SNL Digital Short Takes on Anti-Gay Bakers and Religious Freedom with Hilarious Mock Movie Trailer

  • metta

    Posts: 39108

    Apr 17, 2016 3:52 PM GMT
    SNL Digital Short Takes on Anti-Gay Bakers and Religious Freedom with Hilarious Mock Movie Trailer


    http://www.towleroad.com/2016/04/christian-baker/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2016 10:37 PM GMT
    Saw it, unfortunately it "appears" to take the side of bigots, and since bigots aren't too bright, they won't get the sarcasm. icon_cry.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3525

    Apr 18, 2016 12:41 AM GMT
    It helps if you realize it is a parody of these movies

  • Wendigo9

    Posts: 426

    Apr 18, 2016 12:46 AM GMT
    Ugh (facepalm) yeah I saw it last night, funny but beyond stupid. In that kind of scenario, just go to a different bakery, no need to make a big deal about it.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Apr 18, 2016 12:56 AM GMT
    Wendigo9 saidUgh (facepalm) yeah I saw it last night, funny but beyond stupid. In that kind of scenario, just go to a different bakery, no need to make a big deal about it.


    Would your advice back in the sixties for the civil rights pioneers been to just find another lunch counter, water fountain, or seat on the bus? Just because some brave men and women decided to make a big deal out of it, we have the civil rights laws of today. And the country is a better place because of it, at least in my opinion.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 1874

    Apr 18, 2016 2:40 AM GMT
    Wendigo9 saidUgh (facepalm) yeah I saw it last night, funny but beyond stupid. In that kind of scenario, just go to a different bakery, no need to make a big deal about it.


    I agree, it is the same as back in the 1960's if you told protestors just go find another lunch counter instead of Woolworth's. Figures all the issues as of lately are happening in the South showing bigotry is live and well in the South.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Apr 18, 2016 3:10 AM GMT
    SNL seems to be poking fun at both sides, and does not advocate one way or the other in the "religious freedom" issue, which is a bit disappointing. They could have used their platform and satire in support of LGBT rights, but failed to do so.
  • Wendigo9

    Posts: 426

    Apr 18, 2016 4:39 AM GMT
    Whipmagic said
    Wendigo9 saidUgh (facepalm) yeah I saw it last night, funny but beyond stupid. In that kind of scenario, just go to a different bakery, no need to make a big deal about it.

    Would your advice back in the sixties for the civil rights pioneers been to just find another lunch counter, water fountain, or seat on the bus? Just because some brave men and women decided to make a big deal out of it, we have the civil rights laws of today. And the country is a better place because of it, at least in my opinion.

    I just think that gay rights (which we already have) is going too far, it's bad enough trannies have their toilet complaints, and they make me feel ashamed to be gay/seen as lgbt. Just stop causing drama for attention, cross type religons are hypnosis hypocrites who want to control the world, their wakeup call will always be when it's too late.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2016 9:11 AM GMT
    I felt that they were insightful in their prodding at one of the excesses of the gay rights movement - forcing Christian and Muslim bakers to bake wedding cakes for a gay wedding. Just go to a different baker. Many denominations and Christians will bake a cake for a gay wedding, so if you want to support a Christian business, just choose one of them instead.

    I didn't understand the latter half of the spot - the turn to asking the question "whether God is gay" was bizarre and is completely absent in civil discourse and in theological discourse. That question is 2500 years too late - maybe you could ask that question about Zeus or Dionysus, but it is silly to ask it about "God".

    EDIT: Thinking about this topic made me wonder whether denominations purchased their bread from companies only from owners in their specific denominations. What I found was truly repulsive to my anti-industrial leanings. This is a great article - http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dogma/buying-the-body-of-christ/. It turns out that almost all of the Eucharist wafers in America are produced by the same (secular) company. The article describes the sorrow that a nun organization experienced as churches began to more and more go to to this one company and wouldn't buy the wafers that they made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2016 1:43 PM GMT
    You realize that until people start understanding that you can't rationally base your entire morality off of a book, there will always be bigotry towards homosexuality? Really... the answer isn't ever causing a scene or attacking an ignorant person after they have attacked your basic rights. The evolved thing to do is to always remain calm and forgiving of people and offer more enlightened outlooks to dim people. If you desire to be rebellious and make a statement, that's truly great, but doing so fearfully and in a hostile way is adding to the initial ignorance that is creating inequality. Once again... the root problem is their obsession with the bible; if you can't break through to them and get them to acknowledge other beliefs, they'll always hate you and you should accept that. It's their right to hate or love whoever they like, and there are now equal marriage rights in the US which is most important.

