Mondays & Thursdays

Looking For Group

Tuesdays & Fridays

Non-Playable Character


Tiny Dick Adventures

  • Zeeth

    Classic Richard. Bahahaha.

  • TruDivination

    You know Cale, if you really wanted to be a just kind person here, you would have been kind enough to not make fun of their name. Tsk-Tsk

  • Aidan Page

    “I think I require the servicces of a healer” naw ya think XD

  • Philip J. Uys

    i can see it now… “she was a good judge of character… it got her killed”

  • Guest

    Never Fails, I always think Little Dick is cute

    • Web

      He’s tricky that Little DIck.

  • Zatheyll

    Incoming “Why is this strip getting into politics” statements.

    I laughed, hard.

  • LaughingTarget

    The bill is pretty much a non-issue. Won’t pass, but if it did, you’d be hard pressed to find any gays in places that think it a good idea. There’s a reason why Jim Crow laws existed in the past – businesses refused to discriminate on the basis of race, so the laws forced them to (who, for example, would want the capital investment just to build two separate restroom facilities as required by state law?). What business owner in their right mind would turn down money?

    Makes for great discussion, but practically, nothing will come of it. Just reflects that certain individuals shouldn’t be in public office. Or reflects that the kinds of people attracted to being in public office are questionable at best considering how different the intellectual makeup is compared to the general public.

    • Josh Curzon

      well, also, it’s much harder to prove someone’s gay and thus refuse them service. If a black man walks in to a bar then the owner may very well look at him and be like “he’s black, I don’t wanna serve him”. But unless I’m flat out getting it on with a guy, you /probably/ can’t tell what my sexuality is. Although saying that, the folks who support this bill seem to be so obsessed/ anal about sexuality that they’d probably ask you on entrance what your sexuality is >.>

      Now I’m gonna go weep over that awful pun I just made x.x

    • DarHar

      Actually, Jim Crow was also heavily reinforced by boycotts from the
      local (prejudiced) populous. One example I heard: A white waitress was
      dating a black man. Word gets around town, and people start boycotting
      the restaurant she works at, until she is let go. Yes, she was let go.

      • LaughingTarget

        When was this? It was also illegal in those states to engage in interracial marriage, so the business was likely removing someone that could have brought down significant legal pressure on the premises. Bigotry in public is not so, to keep with the theme, black and white as it appears to be. Many times people and businesses are forced into engaging in questionable activities through some kind of legal entity calling the shots.

        Of course, it also doesn’t help that, to paraphrase the first MIB film, people are intelligent but masses are panicky and stupid. Existing laws can easily shape a population even though each individual separately may not like it. What Jim Crow possibly showed was a mass version of the Abilene Paradox. You would be hard pressed to find many people that supported the laws or discrimination, but with the large scale perception that others did, people would engage as bigots themselves just to avoid potential social outcast. Perception shapes action. The fact that the laws were overturned despite apparent large scale social support (if America was really as racist as the NAACP portrays it then Jim Crow would still be on the books) shows that, underneath, people really aren’t that bigoted. Additionally, it’s not been all that long since the Civil Rights Act and such individuals are already viewed upon as a parody. Whether this is just the Abilene Paradox working in the other direction or legitimate individual behavior is still a big question. What’s missing in Arizona is the perception of wide-scale bigotry and dislike of gays in society, which is what will ultimately lead the law to fail, whether it is passed or not. People don’t believe they need to be bigoted to continue group membership and since open acceptance isn’t necessary either, raw practicality will take over, which is “don’t turn away business”.

        It’s good to understand behavioral psychology. We’re daily manipulated by things, most of it unintentional. Understanding group mechanics gives us good insight on to why things happen and to come to grips that in many cases horrible things happen when 100% of the people are good, but just scared everyone else isn’t. Breaking this cycle is tough, but once it’s broken, starting it again is even harder.

    • Rob de Vries

      It’s a complete non-issue for most of the world (most of us are not homophobic). Disappointed to see this comic turn into US-centric politics. I want to see Richard being Richard!

  • Edward Morgan

    Sadly, I’m from a state that does things like that, and I’m pretty sure that “ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief” is worded that way specifically so they can justify discriminating against homosexuals.

    Though it could be an anti-abortion bill.

  • Evil Garden Gnome

    The governor of Arizona vetoed the bill. Thankfully this won’t come to pass.

    George Takei was leading the charge on a boycott of Arizona and, along with a lot of large companies, put pressure on AZ with their wallets.

    • Ashley

      It should not have come to that, it was morally wrong to even have that bill created.

      • Evil Garden Gnome

        I agree that the bill was vile, but you need to remember that, ostensibly, the people who presented the bill did so on their own moral grounds.

        • Ashley

          Its more that they felt uncomfortable with encountering these other people, despite their religion teaching love one another and treating people like people, even their deity treated “morally wrong” people better than what humans who currently proclaim to believe in this deity do.

          • Lars

            “even their deity treated “morally wrong” people better than what humans who currently proclaim to believe in this deity do.”

            Yes, death and eternal damnation on a massive scale are much better than “I don’t wanna bake you a cake”.

          • Ashley

            If you believe in such things yes, but the one part of the deity that spent time with humans didn’t treat people like they were dirt all the time.

    • wilder125

      Probably won’t stop that situation from happening periodically as it probably already has been in some restaurants.

      Which is probably the base point. It doesn’t matter that the bill was vetoed. There could be a waitress out there that still did the same thing Richard praised the evilness of.

      • Evil Garden Gnome

        At least those who are discriminated against have legal recourse if they so choose. This bill would have removed that.

  • wilder125

    Richard likes evil people, she proved she was evil. He’s being friendly by offering to put something on her tombstone.

  • John Belrose

    ~snirks at the comic and some of the comments~ Wow. Some of the comments are just as funny as the comic itself. I am honestly surprised there are still people with ethics in business…because I thought for sure the only thing businesses cared about was money.

    • Adamas

      I knew a Business Ethics teacher who said the first day of his class “These days Business Ethics is a paradox on par with Military Intelligence, But by heaven you’ll learn them anyway!”

  • Adamas

    the way it was worded allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone as long as it’s a “Sincerely held belief” so while a lot of them would use it as a anti-LGBT tool I could refuse to serve someone for pretty much any reason I could think of.

  • Kalle Last

    Religious freedoms end when they are used to abuse or discriminate other people. Especially in public institutions.

  • Andrew Smith

    I live in AZ, and I do have to admit the bill has its flaws. However, there are issues on both sides here. There have been business owners that have been targeted by gay rights activists with the sole intent to harm the business owners. If someone owns a christian bookstore, bakery, etc. they shouldn’t be forced to give up their constitutional right to stand by their beliefs either. That’s why it’s a constitutional right. The law should’ve been open to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. This would not have targeted any specific group, and allowed more freedom to small business owners.

    • Alexandra Needham

      The law already allows businesses to refuse service to anyone. All this law does is specify a religious belief that’s more protected than other religious beliefs – the religious beliefs of people who oppose marriage equality are held up above those of people who support it or want it.
      Anti-discrimination laws are important, otherwise there would still be businesses with ‘no blacks’ signs in the windows.

