Yeah, sorry, I have to disagree with that last part. You read that whole exchange, you can see for yourself how he tried to change the subject, shift the burden, and otherwise distract from the argument at hand.

The central argument is not whether or not freedom of religion is under fire. No one is disputing that Chik-Fil-A or the cake store owner is within their rights to refuse service. The misunderstanding is that they seem to believe that because it's their right, they're immune to criticism.

That's two different things.

I have every right to change my name to Foo Foo Farty Pants. That doesn't mean you can't give me crap about it.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to express his opinion, but other people are apparently not free to voice their opinion that he's full of shit.

Others have already mentioned it but if a store refused service to christians, there would be massive amounts of outrage from the right and they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs about the "war on Christianity"

The right to refuse service swings both ways. I would argue that refusing service to ANY demographic is unnecessary and dumb and ultimately a poor business decision. That's not what the right to refuse service is supposed to be for. I'm pretty sure it's meant for dealing with unruly, disruptive, belligerent people, not to advance a religious/political agenda.

>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.

I have to chuckle when the guy talks about how he's doing more business now because of his views. The same was said about Chik-Fil-A.

Yeah, they're doing more business *now* because it's been publicized. The strong supporters on the right are going to come in droves to support, and the strong supporters on the left are going to...not shop there...ever again and all that money that he could be raking in had he been indifferent is forever lost to him. Not exactly the smartest business decision. In addition...they're supporting him today...but yeah, even the strongest anti-gay is not going to keep buying weddings cakes or keep buying from chik-fil-a as time goes on. It's not sustainable. America's collective ADD is going to kick in and they'll move on to the next outrage. Except now these businesses have shot themselves in the foot because the people who are denied service will continue to not shop there. Do the Anti-Gay supporters plan on buying a wedding cake and eating at Chik-Fil-A every day? Once a week? once a month? Not going to happen. Besides..sounds like too much of a handout to me. Funny how supposedly the supporters of a free-market suddenly don't think free-market principles shouldn't apply to them.

It also galls me from a strictly statistical and historical point of view. Regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, you have to be deaf, blind, and dumb not to realize which way the winds are shifting...and that they aren't going to be shifting back. Support for gay marriage is over 50 percent now. In 5 years, do you honestly think it will be any less? In 10?? In 20??

The CEO of Chik-Fil-A is not long for this earth, and the wedding cake store owner isn't exactly young. Old ideas get replaced by new ones all the time. The sad thing is that we have to wait for enough people to die for change to really occur because they're too stubborn to see reality.

Your video, Pissed-Off Store Owners Piss on The Local Pissers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

>> ^braschlosan:

Are you denying that the bottles have a deposit on them?
>> ^grinter:
Pretty safe to assume that they are free to customers. ..maybe the same price, perhaps free, to store owners.
..and perhaps I missed wormword's point. Glass bottles, at least in Central America, have nothing to do with government imposed environmental regulations.



nope. but I am confused about why you would ask that.

Are you denying that the bottles have a deposit on them?
>> ^grinter:

Pretty safe to assume that they are free to customers. ..maybe the same price, perhaps free, to store owners.
..and perhaps I missed wormword's point. Glass bottles, at least in Central America, have nothing to do with government imposed environmental regulations.

>> ^braschlosan:

It will be a failure unless they are free. If they are free other drinks besides coke will be served in them. They fail to understand the purpose of drinks in bags is to save money.
What wormwood said was right.


Pretty safe to assume that they are free to customers. ..maybe the same price, perhaps free, to store owners.
..and perhaps I missed wormword's point. Glass bottles, at least in Central America, have nothing to do with government imposed environmental regulations.

I'm not sure whether this was a question as to the legal mechanics of why the criminal is still pursued or if it was a rhetorical one as to why society should care to pursue him. I'll try and answer the first one and hope it helps someone. This is in general as applies to legal theory, my command of US criminal law is scant to say the least.

Certain crimes in certain jurisdictions might need an express wish of the victim to be pursued, in other cases police and prosecutors will simply ignore a crime if the victim does not want the investigation to proceed on practical grounds (the victim might be the chief witness etc.). But that is not always the case or even necessarily the rule.

The main reason why police and prosecutors would continue to pursue a case is likely because some more serious crimes are considered to be of interest to the state itself (as safeguarding public order, upholding the laws of the state and all that), thus it is not only up to the victim to decide what extent an investigation is pursued; police and prosecutors might determine of their own accord that a case should be pursued (the reasons why this might also be practically necessary can be seen in, for example, domestic abuse cases where children or spouses might deny or not want to press charges regardless of the severity or obviousness of the crimes against them, it also helps to discourage threats and the social and mental burden on criminal victims). So his wish to press charges might not matter in this case, depending on the law of the state in question.

There is also (in some jurisdictions) the choice of private prosecution, where the victim (or someone of similar status) can compel courts into criminal proceedings against someone even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case. This is done to safeguard the possibility of justice in the individual case and as a check to prosecutorial power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Question, why do the cops still care? It is obvious the store owner doesn't want to press charges.

Question, why do the cops still care? It is obvious the store owner doesn't want to press charges.

Now THAT'S how you convert someone to your faith. I still think all religion is bs, but if this man's display of empathy in the name of Islam will be repeated by the would-be thief for the same reasons, good for them.

