GFR7
New member
That they feel they must stage a big boycott, instead of allowing others to opine freely.
See what gay activists did to London's Dolce and Gabbana store today
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Caledvwlch
New member
Staging a big boycott is opining freely.
Caledvwlch
New member
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?
If Christians boycotted a store that supported gay marriage would you have the same opinion?
Caledvwlch
New member
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
New member
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
New member
No, and No.
GFR7
New member
No, it is meddling in someone else's free speech. "Go against us, and you lose"---arrogance, vanity, and worse than vanity......
Lon
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
You need to think about that ... more. On one hand you demand free speech and then deny it from others?
Lon
Well-known member
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
New member
No; I am denying the punitive boycott.
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.
Free speech doesn't mean being free from criticism and responses. They wanted a reaction and they have received one.