just asking him for a refund? Honestly. This is a matter that could have EASILY been handled on a personal basis. Going public does nothing more than blows this out of proportion.

They went public because he displayed a sign, his beliefs caused them to go public. This has caused him hardship. He was not hurting anyone, harming anyone nor was he going out of his way to deny them service. But instead of simply dealing with this on a personal level they went public because HE had a belief or HE had a specific view on marriage.

He states himself the backlash has been furious. In a day and age where digital marketing is massive, he cannot because of the reprisals.

So again. He displayed a sign, they took offense and took it public. While he may or may not still display the sign he stated very clearly what the effects have been. A couple that goes from admitting the shopkeep was nice and pleasent and went out of his way to ensure quality service to now taking his beliefs public is in fact very inequitable. Especially after the fact.

Do you deny that taking this public was overkill? do you deny he might suffer some hardship because of this, a decline in business and the inability to market digitally via social media?

Again. If we flip the tables and a straight couple was doing this, the backlash would be horrendous. That is in fact inequitable no matter how you try to avoid or deny or deflect the issue.

Which you in fact have. While they have the right to take their business elsewhere, he also has the right to display a sign free of the attacks he says have happened due to this couple going public instead of dealing with it like mature adults.

Not all bigotry is blatantly displayed with signs and protests.

Telling that the word "equality" is nowhere to be found in this post. And you say I deflect?

I don't disagree that going to the media blew this out of proportion. I said in my first post that there's no story here. Blame CBC for picking this up and running with it if you want.

However, what's causing him hardship isn't them going to the media, it's his publicizing his stance in the first place. Would you feel different if it wasn't the same gay couple that bought the rings, but another gay couple passing by that brought attention to this shop's anti-gay marriage stance? Are people not allowed to have their own opinions and react accordingly to a shop that displays anti-gay marriage signs?

I don't know how many ways I can state it and you can ignore it: nobody is being prevented from doing anything in this story. Nobody.

Are you saying the couple shouldn't have been able to go to the media? Do they not have the right to? Are you saying the media shouldn't have picked up the story? The media picks up what gets views, do they not have the right to? Are you saying the public shouldn't have an opinion on the shop after seeing the story and the shop's public stance? Nobody forced the owner to disclose his beliefs publicly. What do you think shouldn't be allowed that is, or should be allowed that isn't, in this story?

So again, like I said, the owner of the shop is an idiot who doesn't grasp one of the fundamental aspects of running a successful business. He can, but shouldn't display controversial opinion if he doesn't want to draw negative attention.

Do I think it's overkill? Not really. If you publicize your opinion, you shouldn't be upset if your opinion gets national attention. And if you tie that opinion to your business, you shouldn't be surprised if your business suffers as a result. In other words, no I'm not denying he suffered hardship because of "this", if by "this" you mean him making his opinion public on a sign in the window.

Again, if we flip tables, I wouldn't have any more of an issue with this than I do now. However, the freedom afforded to the media and the public lead me to think that story wouldn't get picked up. You don't think a story about a bigot shop owner should have the same reaction as a story about an all-accepting shop owner, do you? If anything, a shop with a rainbow flag may get a boost in business. Do you think it's inequality that opposing sides of a controversial issue have opposing reactions? That's just dumb.

This is where you're wrong. The shop owner has the right to display the sign, but he can't do it in a vacuum where it won't be seen or heart by anyone who may have their own opinion or belief on it. People will see the sign and make up their mind. Whether they see the sign in person or on CBC is irrelevant. The couple has the right to draw attention to a public business that publicizes its owner's beliefs. You're blaming the gay couple for the public's reaction to the shop owner's publicizing his beliefs. All the couple did was draw more public attention to something that's already public. Where's the issue here? Ah, it's that the owner didn't expect a negative reaction and now his business suffers.

This is a lesson in business, not equality.

[RUPERTKBD]

I saw this story this morning and wondered if the debate would be re-opened or not.

IMO, this one is different than the bakers. In this case, the Jeweler had no problem serving a gay customer, even though gay marriage is against his personal beliefs. He is well within his rights to advertise those beliefs to the public if he wishes to. Any subsequent loss of business as a result, would be his problem.

I certainly don't believe that he was obligated to confide those beliefs to his clientele, even though they may have shopped somewhere else, had they known. He is not obligated to disclose his religious beliefs, but he can make them known when and if he chooses. That is part of the same charter of rights and freedoms that states he may not discriminate against the couple because of their sexuality.

Retroactively asking for a refund, because you disagree with someone's views is not your right. For all you know, the guy who sold you your car could be a closet LA Kings fan....

[Lockout Casualty]

I saw this story this morning and wondered if the debate would be re-opened or not.

IMO, this one is different than the bakers. In this case, the Jeweler had no problem serving a gay customer, even though gay marriage is against his personal beliefs. He is well within his rights to advertise those beliefs to the public if he wishes to. Any subsequent loss of business as a result, would be his problem.

I certainly don't believe that he was obligated to confide those beliefs to his clientele, even though they may have shopped somewhere else, had they known. He is not obligated to disclose his religious beliefs, but he can make them known when and if he chooses. That is part of the same charter of rights and freedoms that states he may not discriminate against the couple because of their sexuality.

Retroactively asking for a refund, because you disagree with someone's views is not your right. For all you know, the guy who sold you your car could be a closet LA Kings fan....

In Canada, there is no right to refund. Period.

