Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical Prin

[Vic]

So you support the right of businesses to refuse service to same-sex weddings?

My issue there is that I can't imagine why any business would want to turn away paying customers for a non - business reason.
Maybe you can try explaining that to me?

 

[Retro Rob]

My issue there is that I can't imagine why any business would want to turn away paying customers for a non - business reason.
Maybe you can try explaining that to me?

Simply put, you said they should be able to do business with anyone for any reason.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[nehalem256]

My issue there is that I can't imagine why any business would want to turn away paying customers for a non - business reason.
Maybe you can try explaining that to me?

Having principles?:awe:

 

[mrjminer]

Having principles?:awe:

Businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Capitalism should be the decider, not the government.

 

[alzan]

I don't think so, as the sales were falling well before this game came out. Sure, they game could sale more, but that wouldn't help overall sales.

I think the point I wanted to make about this issue is that gays seemingly are moving from company to company, examining its content, and forcing the inclusion of anything gay or condemning what they perceive as a slight to gays.

If I have a right to make a game the way I want, why am I being pressured to include gays? It's either I have the right, or I don't...I shouldn't be pressured.

I used to think that it was ridiculous to think that someday they'd move from religion to religion, reading their material, and condemning the absence of gay marriage and/or gay members. But I also used to think that our rights were also protected to the point to where I don't have to worry about some gay advocacy group examining my material and demanding boycotts because I don't agree with homosexuals marrying.

Do we really have the right to our own views? I don't think so anymore, unless we keep them quiet.

Then it becomes clear fascism at that point.

I wouldn't call boycott of a particular product force; companies endured and have survived boycotts throughout the decades and long before LGBT groups got into the game. As well, why wouldn't a businessperson want to market his product(s) to as large a consumer segment as possible?

You don't have a right to not be pressured. Besides, standing up to pressure whether perceived or real is a great esteem builder.

If one is a consumer or businessperson and participating in a capitalistic, free market society then no, you don't have a right to be protected from the opinions of individuals or groups.

Of course you have a right to your own views; what you don't have is a right to be free from responses to those views.

 

[Vic]

Having principles?:awe:

Please describe the exact principles involved here. It's certainly not ethics. Morality is very questionable as I'm certain the reciprocal situation would not be acceptable to those involved (ie the same "Christian" business owners would object if a gay - owned business refused to do business with Christians). So what principles are you referring to?

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't have a right to not be pressured. Besides, standing up to pressure whether perceived or real is a great esteem builder

Well, gays don't have the right to not be excluded from marrying in straight-only video games. Besides, allowing people to make what they want is a real tolerance-builder.

Glad we agree, and that your views are consistent.

 

[Vic]

Simply put, you said they should be able to do business with anyone for any reason.

Do you have a problem with that?

Of course not, but denying service on an individual basis based on a business reason is not the same as denying services to an entire class of people. Or are you saying that we should go back to racial segregation?

 

[senseamp]

So you support the right of businesses to refuse service to same-sex weddings?

If you already offer an item for sale, then anyone should be able to buy it. So if a bakery is offering a wedding cake, and a gay guy comes in and says, I will take it, he should be able to buy it. It's a standing offer and a business shouldn't be able to revoke it based on sexual orientation of the customer.
If it's a custom order item that the business doesn't already offer, then a business should be able to refuse to make it.
So if a gay guy comes in and says I want you to make a penis shaped wedding cake, the bakery should be able to say, sorry, I don't offer penis shaped cakes for sale.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course not, but denying service on an individual basis is not the same as denying services to an entire class of people. Or are you saying that we should go back to racial segregation?

You left the qualifier "entire class of people" out the first time. You broadly said that they can do business with who they want.

Again, do you have a problem with that, or are you going to cherry-pick?

 

[alzan]

Well, gays don't have the right to not be excluded from marrying in straight-only video games. Besides, allowing people to make what they want is a real tolerance-builder.

Glad we agree, and that your views are consistent.

People buy video games based on the persons' sexual orientation? I've brought and played a lot of video games; never on the basis on my or the developers sexual orientation.

 

[Vic]

If you already offer an item for sale, then anyone should be able to buy it. So if a bakery is offering a wedding cake, and a gay guy comes in and says, I will take it, he should be able to buy it. It's a standing offer and a business shouldn't be able to revoke it based on sexual orientation of the customer.
If it's a custom order item that the business doesn't already offer, then a business should be able to refuse to make it.
So if a gay guy comes in and says I want you to make a penis shaped wedding cake, the bakery should be able to say, sorry, I don't offer penis shaped cakes for sale.

Or a business could simply say they're too busy to accommodate the order. Or a dozen other excuses.
Saying "We don't serve YOUR KIND here" is simply not acceptable to me (if only because it's an inherently bad business practice).

 

[nehalem256]

Or a business could simply say they're too busy to accommodate the order. Or a dozen other excuses.
Saying "We don't serve YOUR KIND here" is simply not acceptable to me (if only because it's an inherently bad business practice).

See its okay to discriminate so long as you are dishonest about it.

Please describe the exact principles involved here. It's certainly not ethics. Morality is very questionable as I'm certain the reciprocal situation would not be acceptable to those involved (ie the same "Christian" business owners would object if a gay - owned business refused to do business with Christians). So what principles are you referring to?

I can see why you have issues understanding morality and ethiccs given your endorsement of lying above.

And I would have zero issue with a gay owned business refusing to service straight weddings.

 

[alzan]

You left the qualifier "entire class of people" out the first time. You broadly said that they can do business with who they want.

Again, do you have a problem with that, or are you going to cherry-pick?

Not understanding the rules and regulations surrounding public accommodation businesses is your problem, not Vic's.

