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

[GFR7]

So did they loot the place? Break the windows? What are we upset about here?

That they feel they must stage a big boycott, instead of allowing others to opine freely.

 

[Caledvwlch]

That they feel they must stage a big boycott, instead of allowing others to opine freely.

Staging a big boycott is opining freely.

 

[musterion]

Nothing says natural like women penetrating one another with sticks and men expelling seed into each other's digestive terminus. Only haters, bigots and disgusting breeders disagree with this.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Nothing says natural like women penetrating one another with sticks

Would this be a permissible activity between a married man and woman?

and men expelling seed into each other's digestive terminus.

Same question here. Would it be okay for a married man and woman to engage in this activity, consensually? And if not, why not?

 

[kmoney]

That they feel they must stage a big boycott, instead of allowing others to opine freely.

If Christians boycotted a store that supported gay marriage would you have the same opinion?

 

[Rusha]

That they feel they must stage a big boycott, instead of allowing others to opine freely.

Staging a big boycott is opining freely.

If Christians boycotted a store that supported gay marriage would you have the same opinion?

:think:

 

[Caledvwlch]

:think:

Cal and K-Mo for the win.

 

[Rusha]

Cal and K-Mo for the win.

:chuckle: This thread serves as a perfect example of tolerance being a two way street.

Not feeling much sympathy for the store in question ...

 

[GFR7]

If Christians boycotted a store that supported gay marriage would you have the same opinion?

Yes, if they were always doing it, and being very arrogant about it (The gays said, Go against us, and you lose. This is 1.5 % of the population talking here.)

 

[GFR7]

Would this be a permissible activity between a married man and woman?



Same question here. Would it be okay for a married man and woman to engage in this activity, consensually? And if not, why not?

No, and No.

 

[GFR7]

Staging a big boycott is opining freely.

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

 

[Lon]

And you are fine with those who would intentionally demean *children* by referring to them as synthetic?

That'll teach their parents, won't it?

Unfortunate wording. It is certainly a synthetic version of 'family' specifically because it isn't possible without synthetic problem solving.

In some ways, it is unfortunate that D&G is getting bad press when their concern is for the family and against attacks on it by the media and culture. But sometimes bad press is just press. It may bolster their own sales. Families don't always have a bunch of designer money, but when they do, it might be spent that direction.

 

[musterion]

Would this be a permissible activity between a married man and woman?

Same question here. Would it be okay for a married man and woman to engage in this activity, consensually? And if not, why not?

Penis and vagina are complementary. (did you know that?) So what would be the point?

Specifically, I know of nothing in the N.T. that restricts or even mentions what husband and wife may or may not do. However, all forms and contexts of homosexuality are thoroughly condemned with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever.

 

[Rusha]

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

You need to think about that ... more. On one hand you demand free speech and then deny it from others?

 

[Rusha]

Unfortunate wording. It is certainly a synthetic version of 'family' specifically because it isn't possible without synthetic problem solving. .

Indeed ... their wording conveyed the *synthetic* label towards children. I would have an issue with any child being referred to in that manner.

 

[Lon]

Indeed ... their wording conveyed the *synthetic* label towards children. I would have an issue with any child being referred to in that manner.

Yeah, I'd 'think' the slam intended against the parents in this case, but they certainly used a poor choice of wording in conveyance. Not sure who the spokeman was for D&G.

 

[GFR7]

You need to think about that ... more. On one hand you demand free speech and then deny it from others?

No; I am denying the punitive boycott.

 

[GFR7]

Unfortunate wording. It is certainly a synthetic version of 'family' specifically because it isn't possible without synthetic problem solving.

In some ways, it is unfortunate that D&G is getting bad press when their concern is for the family and against attacks on it by the media and culture. But sometimes bad press is just press. It may bolster their own sales. Families don't always have a bunch of designer money, but when they do, it might be spent that direction.

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

 

[rexlunae]

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

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.

 

[Rusha]

No; I am denying the punitive boycott.

Free speech doesn't mean being free from criticism and responses. They wanted a reaction and they have received one.