    • Gen

      But that’s the thing, you already do have that right. As a business you can remove any “undesirables” from property, all that bill did was target a specific group of people.

      • Lars

        “you already do have that right”

        No you don’t. Try refusing service to somebody because of their skin color, sex, gender, or age. See how that goes for you. Even if it’s in your religion to hate on grandma.

        Spoiler: things won’t end well for you.

        • Gen

          Tell that to the place I work then, if I dont like the way you smell I can have you removed from property. At the end of the day it is private property and if we don’t want you there… you won’t be there.

        • wilder125

          As he said it, you’re right. As can be done however… some companies have it down to an art about how they remove from the premises or ban someone with full witnesses, thereby removing any chance of a successful lawsuit. You don’t have to give the real reason why someone is being tossed, as long as the reason you do give can be backed up.

          Also. I know one restaurant that couldn’t find a way to block a party they disagreed with from arriving for their reserved section.

          So the owner told his employees not to come in, including the cook. Left a note on the door. Stuck a waiter who couldn’t possibly cook anything at the counter then left for the day to another city. The waiter got overtime for dealing with an irate party who wanted to know why the heck all the staff called in sick.

          It resulted in an inspection of the facilities due to someone in the group calling about the possibility of all the employees being sick from something in the restaurant, of course.

          edit: restaurant shut down a few years later simply due to the owner being bored. So I can tell the tale now.

    • Loyal BFE Fan

      From what I understand about the law in question, it was made to protect business owners from being targeted unfairly then sued or forced to do something that they didn’t want to do. As recent law suits have shown, the existing laws actually are not protecting the business owners’ right to refuse service to anyone they choose. This law was supposed to protect them. One example case is that there was a person that owned a flower shop and they had repeatedly made arrangements for a homosexual man to give his partner. When the man came in and asked that the florist provide arrangements for his wedding, the florist apologized and told him that they could not in good conscious provide the arrangements because a homosexual marriage was not in their belief system. Instead of going to another florist, the homosexual man sued the florist, his apparent friend, because he wanted arrangements from that shop. That seems pretty counter intuitive. I can understand what he wanted but he either significantly harms this business owner by dragging him through a trial or of the owner relents, the arrangements are likely not going to be as good because they are producing them against their will.

      As for the argument that compares the homosexual community to the black community… Honestly? Seriously? The two situations are very different. There never was a question of religion when segregation was rampant. It was “Separate but Equal” in whatever form “white” people that didn’t like “non white” people thought they could get away with. Those people thought that if your skin wasn’t light colored, you were inferior to them, something that many hundreds of years before was pretty much true culturally because Europeans were generally much lighter in skin tones than Africans. I’m not saying that in terms of being human that Africans were any less than Europeans, just not as advanced culturally. The central issue with giving “black” people equal rights was that people had a prejudice against the people that were descendants of uneducated slaves being equal to them. In the situation with homosexuals, more often than not it seems like they are putting themselves into an unfavorable position then crying when they don’t get their way. When segregation was the “law” the people it affected tended to protest it nonviolently but for the most part, they still followed the law. When they didn’t follow the law, it was passive and they participated in civil disobedience. African Americans didn’t walk into a designated “whites only” section of a restaurant and then when they were refused service turn around and sue the restaurant. They pretty much either left on their own or were removed by police and generally arrested.

      Anyway this is getting to be a long post so I’ll end it for now by saying that I support homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals and think every law has its good and bad points. The AZ law might not have been the right one to enact but at least it was addressing an issue that really should be considered and that there needs to be a clear decision on whose rights trump whose in some situations.

      • Aidan Page

        Are you guys trying to have a face off to see who can type more in one box? Just sayin’

      • Daniel E. Chapman II

        The lawsuit in the case you mentioned, florist suing shop owner, was specifically in Washington, not Arizona. There have been NO cases in Arizona.

        The reason that this is important is because the lawsuit was only possible because Washington state has a law on the books that made it ILLEGAL to refuse service to someone due to sexual orientation.

        Since Arizona lacks a similar law, that lawsuit is not possible in Arizona.

        There’s no sense in passing a law to protect yourself from the impossible. Should we pass a law to protect ALL of our rights to not be sued for laws that MAY get passed in the future? It would be impossible.

    • Zel

      But using religion as a cover for ignorant prejudice isn’t constitutional. Yes there is a part of the bible that calls homosexuality an abomination but there is also a part of the bible that states you should be killed for wearing two different fabrics together. And another that states incest is fine. And another that says you should kill your newly wed wife if shes not a virgin. And another that says selling your children, especially daughters, into slavery is A-ok. It seems ironic that they would simply pick out just the part about homosexuality rather than adopt the whole thing into their beliefs, mainly because its obviously not about religion. The simple fact is homosexuality is different to them, and people become uncomfortable and scared of things that are different, so rather than learning about it and trying to accept it, they look for an excuse to condemn it because that is more comfortable. And what better way to do that then using the oldest tool for persecution we know of ‘Religion’. If they are truly religious enough to mistreat another human being, simply because their religion says so, then they should be religious enough to follow ALL the rules their book tells them rather than just that one about gays. If history shows us anything, its that nothing good EVER comes from prejudice (African-americans and slavery, Jews and the holocaust, Muslims and the crusades). This battle against gays is just gonna be another disgusting, hateful page in our long history of ignorance, its just sad that we as a people couldn’t learn from hundreds of years of prejudice mistakes and skip by this one.

      • Millennial Dan

        “Battle against gays”. Now THAT is ignorant. You’ve completely distorted the issue.

    • Daniel E. Chapman II

      Tell me what store owners were SUED because they refused to bake a cake or perform any OTHER service by ANYONE regardless of circumstance. I have yet to hear an actual lawsuit being raised against someone for refusing service.

      Now, there’s a difference if you’ve already AGREED to perform a service, there you may enter into contract law. That’s a different matter, and this law would be unlikely to protect you from breaking a contract. If it did, there would be an instant way to defeat it. All I’d have to do is provide adequate documentation that my religion forbid charging of interest, as it was considered “usury and a sin.” Poof, entities larger than the state of Arizona would suddenly finance every district’s challenger in the next election… or at least some serious lobbying would happen to convince people otherwise. (and the religion I’d pick is Christianity, and I’m pretty sure I could find a lot of people to follow me in that regard.)

      BUT refusing to sign a contract is something you’re free to do. There’s no law mandating you sign a contract.

      Now, boycotts are different. You are not safe from boycott, with or without the horrible law. Boycotting a company is not about being sued, it’s about a group of people taking issue with something you’ve done, be it illegal, immoral, or unethical. (in your mind or not).

  • Adamas

    *Flashy thing* You will give Dick all the pie he wants.

  • Terry Potter

    So, as much as the Arizona bill was touted as an anti-gay bill, and everyone was outraged by it, I have a question. The governor of New Mexico was refused service by her hair stylist based on her beliefs. I have not seen anyone (other than some right-wing wing-nuts that are too tightly wound to actually represent conservatives) discuss this. How are people so upset about a bill that COULD have been used against the LGBT community, but no one comes to the defense of the governor.