As for the overplaying of the benevolent store-owner's religion as a factor, I cannot help but be reminded of M&B's "Good Samaritan" sketch:

I'm not a big fan of this style of music, but I gotta admit the kid has pretty good pipes. He's straining for those upper notes, which gives them a nice raw energy, but will even be better when he learns proper breathing technique and relaxed vocalizing.

It was cool to see the store owner encouraging him.

As an ex-Mormon, I'm going to do something a bit weird and quote myself from 2 years ago when this topic came up. I wish the guy in this vid had talked more about his reasons for leaving; I would have been interested to hear more about why he thinks their church is not honest or why it doesn't have integrity. Original comment posted for this video.
>> ^SDGundamX:

I was a Mormon for several years (lived in a rural area, was the closest church in town until I was about nine and a new Presbyterian church was built closer). I have to say I'm a bit confused at all the hate that's delivered towards them. Of all the churches I ever attended (and I attended lots as a kid), theirs had the most caring and active community I've ever seen. If you were sick, church members were there the same day with food and asking what they could do to help. They had lots of great family activities all year round, such as picnics and camping trips.
But what impressed me the most about the Mormon church is that they basically taught me the morals I hold true today. They didn't just teach the kids in Sunday school not to lie because "God says so." They explored the consequences of things like lying and stealing. We'd do role-plays where they'd make us think about the consequences our actions had on other people. Like, for instance, if you shoplifted a toy you really wanted, how would the toy store owner feel? How would he feed his family if people kept stealing the stuff in his shop? The fire-and-brimstone Christian churches I later attended never impressed me much with their Bible beating compared to this style of teaching.
This is not to say Mormons aren't without their flaws. In some ways, they do resemble a cult. When my family left, they hounded us for years trying to "save our souls" and get us to come back. They would just show up unannounced at our house or call at random hours. It was more annoying than anything else.
Another downside was the whole proselytizing thing--I distinctly remember being told as a child that if I wanted to be able to play with my friends in heaven that I'd have to convince them to become Mormons too. Otherwise I wouldn't see them there. To put that into perspective though, my Dad's priest (he was Catholic as a kid) told him the same thing about his Protestant friends back when he was a kid. The Mormon religion hasn't got a lock on the conversion market by any means.
All things considered, I find the Mormon religion to be relatively harmless. Yes, they believe in some odd things like the Book of Mormon, but at the end of the day, unlike a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, I found the Mormons to do more than just give lip service to their values and actually practice what they preach.

Small town? Really? Dallas's population density: 3,697.44/sq mi. Phoenix: 2,937.8/sq mi
Kaneohe? 5,320.7/sq mi. The entire island might as well be one big city. Secondly, how little does your dick have to be to just walk up to some thug that isn't even wielding a weapon and hand him your money because he asked for it?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.
Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.
2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!
They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.
Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.
3. If you guys had it your way:
The store owner would have had been armed. Right.
..But the kids probably would have been armed too.
Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.
Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!
Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..
Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.

>> ^chilaxe:
Carry a gun. Problem solved.

>> ^Samaelsmith:
That's because they are minors. Their identities must be protected because they are under 18 and therefore are innocent angels.

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.

That is true, but this was one was, by cowards running in a pack (not one of which suggested what they were planning was stupid).

Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.

To us watching our screens with the full story explained, they were "just dumb kids". When you're being attacked, it's a little different. How were the victims to know if the vermin didn't have knives (a far deadlier weapon at close range).

2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!

I salute their incompetence, but that shouldn't soften any penalties.

They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.

Assuming you lean left, shouldn't that outrage you that these spoiled youths and their tax-loophole parents beat the system?

Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.

Foe self-defense, it's hard to beat.

3. If you guys had it your way:

The store owner would have had been armed. Right.

That's his choice. I'd have preferred he be armed as probably would those Americans that protect their lives and property (usually without a shot being fired) over 2 million times a year.

..But the kids probably would have been armed too.

And they would have gone to prison for it.

Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.

Or they might have decided "maybe a Nitendo DS (sic) isn't worth getting shot over."


Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!

Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..

Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.

All right, I think we're done here. It's your right to be a victim, just don't extend it to others.

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.

Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.

2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!
They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.

Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.
3. If you guys had it your way:

The store owner would have had been armed. Right.

..But the kids probably would have been armed too.
Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.

Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!

Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..

Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.


>> ^chilaxe:

Carry a gun. Problem solved.


>> ^Samaelsmith:
That's because they are minors. Their identities must be protected because they are under 18 and therefore are innocent angels.

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^conan:
I don't know. Somehow it's pleasing to see that it got back to them but nevertheless this is anarchy were're wittnessing here. wo do have laws and a legal system to keep folks from doing self justice, and i'm convinced we have it for good reasons. i see this with mixed feelings.

For some reason while I was watching this I thought of ants. If people were ants, this would be a self reparing colony. Something went wrong, everybody surrounding the incident felt responsible for fixing it, it got fixed, everything went back to normal.
I see that as organised and sophisticated rather than anarchic.
actually no, people see the chance to abuse others without fear of repercussions.
here's some more very NSFW videos of this "self-repairing" colony
http://theync.com/media.php?name=2166-brutal-and-barbaric-beating-of-a-theif-in-china
http://theync.com/media.php?name=4448-chinese-store-owner-beats-a-theif-right-outside-of-his-store
it seems like China and South America are really good at practicing this street justice
savages