[RUPERTKBD]

In Canada, there is no right to refund. Period.

Tell me about it.

A few years ago my wife bought a "new" vehicle from the Ford dealership in Kamloops. It didn't even make it to PG, but when we tried to have the sale nullified, we were told "too bad so sad".

Rest assured that everyone we know has been told about how Ford backs up their product and we now drive a Toyota.

[Heretic]

Wait, stating that gay marriage attacks the sanctity of marriage isn't an anti-gay marriage sign? It's a pro opposite sex marriage sign? You sure?

There's plenty "backwards" about it, not least of all taking one's beliefs from an ancient desert text.

Yes, let's equate accepting gay marriage with accepting bigotry. That'll get us real far.

What's a LGBT sign? Isn't that attacking heterosexuals?

My father's an atheist and and isn't "pro" same sex marriage.

I guess not believing in some "ancient desert text" is a "bad" thing in your books as well eh?

So I'm not allowed to say I'm heterosexual anymore? Specially if I'm a Christian heterosexual? Right?

What about gay Christians? (like my daughter) - she must be really messed up according to your hypocritical thinking.

[Heretic]

The owner is free to make any display of his bigotry he wishes. The public is free to make up their mind about shopping at his establishment and avoid it.

Where's the inequality in this arrangement? You don't think the public should be able to make up its mind about his establishment and avoid it?

This is precisely the consequence of presenting your opinion to the public. Any half-assed business person should know never to mix personal views with business. This guy is not just a bigot, but an idiot.

IYHO.

Why is he a bigot?

Sounds more like you're on a witch hunt - no?

Oh, and now you call him an idiot.

Gee, that's like a personal attack.

What's a bigot:

"a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

Gee....kind of sounds like someone you see in the mirror every day.

How ironic.

[Lockout Casualty]

What's a LGBT sign? Isn't that attacking heterosexuals?

My father's an atheist and and isn't "pro" same sex marriage.

I guess not believing in some "ancient desert text" is a "bad" thing in your books as well eh?

So I'm not allowed to say I'm heterosexual anymore? Specially if I'm a Christian heterosexual? Right?

What about gay Christians? (like my daughter) - she must be really messed up according to your hypocritical thinking.

What? Did you forget your medicine?

IYHO.

Why is he a bigot?

Sounds more like you're on a witch hunt - no?

Oh, and now you call him an idiot.

Gee, that's like a personal attack.

What's a bigot:

"a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

Gee....kind of sounds like someone you see in the mirror every day.

How ironic.

You goddamn right he's an idiot, and that has nothing to do with his gay marriage stance. He's an idiot for mixing his personal beliefs with his business. He's also a bitch for complaining about the reaction to his message. I have no love for degenerates like the shop's owner.

Yes, I'm a bigot toward bigots. Great we got that straightened out. Hey Jazz, you're not the only one with such a dumbass opinion!

[Warhippy]

Think I'll bow out here.

Bottom line. While we can agree that it's sad people still cannot just accept that love doesn't recognize a specific gender.

That taking away or wrecking the livelihood of someone who has peacefully stated and demonstrated their own beliefs is indeed equally as wrong.

You have the right to believe what you want free of persecution as much as others do the right to love who they want openly

[thejazz97]

Yes, I'm a bigot toward bigots. Great we got that straightened out. Hey Jazz, you're not the only one with such a dumbass opinion!

Oh, you realized you have one too?

[Lockout Casualty]

Think I'll bow out here.

Bottom line. While we can agree that it's sad people still cannot just accept that love doesn't recognize a specific gender.

That taking away or wrecking the livelihood of someone who has peacefully stated and demonstrated their own beliefs is indeed equally as wrong.

You have the right to believe what you want free of persecution as much as others do the right to love who they want openly

Good idea. You weren't building a convincing, or even a coherent argument.

I can agree with your bottom line, but not the rest of the post.

The wrecking of the livelihood is due to the owner publicizing his beliefs, and not due to the couple aiding him in spreading his message by calling CBC. How do you not grasp this? If he didn't put up that stupid sign, none of this would have happened.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Are people still going on about same sex marriage? It's here to stay. Move on,? Perhaps to the next ho-hum issue to moan about. I nominate abortion. Pfft. So many archaic issues.

[Warhippy]

Good idea. You weren't building a convincing, or even a coherent argument.

I can agree with your bottom line, but not the rest of the post.

The wrecking of the livelihood is due to the owner publicizing his beliefs, and not due to the couple aiding him in spreading his message by calling CBC. How do you not grasp this? If he didn't put up that stupid sign, none of this would have happened.

Whatever man, you're refusing to accept or see ANY other side of this issue. Apparently the shop keep is an evil intolerant bigot and deserves everything coming to him.

So be it.

Again, not ever Bigot waves a sign, posts something in their window, protests, goes to the media over small and trivial things or writes hate speech.

Sometimes they just frequent internet forums.

[Lockout Casualty]

Whatever man, you're refusing to accept or see ANY other side of this issue. Apparently the shop keep is an evil intolerant bigot and deserves everything coming to him.

So be it.

Again, not ever Bigot waves a sign, posts something in their window, protests, goes to the media over small and trivial things or writes hate speech.

Sometimes they just frequent internet forums.

Don't blame your failure to make a cogent argument on me. And it's amusing how I'm refusing to see any other side, yet I don't recall you saying "good point" to any of the many points I made (and you ignored, repeatedly).