    • wilder125

      Hair stylists are actually notorious for being allowed to choose not to have someone as a customer anymore. There are usually 3 or 4 of them in the shop or more. Not every tv stereotype is fiction. As long as somebody in the shop takes the governor on, the shop isn’t in trouble.

      • Terry Potter

        I’m not really arguing the legal aspect of this. I’m just really tired of 1 side going on and everyone just cow towing to it. I will admit that my views on this matter are not generally liked by my peer group, as a Christain I fully support marriage equality. But when someone stands up and publicly says they will not serve someone based on their beliefs, and because said person is holding to a religious belief, that is somehow bad. However, when we look at the opposite side, and this stylist (who actually is the shop owner, by the way) says he will not serve someone based on her beliefs, everyone seems generally ok because the other person is speaking about their religious beliefs. I understand that we as a country have a long way to go for everyone to be happy, but this double standard is not the way to do it.

        • Nom de plum

          Well it kind of depends on the beliefs doesn’t it? If I believed that we should work children like slaves from ages 6-12 would you be upset that someone wouldn’t let me in to Chucky Cheeses?

          • Terry Potter

            1st, it’s easy to take something to the point of lunacy to debate something fairly straight forward. Bringing up child labor laws and slavery into a discussion about a belief system that isn’t against the law is just dumb. 2nd, the stylist is specifically refusing to provide a service (which he has done 3 times before) based on her belief of what defines a “marriage”. This is being applauded by many for standing up for what he believes is right. On the contrary, the baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a couple because they were both men (also note that the baker told them he would make any kind of cake for them besides a wedding cake) was taken to court for discrimination and lost. If you can honestly argue that both of these results are just and fair, then we are rightly and truly screwed. What is fair for one MUST be fair for all. Period.

          • Herman Philips

            Well, there is a double standard. As it stands right now, at my business I can refuse to service a Christian because of their beliefs and go unnoticed or applauded. However, if I refuse most any other religion because of their beliefs or if I refuse a homosexual, I would get publicly denounced in the news at the least of it… with being sued a good possibility, jailed a bit of a chance and a thin chance of being lynch mobbed (depends on if the threats on me were legit or not, I’ll hope they were just idle threats).
            For all of this ‘free speech’ and ‘freedom’ we have these days, I’m not allowed to have an opinion unless it is against Christians and for homosexuality. What I am saying now I have been told that I’m ‘straddling the fence’ and to ‘get off my high horse’ and let homosexuals have their way.

          • Daniel E. Chapman II

            There’s no issue with refusing service because of the sexuality of a person, it makes you ignorant, but you’re permitted to do so in Arizona all that you wish.

            What was an issue is making it specifically LEGAL to refuse someone based on religion.

            One other issue that makes the law ridiculous is that it could have been challenged nearly instantly. All it would take is one person to use the law to protect an “unusual” religious belief and suddenly the state would have to admit, “That’s not what we meant.”

          • Dana W

            I love how these bakeries make anti christian cakes for straight people though. You can’t refuse to bake for black people, or jews either. These tea bagger crybabies need to grow up.

          • Terry Potter

            And thank you, once again, for missing the entire point. Instead, let’s only focus on one group being the “crybabies” as you put it. To be as sine with this as I can, this is exactly the problem we have. BOTH sides are full of “crybabies”. You want equality, great! Just make sure it goes both ways. You want to be treated fairly? I absolutely understand that, and agree with you! Just treat me the same way in return. It was this last point which was completely missing from your reply.

    • JZSquared

      As far as I see it, discrimination is discrimination. And oddly enough, discrimination doesn’t discriminate. Also fighting discrimination by being discriminating, is like fighting fire with fire. Or an eye for an eye if you like, in a future where everyone is blind. Is it the future already?

  • Blackdog

    I admit its disappointing to see a comic like this here. If I want political issues in my comic I would go read political cartoons so I won’t be reading this anymore.

    • wilder125

      So, go back to reading the normal lfg and leave the sidetrack comics alone?

    • Morgan

      It’s quite literally just fun with the character of Richard. It’s only political if you make it political by looking for absurd connections that no one else sees because they’re reading the funnies.

  • Ryan Rhodes

    Politics? please. The guys weren’t wearing shoes. No shoes no service.

  • Come on people

    So that comic made me laugh…….anyone else?…….hello?

    • Wyrmlaf

      It’s based on a mis-informed understanding of the law they were trying to pass in Arizona in the last few weeks. It didn’t pass.

  • Actstore

    It’s a comic…. it has Richard… The person will be dead next episode so stop arguing about gay rights and what-not.

  • Elizabeth Barton

    This is something Richard would notice?

    • Wyrmlaf

      My thoughts are that he probably would have killed them for being in line in front of him anyhow.

  • David

    Anyway, I wonder if ‘humble pie’ is on the menu…..

  • Loki

    so,we jump from the very moment of creation (ahem), right into more-or-less present day?0-0 will this even have a storyline,or will it be 3-panel jokes,like a LFG-garfield comic?

    • Mr. D

      I believe it was stated that this would be just a simple strip-style comic featuring Richard and was not directly related to the main story line in any way.

  • Morgan

    You are all making assumptions, they are not gay simply because they happen to be with each other at that moment. There is something called “friends.” Come on guys.


    HA-HA i’m from Arizona, and i defiantly would have noticed if Richard was here

    • Wyrmlaf

      I’m not sure I’d be defiant with Richard at all. Just sayin’

  • Wyrmlaf

    But the strip got it wrong. The law was not about refusing to serve someone at all but not be forced to serve at a function that violates their beliefs. I would say the issue is not eating in the restaurant but if the two men had asked the restaurant to cater their wedding. We’ve had a series of lawsuits where there business did not want to participate in an activity the business owners did not believe were morally right on religious grounds (i.e. gay weddings in almost all cases). These businesses had sold products/services to these individuals many times before in ways unconnected with that issue. Upon refusing to want to take part in said activity (gay weddings) they were sued by the gay couples. And in almost all cases they lost, paid fines and in some cases served jail time. How is that different than someone coming and saying “I’m having a human sacrifice and I want you to cater/provide flowers/cake/DJ/etc.” and then be sued for not wanting to have anything to do with it and having to pay a fine, legal fees and possibly jail time and still having to provide service/goods to said event? Ok, human sacrifice is an extreme and possibly absurd example but I wanted to pick something that most people in general (in Western culture) would abhore.

    I find it sad that the strip creators chose to go with the lgbt side of the arguement and not give it the fair shake it deserves. I would prefer that the strip hadn’t been done but it has and the comment section has been interesting to read and a lot of misinformation given and several attempts to explane what it was really about not what was protayed in the media.