 

[Retro Rob]

People buy video games based on the persons' sexual orientation? I've brought and played a lot of video games; never on the basis on my or the developers sexual orientation.

Good, then you've learned how to be tolerant of others' views. :thumbsup:

Maybe the rest of them can learn this quality.

 

[senseamp]

Or a business could simply say they're too busy to accommodate the order. Or a dozen other excuses.
Saying "We don't serve YOUR KIND here" is simply not acceptable to me (if only because it's an inherently bad business practice).

They can say they are "too busy," as long as when the non-gay customer comes in right after, they are still "too busy."

 

[alzan]

Good, then you've learned how to be tolerant of others' views. :thumbsup:

Maybe the rest of them can learn this quality.

Tolerance of others' views has nothing to do with it. Like I previously posted, I buy and play video games to have fun, period.

"the rest of them", LOL. Keep up the fight!

 

[Vic]

See its okay to discriminate so long as you are dishonest about it.



I can see why you have issues understanding morality and ethiccs given your endorsement of lying above.

And I would have zero issue with a gay owned business refusing to service straight weddings.

Nice evasion, but you didn't answer my question. What principles are involved when a "Christian" business owner denies services to a gay client?

 

[Retro Rob]

Tolerance of others' views has nothing to do with it. Like I previously posted, I buy and play video games to have fun, period.

Yes, "you" do because you're tolerant. But the only reason why gays are upset is because their sexual orientation isn't represented, so they do play the game based on their own sexual orientation, or they'd play the game in spite of the absence of gays marrying.

 

[Vic]

They can say they are "too busy," as long as when the non-gay customer comes in right after, they are still "too busy."

After I posted that, I realized that "too busy" is never a permitted reason to deny service in my industry. ECOA reg B doesn't allow it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yes, "you" do because you're tolerant. But the only reason why gays are upset is because their sexual orientation isn't represented, so they do play the game based on their own sexual orientation, or they'd play the game in spite of the absence of gays marrying.

Or maybe they play a game where the character is the same as them? What if the game only had gay marriage, would you play it? Or whine and scream because you are being oppressed?

 

[Retro Rob]

Or maybe they play a game where the character is the same as them? What if the game only had gay marriage, would you play it? Or whine and scream because you are being oppressed?

Just so you know, I play games that I think are fun, and I don't play games featuring "marriage" at all.

I'm black, and most games I play have only white people in them. I don't feel persecuted because a game doesn't have black characters in them -- I leave that sort of thing for thin-skinned bigots.

 

[werepossum]

What is this porn thing you speak of?

I think it means shrimp. Pretty sure another word for shrimp is "pron", which is sometimes spelled "porn". So he's saying that people get broadband for the shrimp.

Obviously this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to all crustaceans.

Wanting all US citizens to enjoy the right to secure a marriage license is fascist?

Seems like a stupid move by Nintendo to not allow the option, since their sales are dropping. To a certain extent video games reflect the culture and sub-cultures of a society; allowing for a game character to "marry" another character of the same sex is a reflection of certain societies. Were I a Nintendo exec. who was aware of decreased sales, I would certainly urge inclusion of the "same-sex marry" option in the game; at least in those countries where SSM is allowed or moving towards marriage equality.

Nintendo is primarily a company serving children and otherwise non-gaming families. I imagine they calculated they would lose more business with gay characters than without. Personally I think life-simulation games are so inherently gay that allowing same-sex marriage can only butch them up. (Yes, I'm breaking my own rule about not using "gay" as a pejorative - it's a joke.)

As for these brothers, they were attempting to have a television show on probably the most gay-heavy network since Logo. Shouldn't they be thanking G-d that they were saved from what they apparently see as a fate worse than death? Or - and I only include this for completeness - can it possibly be that accepting the gays is okay if there's a fat paycheck involved?

 

[alzan]

Yes, "you" do because you're tolerant. But the only reason why gays are upset is because their sexual orientation isn't represented, so they do play the game based on their own sexual orientation, or they'd play the game in spite of the absence of gays marrying.

Provide exhaustive and conclusive evidence of:

a) all video games ever developed and sexual orientation factors in the development and marketing thereof

b) both my sexual orientation being a determining factor in the choice of those games or in my interest or focus in the sexual orientation of the game developer(s) and the marketing schema

 

[alzan]

I think it means shrimp. Pretty sure another word for shrimp is "pron", which is sometimes spelled "porn". So he's saying that people get broadband for the shrimp.

Obviously this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to all crustaceans.


Nintendo is primarily a company serving children and otherwise non-gaming families. I imagine they calculated they would lose more business with gay characters than without. Personally I think life-simulation games are so inherently gay that allowing same-sex marriage can only butch them up. (Yes, I'm breaking my own rule about not using "gay" as a pejorative - it's a joke.)

As for these brothers, they were attempting to have a television show on probably the most gay-heavy network since Logo. Shouldn't they be thanking G-d that they were saved from what they apparently see as a fate worse than death? Or - and I only include this for completeness - can it possibly be that accepting the gays is okay if there's a fat paycheck involved?

Actually I think the word you're looking for is prawn.

That could be, but like I said previously life-sim video games are a reflection of the culture or sub-cultures (I should have added "the cultures/sub-cultures in which they're produced). Most of the games I play are where one creates a character for game-play; personally I don't see anything wrong with putting in an option for sexual orientation, but since I'm not a fan of life-sim games I wouldn't be buying it.

Wanting or maintaining a nice looking and eye pleasing home and landscape is not something that appeals to just gays, nor do I think that HGTV is all gay, either in it's internal make-up or the audience to which it markets.

Accepting anything because of a fat paycheck is an unfortunate reality.