OK, here's a much better shot of the icing, showing that it's both a different size piping and slightly different color, and also video proof that the upc label is in a different place from when he purchased it...so yes, fraud, lies, and debunked are all appropriate, as is a title change to reflect the lie that this was....like 'whole foods anti-gay slur hoax' or something

Your video, New Mississippi Anti-Gay Tourism Ad, 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 45 Badge!

Did anyone else notice the tardis at the end there? cute.

Good stuff tho, It feels like the reason we keep using prohibition as a tool is because were afraid that if something is legal, then everyone will do it and society will fall apart (One of the anti-gay implicit argument)

PC correctness stifles free speech.

YES using words as you describe do indeed cause better understanding of the one using those words.

People should be able to use these words. Then get the fuck beat out to them.

The only hate I have is for dumb ass liberals like you who only looks at the world with rose collar glasses.

You know all the racist words you must use them all the time.
Can you tell us a good racist joke? or how about an anti gay joke. Sounds like you can rattle them off with out thought.

"God's word is truth", so you better go kill yourself for wearing that cotton/poly blend bitch. That's much much clearer in the bible than the minor anti-gay stuff.

"Christians follow Christ" ...except when he said things like 'don't judge other people', 'be inclusive, not exclusionary', 'love your neighbor as yourself', 'money is the root of all evil', 'don't make or own any statues or sculptures that aren't impressionist...etc.

Congratulations! Your video, Last Week Tonight - 29 Jun 2014 (Uganda Anti-Gay Laws), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Your video, Last Week Tonight - 29 Jun 2014 (Uganda Anti-Gay Laws), 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 video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/1sttube/video/Last-Week-Tonight-29-Jun-2014-Uganda-Anti-Gay-Laws

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by mintbbb. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

this is a *duplicate. I posted this video earlier today

http://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-29-Jun-2014-Uganda-Anti-Gay-Laws

I don't think they are your best argument. Westboro's popularity stems from their rally's at the funerals of military veterans. Something a majority of Christians have an issue with. As far as their anti-gay sentiment goes, many Christian sects are revising their views on the gay lifestyle, although it is causing some serious rifts.
Now if you were to exchange Westboro for Radical Anti-Abortionists that bomb abortion facilities and kill doctors...well then you have a pretty strong argument!

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.