    • Dana W

      What kind of mind turns baking a cake into human sacrifice? We went through this before. You don’t get to decide who sits at the lunch counters,

      • Crimson Rhallic

        The issue isn’t, “who can decide who sits at the lunch counter”. The proposed law does not allow business to refuse service at an individual level based on sexual preference. The intention was to protect the business from willfully refusing service for an event. Instead of human sacrifice, what about the Klu Klux Klan? The business may not refuse service to the individual, but the KKK has no right to force a business to serve at a KKK rally, based on the businesses moral principles. Performing a service for said individual is typically only seen as providing a service at the point of sale. Performing a service for an entire event can be construed as supporting said cause. In this case, a catering company who services a KKK rally may be seen as agreeing with the Klan’s point of view (guilty through association). Whether or not you believe in their principles, being forced to serve a group (or risk litigation) is a lose/lose situation for some businesses.
        Respect for other’s decisions is a two way street. This is no different than a LGBT food service business owner refusing to serve an event whose motto is: “We believe that abortions should be mandatory – all babies should be bred in test-tubes/Matrix style”, if said business owner feels that morally opposed to the cause and does not wish to be associated with its message. Its not about spreading bigotry, its about protecting the individual’s choices (the right to perform/refuse service based on personal moral obligation).
        I can see how this may provoke a sexism reaction from some, though the original intent of the proposed law did not have that in mind. The purpose was misinterpreted by citizens. The language is ambiguous at times as well.

  • Dana W

    A lot of us are non too happy with them either, but just now they don’t run the government. The Christians do. And for the 100,000 time Obama is NOT a “stealth Muslim”

  • Martin Burne

    Refusing service on petty grounds just means that business goes to someone who is willing to provide the same service, who can advertise that they don’t discriminate. In short, if you want to shoot your business in the foot with buckshot, please don’t ask for a bailout, because it’s your own fault you got into a financial pickle.

    That being said, you can have a conversation with the customer if you feel that their request is in bad taste. Mature human beings should be able to come to some sort of an agreement without starting a lawsuit.

    I didn’t even consider that the guys leaving in panel 1 were gay, I just figured that they were abusive toward the staff and were shown the door, which sets up panel 2. Then I saw the comments bit. Oh well.

    • Morgan

      They’re not. The comments just decided to be offended.

  • JKniager

    So while people are talking about this I would like to clear a few things up.

    1. Christians should not hate people who are homosexual. The Bible states that ACTS of homosexuality are a sin, NOT BEING homosexual. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    2. In defense of the cake maker he would bake for the couple regularly. He just didn’t want to cater their wedding. You wouldn’t force a Homosexual business owner to cater a Westboro Baptist Church protest would you?

    3. @jesseleonhenson:disqus The Bible says nothing about the rich being evil or that Christians should hate the rich. The quote you used was Jesus explaining that it is harder to focus on God when you are wealthy.

    • Ashley

      As far as #2 goes, it shouldn’t matter as long as you’re not dragging those issues into something as insignificant as making a cake. I know we all love our Richard here, but there’s no need to be a Richard about everything else in life. If a “satanist” wanted a cookies and I had a bakery, I wouldn’t know they were one unless they specifically made a stink about it, and so what? It’s cookies.

      Main point: Everything that is a difference between people doesn’t need to be a damn battle. Shame on the media for hyping this shit up.

      • Millennial Dan

        If a Satanist wanted cookies catered at one of their ritual sacrifices, you can be dang sure I’d refuse them service.

    • BiggyDingus

      @JKniager: Actually, according to the equal accommodations laws, the gay business owners are definitely compelled to not discriminate against Westboro Baptist Church members, or any other customers based on the fact that they don’t like their religion. Whether this also protects specific events associate with a religion, and not just the members, I’m not sure.

  • Daniel E. Chapman II

    Because we’re not seeing any gays killed by Muslims within a country where we have the power to enact laws.

    In fact, you can soundly see a lot of the same folks that criticize Arizona’s law will ALSO criticize countries which put gays to death.

    However, the presence of a greater wrong doesn’t make it incorrect to fight the lesser wrong.

    We have laws against shoplifting, even though we still have murders in this country. We don’t have to solve the “murder problem” before we can stop the theft of property.


    who said that i wouldn’t fight back? id use my super fists of punchiness, my head of buting, feets of ass kicking, and my knees of groin slapping

    • Wyrmlaf

      And then you’re a little pile of ash asking for the services of a healer. :-D

  • Morgan

    Guys and girls. Calm down. Two people who happen to be guys who happen to be together doesn’t make them gay. Theres something called friends out there. And not all friends have benefits outside of they’re nice and like hanging out with each other, but not to the extent of love. It’s an actual thing. Whoever started this argument chose to be offended. That’s a choice. Just calm down and enjoy the giggles.

    • Alaric

      Facts from the comic
      1. The sign clearly says “Arizona on it”
      2. How many guys do you know that walk with hand on a “friend”
      3. It is established service was refused.
      4. Arizona just made national news by passing a law (that was vetoed) allowing businesses to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation.

      If you don’t see this comic for what it is commentary on, I.E. that she would rather serve a undead mass murderer than a Gay couple you have your head buried so far in the sand you should be able to see either the great wall or baby stealing dingos depending on your geographical location.

      • Guest

        fdafda what did you say? And why did it get deleted?

      • MidnightDStroyer

        At least give some credit to the employees there…They probably know nothing about Richard & what he’s likely to do.
        …At least until the time he actually destroys the place & tells the undertaker about what to engrave on the waitress’ tombstone…

    • Morgan

      Fdafda what did you say? and why did it get deleted?

      • asdfadfs

        as a reply on this post…basically whats already been said since(if it wasn’t a reference the comic wouldn’t exist, its clearly got a big arazona sign ect.). which makes it odd.

        I’d post, things would say in little gray text they were in moderation and then a day or so later it was gone.

        my other post was a reply which I edited into the original

        and the third one was a joke about it being a canadian comic as a reply to chaincat. something along the lines of “just some judgy canadians justifying our alleged arrogance. internationally america is totes the shit or this comic wouldn’t exist” and when that went into moderation and stayed there I tried again with “ha, hypocritical canadian bastards, our hat can do political comics about random southern countries and yet when america makes fun of the country south of us its racist ;)”

        I’d think it was something about my account getting flaged by the automated system somehow but everything else i said got through no problem…including the things I deleted myself like the doublepost

  • Wyrmlaf

    I feel sorry for the kid to have been born to parent dumb enough to name him “Hitler”. I blame the parents in that one. BTW, I remember hearing about that but I don’t remember if his parents were neo-Nazi’s or white supremacists.

    • ryan

      The father is a Nazi, a wife beater, a racist, and described as half illiterate. Someone did manage to convince him that the Holocaust was real between that event and now at least and He changed some of the children’s names.

      Still, shouldn’t get the kids back.

  • ryan

    To be fair, the father of said kid is a wife beater, Nazi, racist, and on well fare. It might be because the baker doesn’t want that customer to return.

  • ryan

    I assume that would cause another crusade.

  • ryan

    She did technically save their lives.

    • Wyrmlaf

      That’s a very good point

      “That restaurant attacked me first! You all saw it!”

