See what gay activists did to London's Dolce and Gabbana store today

[GFR7]

It comes as no surprise that a conservative website would favor insulting children with homophobia directed at their parents. Maybe D&G can become the official uniform of bigots. They're welcome to it.

More likely, though, is that D&G is going to come up with some face-saving apology and the issue will eventually fade.

I think they view the children as pawns and victims. And yes, they've backpedaled somewhat.

 

[Rusha]

I think they view the children as pawns and victims.

I think they view the children as *their* pawns.

 

[Nick M]

Homos showing their perversion

Homo run over

 

[musterion]

It comes as no surprise that a conservative website would favor insulting children with homophobia directed at their parents. Maybe D&G can become the official uniform of bigots. They're welcome to it.

More likely, though, is that D&G is going to come up with some face-saving apology and the issue will eventually fade.

Whose sin is greater: D&G's or Dan Cathy's?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Meaning what? Tolerance is bad?

I didn't say tolerance is bad. What I am saying is this just furthers a point I made recently that those who consider themselves to be the shining beacons of tolerance are intolerant of anyone who dissents from their particular viewpoints.

 

[Nick M]

What I am saying is this just furthers a point I made recently that those who consider themselves to be the shining beacons of tolerance are intolerant of anyone who dissents from their particular viewpoints.

This is true.

 

[Rusha]

I didn't say tolerance is bad. What I am saying is this just furthers a point I made recently that those who consider themselves to be the shining beacons of tolerance are intolerant of anyone who dissents from their particular viewpoints.

“Tolerance only for those who agree with you is no tolerance at all.”
― Ray Davis

 

[GFR7]

“Tolerance only for those who agree with you is no tolerance at all.”
― Ray Davis

Agreed - and this is why the LGBTQ community have become intolerant bullies.

 

[Lon]

Some scholars on the First Things conservative website are thinking of buying Dolce & Gabbana suits now.

$7k :greedy::greedy::greedy:

 

[rexlunae]

I didn't say tolerance is bad. What I am saying is this just furthers a point I made recently that those who consider themselves to be the shining beacons of tolerance are intolerant of anyone who dissents from their particular viewpoints.

There is no useful comparison. D&G say something foolish and offensive...and people hold peaceful protests outside their stores. Not only is it perfectly tolerant, but it's also symmetrical, countering speech with more speech. Meanwhile, homophobes get upset if you suggest that maybe LGBT people should have the same legal rights as everyone else, and they try to pass laws permitting discrimination and sometimes violence, and they whine that they're being discriminated against.

 

[nikolai_42]

This is dreadful: Because they support tradition and natural law, they are attacked by the postmodern goon squad:

See also: Nature vs. Synthetics: What’s at Stake in the Dolce and Gabbana Controversy

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14663/

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...d-londons-dolce-and-gabbana-store-today190315

Both sides are twisted. D&G are verbally supporting natural law and traditional marriage but actively showing their disdain for it by practicing perversion. EJ and the like seem, at least, to recognize that they can't be consistent with nature without making nature fit their own desires. I'm not sure I would want to support either.

Maybe that seems harsh, but I get the sense that the media is playing games with the narrative. The goal is bigger than what is verbalized here....

 

[Lon]

Both sides are twisted. D&G are verbally supporting natural law and traditional marriage but actively showing their disdain for it by practicing perversion. EJ and the like seem, at least, to recognize that they can't be consistent with nature without making nature fit their own desires. I'm not sure I would want to support either.

Maybe that seems harsh, but I get the sense that the media is playing games with the narrative. The goal is bigger than what is verbalized here....

I'm not familiar with them. Kinda like Abercrombie & Fitch are they?

 

[nikolai_42]

I'm not familiar with them. Kinda like Abercrombie & Fitch are they?

I don't follow fashion, but that's my understanding from an article I read....

 

[GFR7]

$7k :greedy::greedy::greedy:

Hmmm, they had better be prepared to pay through the nose....and to look very Italian.... :think:

 

[shagster01]

I'm not familiar with them. Kinda like Abercrombie & Fitch are they?

D&G were in a gay relationship until a few years ago. They think gay relationships are great, just not parenting that way.


Which is even more funny that the Christians here are outraged that gays are protesting other gays.

Basically GFR7 is mad that this gay store is being protested against by gay people. Not sure why this upsets him, but it does.

 

[GFR7]

Both sides are twisted. D&G are verbally supporting natural law and traditional marriage but actively showing their disdain for it by practicing perversion. EJ and the like seem, at least, to recognize that they can't be consistent with nature without making nature fit their own desires. I'm not sure I would want to support either.

Maybe that seems harsh, but I get the sense that the media is playing games with the narrative. The goal is bigger than what is verbalized here....

I think I know what you mean. Astute observation....

 

[Caledvwlch]

No, it is meddling in someone else's free speech. "Go against us, and you lose"---arrogance, vanity, and worse than vanity......

By that rationale, any open disagreement with another is inherently "meddling in someone else's free speech."

 

[GFR7]

By that rationale, any open disagreement with another is inherently "meddling in someone else's free speech."

Open disagreement can be verbal: "I think you're wrong, and here's why." Doesn't have to be a big boycott with signs. Ugh :nono:

 

[Caledvwlch]

Open disagreement can be verbal: "I think you're wrong, and here's why." Doesn't have to be a big boycott with signs. Ugh :nono:

Why not? Should we all have to run things by GFR7 to see if it passes your acceptable free speech litmus test?

Also, what if the protesters were Christians boycotting a business that, I don't know, openly supported gay marriage, or abortion rights?

I feel like you would have no problem with this sort of thing if it was your team doing it.

 

[Quincy]

This is a great example of what I was talking about recently - the intolerance of the 'tolerant' against those who disagree with them.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to voice your intolerance of a particular stance on a social issue, then it's ridiculous to expect other people to not do the same towards your own. It seems like you're arguing that free speech should come with some sort of mandate where people have to accept your statement and like it, or at least respect it. No one is obligated to play nice.