    Feeling and being guilty for acting ignorantly towards other people's ignorance, is a thing and homosexuals act self righteous about defending their position in many cases.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2016 4:30 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    People are protected to hate discriminately in their hearts (because if that is their nature then they are free to be who they are as long as they are not harming & interfering with the lives of others) and in their minds (because they are free to think whatever the fuck pleases them) and in their conversations (because they are free to speak) and in their houses (because they are free to live their private lives as they please) and in their churches (because they are free to associate with similar douchebags), but commerce--you know, that little thing called CAPITALISM--is protected from discrimination (because they are not free to lay their crap on the rest of us--because we have rights too).

    Ever since the founding of this great nation, we do insist upon the separation of church and state.

    While there is neither implied threat nor immediate harm by what you do in your house or with whom you congregate in your church or for whom you pray in your heart goes to hell, while the persons you hate are free from interacting with any of that within their own day to day activities, it is commerce wherein all these factors would by its nature mix.

    So commerce is rightfully itself a wall of separation.

    jeepguySD saidSNL seems to be poking fun at both sides, and does not advocate one way or the other in the "religious freedom" issue, which is a bit disappointing. They could have used their platform and satire in support of LGBT rights, but failed to do so.


    I'd give SNL a little more leeway and credit to that point. They did it very much in the flavor of the actual production being parodied. Within that, they show gay negatively forcing this God is gay issue as a matter of intrusion into a right-winger's personal life just as a right-winger insists on intruding outside of their own personal lives through commerce. So the parody is accurate and appropriate.

    Should this have been more of a teaching moment for those less able or inclined to understand? Perhaps SNL was not out to proselytize to the hateful Christians (not that all Christians are hateful), because people are going to take whatever lesson they want anyway from whatever experience they have, often regardless of the intent of the experience. God works in mysterious ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2016 8:09 PM GMT

    For openly gay people, or people thinking about eventually coming out on the job, it is becoming more and more apparent that during the employment recruiting process, such as company employment polices, interviewing, hiring and possibly internal promotion, that the question of ones personal beliefs in religion should now be brought up

    The "reason" for employment discrimination in the first place may have much to do with the fact no one discusses their personal religious beliefs in the workplace, while some may only act upon them, such as a hiring manager or HR person who has the authority of hiring or firing. (aka Kim Davis)

    I would rather be up front before being hired, whether or not religious beliefs vs. gay rights would become a workplace issue, now or in the future to help avoid discrimination of any type against our LGBT community. Its really tragic it has come down to this but as more and more people officially come out, bigotry by religious people in the workplace, will eventually be a non issue, for both parties
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2016 9:33 PM GMT
    ELNathB saidFor openly gay people, or people thinking about eventually coming out on the job, it is becoming more and more apparent that during the employment recruiting process, such as company employment polices, interviewing, hiring and possibly internal promotion, that the question of ones personal beliefs in religion should now be brought up...


    That describes an intrusive nanny state, not a free society.

    Commerce as a wall of separation works both ways. Within companies, that individuals might discriminate for any number of reasons doesn't justify discrimination as policy to protect against being discriminated against by telling you which employers to avoid.

    If you can't put up a sign designating a white from a black water fountain, then you also can't put up a sign warning that the water fountains ahead are segregated.

    Risk is often inherent in freedom be that in seeking employment or purchasing services. Just because we'd rather not pay someone for a gay cake who'd rather not bake one doesn't mean that we should institutionalize discrimination to protect us from entering a homophobic bakery.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2016 3:41 AM GMT


    This SNL Parody Makes A Serious Point About Anti-LGBTQ Laws
    http://www.refinery29.com/2016/04/108610/snl-gods-not-dead-lgbtq-laws


    If you've seen the commercials for God's Not Dead 2, the sequel to 2014's God's Not Dead, you'll appreciate this Saturday Night Live parody about anti-LGBTQ laws.

    In the sketch, which aired recently during Saturday's episode, Vanessa Bayer plays a baker who's forced to confront her personal beliefs when a gay couple asks her to make a cake for their wedding. The skit satirically portrays Bayer's character as a Christian hero, with a faux-inspiring commercial for a fake movie, God Is a Boob Man. The "trailer" bears more than a few resemblances to the actual trailers for God's Not Dead 2.