    • Speedy Marsh

      Temporarily. As soon as he finishes his pie and burns down the restaurant with everyone inside, Dick will track them down and make them pay for making him wait to place his order.
      If the pie is really good, he’ll leave the waitress a tip: “In your next life, take my order first.”

  • Michio

    It actually has nothing at all in common with that. You are comparing a racial segregation of the populace to being able to turn down a job because you are religiously opposed to what that job entails by association. If I run a catering business and I don’t want to cater at a reception for, lets say, a gay marriage, I shouldn’t get sued because I don’t want to be implicitly promoting the thing I find to be morally abhorrent. This works both in theory and in practice, unless you would like to force people to cater to events that support that which they religiously oppose so as to avoid getting sued for having a religious belief.

    Regarding your comment on signing a contract and then backing down, I just have one question: do you mean signing a contract knowing about the religiously opposed aspect and then backing down? Because that wouldn’t fly in court (accepting in the first place would waive right to back down, assuming no new information comes to light). On the other hand, do you mean agreeing to a catering job and then being informed about a religiously opposed factor that you didn’t know about? That is not bigoted, that is simply not wishing to be party to that which you find to be abhorrent and of which you were not fully informed by the other party at the time of the contract.

    • Alaric

      If your religious beliefs are so strong that it causes that amount of an issue, perhaps you should not be working in a service based business.

      Also you notice how you only ever hear about this in relation to homosexuals and never anything else? You never hear about adulterers being refused or someone begin refused because it’s their second marriage and they don’t believe in divorce….Theres more to this than religious beliefs.

      • Michio

        This is not a very great issue. It only means that I won’t provide services to events which support that which I do not. It’s very straightforward. Would you, if you owned a catering business, want to provide your services to a group that promoted killing all minorities in favor of white-supremity? What if you were a black man? Would you want to cater at a KKK event? No, you wouldn’t. All this does is ensure that people have those equal protections for their religious belief and aren’t forced to violate them because some people don’t like being told no.

        Ever notice how that is the main, if not only issue that people in the media talk about with regards to this? Ever notice how that is the issue being remarked on by this comic? If you want to discuss it in the context of a different issue, that’s fine, but the discussion will be the same in its essence. The only difference will be what specific example we use to discuss the topic.

        • Alaric

          Two words for you. False Equivalency. Everyone of your examples are people pushing beliefs that harm others. Beliefs that a person can abandon at any time. Gay people can’t stop being gay anymore than a person can change their ethnicity.

          I absolutely believe that these people are using religious beliefs as an excuse to practice hate against a select group of people. There are lots of things in their religion that they are not supposed to support, but it’s always the issue of homosexuality that they treat as the boogie man, but these are the same people that 50 years ago would have used their religion to support their hate of minorities as aforementioned KKK members…..

          Also I stand by my point, if your religious beliefs are so important do not work in a field where you may accidentally violate them.

          • Michio

            My examples were not a false equivalency. I merely took the argument you are making to its logical extreme. If I can’t say “no, I do not want to cater at that event because I disagree with the principles it promotes,” it would also follow that I could not refuse to attend an event because the people there happen to be bigots, a principle that I disagree with. Gay people are not those who would be denied service, rather, it would be denial of service to a gay event (such as a gay marriage ceremony). It is no remark on the person nor is it an attack on them, but rather, the activity they choose to engage in and one which they can abandon at any time.

            If you believe that, please present some kind of reasoning beyond “some people don’t follow all of a religion’s rules” as this is not an argument about the psychology of religious people (I take it you are not religious?) and is not something on which you are an expert. Just because people choose to do that which is wrong under their belief system does not invalidate their belief system, it merely indicates that they do not follow it perfectly. Homosexuality is the issue that keeps coming up and it is therefore the one that is addressed.

            I, in turn, stand by my point that I should not have to violate my beliefs because some people want me to do so. I shouldn’t have to take any and every job offer that comes into my shop, in fact, I do not. I shouldn’t be told “take this job or I will sue you for discrimination, you bigot” simply because I do not want to support that which I find to be reprehensible.

          • Alaric

            Yes they were. Advocating genocide =/= Being homosexual. Tell me, can you turn off being straight? Can you suddenly decide to be sexually aroused by members of the same sex? I guarantee you can’t. Don’t place that same expectation on others.

            “t is no remark on the person nor is it an attack on them, but rather, the activity they choose to engage in and one which they can abandon at any time.”

            I love how you say this then later say “I do not want to support that which I find to be reprehensible.” How is that not an attack on them?”

            “If you believe that, please present some kind of reasoning beyond “some people don’t follow all of a religion’s rules” as this is not an argument about the psychology of religious people”

            Actually it very much is an argument about the psychology of religious people as there is a historical basis of religion being used as a vehicle to justify hate of groups different from the adherent.

            “Just because people choose to do that which is wrong under their belief system does not invalidate their belief system, it merely indicates that they do not follow it perfectly.”

            Actually it does. If you make a claim that your beliefs are so strong that you cannot do something on religious grounds, but fail to take that stand on everything your religion condemns you are a hypocrite who is picking and choosing and using the religion as an excuse rather than owning and admitting to your own prejudices.

            “I, in turn, stand by my point that I should not have to violate my beliefs because some people want me to do so.”

            I in turn stand by my point that if your beliefs are so strong you should seek a vocation where you will not be placed in a position to break them.

          • Michio

            “Yes they were. Advocating genocide =/= Being homosexual. Tell me, can you turn off being straight? Can you suddenly decide to be sexually aroused by members of the same sex? I guarantee you can’t. Don’t place that same expectation on others.”

            I can’t turn off being straight no. Neither can a homosexual person. The issue is not them being homosexual, as I tried to explain above and as you have ignored. The issue is what is called homosexual marriage. If I were to go to a homosexual marriage ceremony, I would be implicitly supporting that ceremony by my business and because of that, I cannot go to it.

            Also, good point on false equivalencies. Tell me again how refusing to cater at a homosexual marriage ceremony means that I am the same person who “50 years ago would have used their religion to support their hate of minorities as aforementioned KKK members.”

            Did you just equate “no, I will not bake you a cake” with “you all should be burned and killed because you are inferior human beings who need to be destroyed”?

            “you say this then later say “I do not want to support that which I find to be reprehensible.” How is that not an attack on them?”

            I am not making even the slightest remark on the person, only upon the action that person chooses to take. Please do not try to make this debate about something it is not. It is not about homosexual people, it is about the actions that some homosexual people engage in and whether or not I should be forced to support them.

            “Actually it very much is an argument about the psychology of religious people as there is a historical basis of religion being used as a vehicle to justify hate of groups different from the adherent.”

