LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Blouman Empire]

what makes it legitimate over another?

The state

[Haiz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

[The Black Forrest]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

Hey don't be distracting the arguments with facts!

[Greed and Death]

The first employee on the scene was a planogram team member. I can tell by whats in his cart.
Poor guy, thats one of the jobs people really want to keep at target.

[Ryadn]

You just need a good hard fuckin', Zephie. Take a big gay cock and enjoy self-loving your self-loathing gay self.

And of course you had to go to insulting.....

Makes you feel like a big boy, doesn't it?

There are no insults in that sentence.

Perhaps not but you aren't helping, either. Not that either Zephie or Wa is going to change his mind.

What are you talking about? Wa was totally neutral on gay marriage before this horrific protest! I mean, unless you HAVEN'T spontaneously developed amnesia...

[Zephie]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

[Sagatagan]

Not as good as the 'Target Ain't People' dance number, but damn good and justified: Target's trying to buy my state's governor's office and pumping money into a dirty, slanderous campaign. They know that if they get in good with the governor, they can reap profits, because the GOP in Minnesota has been creating 'JOBZ' zones where they effectively give businesses massive tax cuts - allowing big businesses who can quickly mobilize capital to take advantage of such zones to move in and get an unfair advantage over local businesses. It's sick, and the servility of Minnesota's pubic sector to private interests has to end. Now. The fact that the corrupt twit they're funding is also a homophobe is not something that endears him to me.

[Haiz]

what makes it legitimate over another?

The state

The state should be impartial and offer it to two partners. Making one legitimate over another based on what, though? What, say, makes it right to recognize one over the other? One thats consenting, I might add.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, which would cause a heavier tax burden on legitimate marriages because the government would need to make up that lost revenue.

I'm sure they will just take away more benefits from singles.

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

They don't need tax breaks.

[Tergnitz]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

...I never said that they were. I'm simply saying that all groups should blur out the faces of individuals who they have not obtained consent from.

[Dododecapod]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

If you support gay marriage, do you also support polygamy?

Yes, between consenting adults.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

[The Black Forrest]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

You have a little spittle hanging there.....

[Blouman Empire]

Yes, which would cause a heavier tax burden on legitimate marriages because the government would need to make up that lost revenue.

I'm sure they will just take away more benefits from singles.

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The family vote is more important and brings better returns to politicians then the single vote.

[Dododecapod]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

[Haiz]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

[Tergnitz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

[Zephie]

Yes, which would cause a heavier tax burden on legitimate marriages because the government would need to make up that lost revenue.

I'm sure they will just take away more benefits from singles.

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

They don't need tax breaks.

Why not? And what makes gays need tax breaks then?

[Haiz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

Maybe they were. What is the result that Target does? Ask them to leave. If they refuse and disrupt and be aggressive, then it turns over to being a civil disturbance.

[Sagatagan]

I thought it was kind of funny, got this in an email from MoveOn.Org.

I don't think it is. It shows the hypocrisy. Do you remember the story about the kid at Walmart saying IIRC all black people must leave the store? That caused a shit storm and he was arrested, but when a "special group" does something like this, not much happens. They acted totally inappropriately and should have been arrested.

Well, one person was commanding minorities to vacate a store. The other was requesting that people boycott a store for supporting a corrupt gubernatorial candidate who supports private ownership of the political process and opposes gay rights. There's a difference.

[Haiz]

Yes, which would cause a heavier tax burden on legitimate marriages because the government would need to make up that lost revenue.

I'm sure they will just take away more benefits from singles.

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

They don't need tax breaks.

Why not? And what makes gays need tax breaks then?

What makes heteroes need tax breaks?

[Tergnitz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

It was a protest, yes. It was also legal, yet it was in poor taste and Target should have asked them to leave immediately.

[Zephie]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

[Haiz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

[Soheran]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.