    Aside from being a spot-on parody, though, the sketch raises valid points about the LGBTQ discrimination laws that have been passed (and vetoed) in various states recently. In one scene, Bobby Moynihan plays a state governor whose state is facing widespread poverty, an obesity epidemic, and rampant teen pregnancies. However, when he hears about Bayer's character's fight to "deny basic goods and services to gay people," he demands that legislators focus their attention on discrimination, rather than on the other issues in the state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2016 4:01 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    ELNathB saidFor openly gay people, or people thinking about eventually coming out on the job, it is becoming more and more apparent that during the employment recruiting process, such as company employment polices, interviewing, hiring and possibly internal promotion, that the question of ones personal beliefs in religion should now be brought up...


    That describes an intrusive nanny state, not a free society.

    Commerce as a wall of separation works both ways. Within companies, that individuals might discriminate for any number of reasons doesn't justify discrimination as policy to protect against being discriminated against by telling you which employers to avoid.

    If you can't put up a sign designating a white from a black water fountain, then you also can't put up a sign warning that the water fountains ahead are segregated.

    Risk is often inherent in freedom be that in seeking employment or purchasing services. Just because we'd rather not pay someone for a gay cake who'd rather not bake one doesn't mean that we should institutionalize discrimination to protect us from entering a homophobic bakery.





    Well, eventually, someone (on either side) is going to have to 'compromise'?, I am sure most openly gay people, myself included, do not wish to work for somebody that looks at us with disgust in private, while continuing the work relationship in fear (probably on both sides).

    I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that, it could and does lead to illegal hostile work environments. The whole purpose of LGBT workplace laws is to diminish discrimination of course, but adding laws NEVER will change some peoples hearts, minds and personal feelings. Getting everything on the table, in the beginning of a workplace relationship, will help with any emotional feelings from BOTH parties, that is compromise, isn't it?

    We know the conservatives don't like to compromise about their emotions, opinions or beliefs and this probably translates into their workspaces as well (Kim Davis)

    We know the progressives do like to compromise, so take your pick, work is a part of our daily lives, who do you want to work with and make a happy workplaces? icon_idea.gif

    "The best places to work" are tracked for a reason, Google and Facebook continue to come in the top 5. There must be some compromise going on here between the conservative techies and the progressive techies? Or the generational shift has begun and there is no such thing as a "conservative, religious techie", therefore, these are best places to work because everyone is progressive icon_idea.gif








  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2016 5:16 AM GMT
    Too bad it's not funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2016 2:33 PM GMT
    ELNathB saidWell, eventually, someone (on either side) is going to have to 'compromise'?, I am sure most openly gay people, myself included, do not wish to work for somebody that looks at us with disgust in private, while continuing the work relationship in fear (probably on both sides).

    I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that, it could and does lead to illegal hostile work environments. The whole purpose of LGBT workplace laws is to diminish discrimination of course, but adding laws NEVER will change some peoples hearts, minds and personal feelings. Getting everything on the table, in the beginning of a workplace relationship, will help with any emotional feelings from BOTH parties, that is compromise, isn't it?

    We know the conservatives don't like to compromise about their emotions, opinions or beliefs and this probably translates into their workspaces as well (Kim Davis)

    We know the progressives do like to compromise, so take your pick, work is a part of our daily lives, who do you want to work with and make a happy workplaces? icon_idea.gif

    "The best places to work" are tracked for a reason, Google and Facebook continue to come in the top 5. There must be some compromise going on here between the conservative techies and the progressive techies? Or the generational shift has begun and there is no such thing as a "conservative, religious techie", therefore, these are best places to work because everyone is progressive icon_idea.gif


    Nor do I want to purchase from an anti-Semitic merchant, nor do I want to work with ageist colleagues, nor might I enjoy sitting in a plane next to a 500lb person or wind up in conversation with someone with halitosis. Such are the risks given the freedom of association.

    That a company can't have a policy of discrimination because that would be institutionalized, employees can discriminate--though not openly--because they have personal freedoms within that to think and feel as they do. That's just life. Legislating that reduces freedom. The onus is on the individual to do their due diligence as well as possible before engaging. After that, if things are intolerable then the individual has the freedom to leave. Even within that, things can change: you can think you've a great job but then years later wind up with a bigoted manager, maybe even promoted there because another division head did anything just to get rid of him and now he's your problem. Oh, joy!

    Someone might not hire you because of the color of your hair or eyes, someone might not promote you because they don't like your voice, you might not get a good raise because someone doesn't enjoy your humor or because you might not have children to support as your colleagues do, all of which having nothing to do with the quality of your work. So always we are subject to being discriminated against. The best we can do is work to reduce that and in that we don't institutionalize it. We don't make it a legally open activity which would reinforce and justify discrimination which is your proposal to trade freedom (that to not be institutionally discriminated against even as a highway guardrail) for a perceived reduction of risk. So that is overall the wrong direction even though you might in any certain circumstance find it convenient.