            If you once tried to cheat on a test in grade school, would that mean that you were not allowed to make any ethical stance whatsoever on the basis of your ethical beliefs because you once violated them? Of course not! Why, then, should it apply to religious people who have made a mistake or chosen wrongly? Making a mistake or failing to make a stand does not invalidate a belief system any more than a police officer committing crime invalidates the laws that the police officer supports. It merely indicates that the individual made a mistake, not that the entire system that that individual supports is invalid. By your reasoning, nobody on earth would be able to take any kind of ethical stance on any given issue because they have, at some point, done something that would violate the belief system they adhere to (unless you claim that you have never done anything wrong). Moreover, why should waiving a right in one instance invalidate the use of that right in other instances? If I let a police officer search my car once, does that mean that I can never deny a police officer the same searching privilege under any circumstances? No! It just means that I chose to waive a right in a single instance and does not invalidate my right or my belief that I have a right.

            “you are a hypocrite who is picking and choosing and using the religion as an excuse rather than owning and admitting to your own prejudices.”

            How is it a prejudice to say “I believe that action X is wrong and therefore
            will not support action X?” All that it means to say that is that I feel
            that something is wrong and I therefore will not support it. It indicates no
            prejudice save in the sense that I judge an action to be wrong.

            “I in turn stand by my point that if your beliefs are so strong you should seek a vocation where you will not be placed in a position to break them.”

            So other people should get to choose for me whether or not I can follow my own belief system? They should get to say “No. You have to work for me because if you don’t I will sue you.”? They should not be able to. Choosing what actions to make and what not to make are a basic human right that I would be denied because people like you feel that my beliefs are less valid than yours.

          • Adam

            I think what Michio is trying to say is:
            “i believe that marrage is between a man and a woman and therefore i will not cater to your homosexual event but i will still serve you at my bakery because I have objections to you actualy being gay”.

            Take this situation another way:
            If you met a girl (or guy) and really liked them, you got to know each other and became good friends, then after a few years, the club they own, (that you love to visit) changes into a stripper bar, which you (in this example) are moraly against.
            would you stop speaking to the person altogether or just not go to that club anymore?

            Answer? youd not go to the club, but you would still talk to them outside of that environment. There is a difference between Hating a person for what they are and refusing to endorse what they are doing. Michio is the latter and this is NOT a crime, it is a basic human right.

          • JorTanos

            Tell me this: Why is a business owner allowed to refuse service to a Governor because of her beliefs/religion because he’s gay and she favors traditional marriage yet a business owner cannot refuse service to a person that supports gay marriage?

          • Alaric

            So you honestly dont understand the difference between refusing service to someone attempting to deny you equal protections and rights under the law and refusing service to someone based on not agreeing with who they have fallen in love with?

            Are you ok with us putting the “Whites only” signs back up? Religion is used by lots of groups to support racism along hate against homosexuals.

          • Michio

            So you honestly dont understand the difference between refusing service to someone attempting to deny you equal protections and rights under the law and refusing service to someone based on not agreeing with who they have fallen in love with?

            I never said that they were the same. I did, however, quote you when you said that anyone who doesn’t want to work at a gay marriage ceremony or similar event is the same kind of person as one who was in the KKK.

            Moreover, as I have said many, many, many times throughout this discussion and as you have chosen to ignore an equal number of times, my objection has nothing to do with what people do in their private lives. While I may feel that it is wrong, I won’t deny them my service because of that. I will, however, refuse to work AT an event which promotes that which I find sinful. Please stop ignoring this point. Until we properly understand each other on this issue, we will just be talking past each other.

            Are you ok with us
            putting the “Whites only” signs back up? Religion is used by lots of
            groups to support racism along hate against homosexuals.

            I am not, nor did I ever
            imply that I am. Please stop making strawman arguments. Don’t try to put words
            in my mouth and then object to them. It does a disservice to both of us.

          • Alaric

            Michio please look at who replys are to. You quoted a reply to JorTanos like I said it to you.

            As for the KKK reference if you don’t understand the historical similarities between the KKK’s use of the christian bible to legitimize the hate against and segregation of minorities and your using it as a justification to deny service to homosexuals there is no point in us continuing this discussion.

            “my objection has nothing to do with what people
            do in their private lives. While I may feel that it is wrong, I won’t deny them
            my service because of that. I will, however, refuse to work AT an event which
            promotes that which I find sinful.”

            Thats still refusing service and it completely is because of something in their private lives, the fact that they are gay and you disagree with that lifestyle. You can chant “hate the sin, not the sinner” till you are blue in the face, but ultimately you are treating them differently because of the behavior you view as a sin.

            “I am not, nor did I ever
imply that I am. Please
            stop making strawman arguments. Don’t try to put words
in my mouth and then
            object to them. It does a disservice to both of us.”

            Once again we are back to please pay attention to the reply to who at the top of the post, let me quote for you

            “Alaric JorTanos”

            It is at the top of each post. Also I suggest you go and look up the definition of straw man argument because you don’t seem to understand it or the unintended consequences of the position you support. It seems that to you as long as your religion condemns it, it is fine to refuse service to anyone. I have pointed out many times that lot’s of vile beliefs especially racism have been justified by religion. If we go with the way you want things Racists will be just as justified in bringing out the “Whites Only” signs as you are in refusing service to homosexuals. Even though I didn’t pose the question to you I will here.

            Are you ok with people putting up the “Whites Only” signs? If you wish to cling to your position that religious beliefs justify refusing service then simply state “Yes”. If the answer is “No” please tell me why the religious beliefs of Racists are any less valid than the beliefs of those who wish to disenfranchise homosexuals.

          • Ian Mason

            There are not that many jobs now where he couldn’t be placed in a position to break them. In our society now people look for any reason to go after religion too. People that are gay are not the only people prosecuted. religion takes so many slams for so many things now but people find that as acceptable because no one in the media says its not okay to slam religion. I am a nondenominational Christian and i think that people that are gay are sinning and that it is wrong. i also have several really good friends that are gay because they are still people and its not my place to judge them (says so straight from the bible) and i have watched some actually go from being gay to being straight. so i can defiantly say they do have a choice. people who say they don’t are just looking for an excuse to do something that other people see as wrong.

          • Alaric

            “There are not that many jobs now where he couldn’t be placed in a position to break them.”

            Doesn’t that speak more to problems with his belief system than the job market? If your religion is so strict on your and the actions of others then the problem is with that belief system.

            “In our society now people look for any reason to
            go after religion too.”

            *Eye roll* Here comes the fake religious persecution card.

            “People that are gay are not the only people prosecuted. religion takes so many slams for so many things now but people find that as acceptable because no one in the media says its not okay to slam religion.”

            1. You obviously have never watched the manufactures outrage on Fox News over every perceived slight at the christian faith and the yearly screams of “The war on christmas” Hate to break this to you but the religious bring slams down on their selves because they constantly go after others that do not practice their faith. speaking of which…..

            “I am a nondenominational Christian and i think that people that are gay are sinning and that it is wrong.”

            So it’s ok for you to condemn an entire segment of the population, but it isn’t ok for others to call you out on it? Hypocrite much?

            “i also have several really good friends that are gay because they are still people and its not my place to judge them (says so straight from the bible)”

            Just like all the racists that announce “I have a black friend”? Also not one breath earlier you announced “people that are gay are sinning and that it is wrong” Thats judging, plain and simple, you can try to hide behind “hate the sin, not the sinner” but you are judging their actions.

            ” i have watched some actually go from being gay to being straight. so i can defiantly say they do have a choice. people who say they don’t are just looking for an excuse to do something that other people see as wrong.”

            Anecdotal BS. If you actually had conversations with actual gay people you would know that growing up they had always been attracted to members of the same sex, if you story is true I wouldn’t doubt that the people you mention gave into pressures of the religious and those that demonize the homosexual community and got Beards (the practice of carrying on a fake heterosexual relationship). Also how do you see what they do as wrong if you aren’t judging them?

            At the end of the day all the problems the religious complain about are self manufactured. It all comes from attempting to force your beliefs on others instead of letting them choose how to live their lives. No one is forcing the religious to get gay marriages, but the religious are certainly doing every thing they can to stop it, condemn it, and yes JUDGE the people involved. If the religious would stop attempting to turn this country into a theocracy and focused on applying their self imposed religious rules to themselves only the world would be a better place.

    • MidnightDStroyer

      Also, one of the required inclusions in any legal contract enforcement is that all parties involved must have full disclosure. This is only one of many specific requirements for a legal contracts & all of those requirements must be fulfilled. New information that was not included in the contract can be used to nullify the contract. You can find that in the Uniform Commercial Code.

  • Wyrmlaf

    And where does it say that rich people are evil or bad? the Bible teaches that the “love of money” is the problem not having it. The teaching is that having money make it harder to focus on God/Jesus as someone else pointed out elsewhere in the comments.

  • Alaric

    The child wasn’t refused a cake. His Neo Nazi father who saddled the child with the name of one of Histories greatest monsters was refused service because the store did not want to be associated with someone that actively promotes genocide and violence against others. That in no way equivalent to being homosexual. He was also offered any cake he wanted, he just refused to put the aforementioned name on it. Please take your false equivalency elsewhere.

  • Wyrmlaf

    What if there was never a contract signed? That’s what this law was about.

  • Wyrmlaf

    I seem to have had some comments deleted from Saturday morning. When LFG chose to do this strip did they not think it would touch off a firestorm in the comments section? Particularly when the strip does a scewd [sp?] presentation of what the legislature was trying to do.

    • fdafda

      some of mine are missing too, (but i notice they left the doublepost intact) not a one of them said dick that was offensive or crossing any sort of line

    • Piret Rhapsodos

      It’s called the “Obligatory Forced Hot Button Subject” comic. Personally, I really don’t care. I just sit back and watch the Parrots, the Sheep, the Parroting Sheep, and the Goats go at it. Quite hysterical when the masses allow themselves to be distracted from Shit No One Should Care About.

  • Alaric

    I really cannot tell if you are trolling or just stupid.

    He is not a nationalist socialist, he is a NAZI with a capital N. His son did not have just the first name Adolf he had Adolf Hitler. Your entire argument fails.

  • ryan

    That is a law that varies between states.

  • Richard Harold Millison

    Fun story about that woman that spilled hot coffee on herself: She suffered third degree burns from that coffee that had the lid improperly put on. The burns were so bad it fused her labia together (that’s the lips of her nether region for those who don’t know) and she only sued for medical expenses, no more. My friend the insurance actuary told me that. He also told me about how McDonalds used the greatest PR team ever to spin it to make her look greedy so they could pay less and it worked. So maybe you should read that story before you judge her. (see how that got turned around on you?)

  • Donald R Stiffler II

    Our state is still ass backwards, passed or not the fact the bill was even written shows you how retarded our lawmakers are here in this desert hellhole.

  • Rarazal

    Just a random non-american comment passing through…

  • Polychronis Iliakis

    Same thing here. Replies to Alaric keep getting deleted. It seems to me that freedom of speech is a much less important thing in the moderators mind than blind support to marriage equality.

    Good job. This comic stopped being funny the moment they decided to touch politics anyway.

  • BiggyDingus

    As a lawyer, I love the McDonald’s case because of how horribly wrong “the public” gets it. I use briana as a specific example, but she’s far from alone. First, she clearly has no understanding of how tort law works and makes numerous incorrect assumptions (for example, pretty much assuming that every state should be a full-out contributory negligence state). Second, she doesn’t bother to learn the specific facts of the case. Third, she fails to think critically about information that was spoon-fed her from a powerful and biased PR machine, as Richard Millison points out. Finally, she remains convinced that anyone who disagrees with her must be a moron.

    It’s really quite humbling. Now, whenever I make some “common sense” assumption about a field that I’m not well trained in, I always wonder whether there’s going to be a doctor overhearing me and shaking his head at me like I’m the village idiot.

    Here are some other facts Briana either left out, either through a deliberate effort to mislead us, or through sheer intellectual laziness. McDonald’s made it company policy to keep and dispense coffee at temperatures much higher than people can safely drink it at. This practice reduced their costs. I have no idea why, given Newton’s law of cooling (at this point I’m sure some physicist is looking at me like I’m an idiot.) McDonald’s corporate received thousands of reports of burns from its franchises, many as severe as the woman’s, along with requests to deviate from corporate policy and keep coffee at safer temperatures. These requests were denied, and the reports were sealed.

    You say that “people need to read the law before anyone judges,” yet you throw around the McDonald’s case as shorthand for “courts are stupid” clearly never having read one shred of the record of that case. Your sheer hypocrisy is staggering.

  • BiggyDingus

    Next, time to debunk the assertion that “government has no right to make laws regarding religion” from someone who didn’t do their homework.

    The government must pass no laws respecting religion. The founders of this nation were worried about two things. First, they were afraid that the government might endorse certain religions as “the official religion,” or worse, deem certain religions as bad for the state and sanction persecution. It happened in England with the Anglican Church, it happened in Rome with the pagan religion, and all over Europe with the Catholic Church, and they didn’t want it happening here. Second, it didn’t want our judiciary to get caught up adjudicating issues of religious doctrine. In other words, if a Church was suddenly split up between people who thought icons were idol worship, and people who thought icons were acceptable, the United States government had no business making a ruling either way.

    THAT is the extent to which the government is restricted from interfering with religion. What many ignorant people (and unfortunately some ignorant elected officials) wrongfully assume is that “separation of Church and State” means “I can do whatever the hell even if it’s against the law if my religion says it’s okay.” That has no Constitutional basis, and if it has a basis in any valid ethical philosophy, I’ve yet to see it.

    What it doesn’t mean is that laws of general applicability should make exceptions for people with certain religious beliefs. If anything, this is the antithesis of what the founders intended, because it puts the government in the horrible position of having to judge what is a legitimate religion. Here’s an example: Many mainstream religions don’t believe in birth control, and so they don’t want to be required to provide birth control in their health plans, and we’re fiercely debating it now. However, numerous minority religions also have restrictive beliefs regarding medical care. Some don’t believe in any sort of surgery or cutting of the body, while others shun modern medicine altogether. However, is anyone standing in their corner demanding they be exempt from ObamaCare? No, because we’ve already implicitly judged their religions as less mainstream and less valid, and therefore undeserving of Briana’s “Church and State” exemption. In fact, there have been numerous cases where the courts have compelled a Christian Scientist, for example, to violate their faith and allow their child to be treated despite the religious objection. I have yet to find a case where a Roman Catholic was ordered by the judiciary to violate his faith by wearing a condom.

    To get a driver’s license, we have to show our face in the picture. More conservative Muslims believe that for a woman to show her face uncovered is against religious rules of modesty. We don’t make exceptions for them, or for that matter the people of the Papua New Guinea religion that believe photography steals your soul. Equal accommodations laws don’t make exceptions for people with a sincere religious conviction that Jews are servants of the anti-Christ and thus shouldn’t be allowed into their country clubs. Statutory rape laws don’t make an exception for the cults that seem to believe “when there’s grass on the field, you’ve probably been waiting too long.”

  • Alucai Vivorvel

    “America” isn’t.

    MURRICA is. :P

    • Speedy Marsh

      Yeah, there’s the United States of Murrica, the Not Quite States of Canada and Mexico, and all the bomb ranges with hard to pronounce names. At least that’s what we’re led to believe by Murrican news channels.
      Oh, we have heard of Great Britain, but it mostly exists on Netflix and BBC Murrica.
      (Apologies to everyone on the planet, except the Murrican news channels)

  • fearsome

    If you really have pride in being gay, why would you want to eat somewhere where you’re not wanted? Pridefully support businesses that support you back? Why anyone would do otherwise is truely beyond me. Only political and legal equality can be reached through legislature. Social equality is a function of how people think, and you can’t and shouldn’t attempt to control how people think with force. Let them serve who they want. They can lose out on the money.

    • DatOneGuy760

      Wait a minute, so your saying anyone not welcome somewhere should just stay away? If everyone thought like you, we would still have black and white schools and restaurants. You sir are one of the narrow minded individuals that will be laughed at in the future for idiocy.

      • fearsome

        Actually, i’m pointing out the absurdity of asserting how, “proud,” one is while patroning an establishment that despises your existence. Support businesses that support you and let the chips fall where they may. This war is already won. There’s no-longer a need to be militant by forcing yourself into the last little vestiges and corners of the earth you’re despised. It would be like a black trying to start a legal battle for not being allowed to join the KKK or a neo-nazi group in 2014. Completely and utterly pointless.

        Furthermore, is it really wrong to believe people should have the right to interact with whoever the hell they want without necessarily agreeing with the majority of cases in which that right would be used? It’s like saying i support the right of Americans to burn the flag, but I would turn my head away in disgust of anyone who actually did. Social justice =/= legal justice. You can force legal equality but attempting to force other people to like you via the law is silly, and wrong.

        • Andreas Geisler

          A business is not “people”. A business can and should be punished for imposing bullshit on people. And fines will do nicely to correct business behavior, either because they value their profits, or because they eventually run out of money.

          Who cares what bigots think?
          They will die out with the ignorance that spawned them.

          • fearsome

            Actually, a business is nothing but, “People.” Flawed, fallible, corruptible people organized into a voluntary collective. That’s all they are. Literally nothing more. You don’t suddenly get to control those people’s thoughts or actions any more than normal just because they’ve organized themselves into a group.

            Sorry, but by saying you get to control how others think you’re being a bigot BY DEFINITION. That is LITERALLY the definition of bigotry: Intolerance to other viewpoints, mindsets, and opinions. No-matter how absurd those opinions may be, you need to let others come to the right conclusion on their own. Use logic and reason, not the barrel of a gun.

            That being said, you don’t have to put up with it either. Businesses that pull this shit will only be supported by a very small niche group, will slowly die out, and will become a non-issue…. Again. Just like the KKK.

          • Andreas Geisler

            Look up “bigot”.
            Oh, and look up “literally”, too.
            I get where you’re coming from, the dreamland of selfgovernment.
            It’s a nice place, and I go there myself from time to time, but it’s not the present reality.

          • fearsome

            Literal: adjective

            1.taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

            Bigotry: noun

            1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

            ~The more you know -=☆

          • Andreas Geisler

            What you refer to with “bigotry” is more commonly referred to with “disagreement”. INTOLERANCE OF VIEWPOINTS is DISAGREEMENT.

            Bigotry is intolerance of PEOPLE

            -Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion,ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

            So, apparently, your use of “literally” was metaphorical, at best.

            It is perfectly OK to be intolerant of a viewpoint. And an insult is not an ad hominem, while we’re at it.

        • MidnightDStroyer

          “Furthermore, is it really wrong to believe people should have the right
          to interact with whoever the hell they want without necessarily
          agreeing with the majority of cases in which that right would be used?”
          Yep, that’s already covered as the Right to Freedom of Association. Supreme Court ruled that as part of the Right to Peacefully Assemble in the 1st Amendment. If somebody doesn’t want to patronize any particular business, they have the Right to not go there.

          On the other side of the same coin, it IS against the Law to Obstruct Normal Business Operations too. In such a case where “demonstrators” are preventing others from patronizing a business, the Law is to apply the Ban Hammer on those who are trying to “ban” the business.

          • fearsome

            The whole point of a, “Right,” is to protect the minority FROM the majority mob rule. That’s how a democratic republic works. It’s usually not a Majority that has things imposed on it.

            Direct democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

      • fearsome

        As far as i’m concerned the sooner we start to look at people as individuals rather than as groups the better. Rights are not for races, genders, classes, or sexual orientations, they should be innate and the same for all individuals completely regardless of those, frankly, irreverent characteristics.

        That being said, the defense of a racist sexist bigot of a restaurant owner should be the same exact argument for the right to homosexuals to marry legally under the law. It’s simply allowing people to live their lives how they see fit without trying to force your moral values on them, and allowing them to interact only with those whom they wish. Anything less is a double standard.

  • MidnightDStroyer

    This is probably a side-glance reference to how gay people tried to “ban” Chik-Fil-A business. It was in the news, whether or not you actually saw/read about it. as far as I’m concerned, it’s not the “business” that imposes those restrictions, it’s the people who OWN the business. In & of itself, a business is not capable of making any kind of impositions. A business is PROPERTY owned by people & the people are just exercising their Right to Freedom of Association on whom they wish to do business with.

    Try joining an exclusive social club or other organization where you don’t meet THEIR standards…You can bet that they’ll enforce THEIR Right to Association.

  • MidnightDStroyer

    You also have to realize that a lot of legislation is stupid & ambiguous in the way it’s written too…Legislators come from the general populace, ya’ know.

  • Piret Rhapsodos

    Yay! Forced Hot Button Subject!

  • Piret Rhapsodos

    That’s Soviet Canuckistan for you. ;)

  • Nathan

    Notice the scorched circle around the ashes?

  • Andreas Geisler

    Psst. Learn to differentiate between people and ideas.
    It is not bigotry to outlaw bigotry, because bigotry is an idea.
    Not people.

    Sheesh, you’d think that would be an easy distinction, but apparently it’s just beyond your comprehension.

    Have a good life, and remember to keep breathing. You’ll die if you stop.