Your language and word use clearly indicated you were justifying these assaults. And yes, you did say it was for cultural/religious reasons: ". They are being attacked because they believe they are allowed to take a shit on people's beliefs,culture, religion and tradition "

First saying you'd support a bill that would allow store owners refuse service to African Americans, then this, did it hurt when you fell out of your time machine from the 50s?

^ I agree it was really offensive to say.

Things are heated in both sides.  Is this fair?  : http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lets-get-naked-this-pride-gay-editor-defends-nudity-at-torontos-family-frie

"Glenwright’s piece was a response to Toronto District School Board trustee Sam Sotiropoulos, whovoiced his concern earlier this month over children viewing illegal public nudity at the event.

Sotiropoulos created a firestorm on Twitter after asking Toronto Police if they would enforce Canadian law against public nudity at the Pride event. The trustee was called a ‘homophobic a**hole’ and an ‘outrageous bigot’ by homosexual zealots.

Under Canada’s Criminal Code it is illegal to be nude in a “public place.” Section 174 states that a person who is “so clad as to offend against public decency or order” is “guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”

Glenwright’s piece also took a swing at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who stated a principled opposition to attending the World Pride Parade hosted in Toronto this June.

“I’m not going to go to the Pride parade,” the Mayor told a candidates’ forum for the 2014 mayoral election earlier this month. Amidst catcalls, he continued: “I’ve never been to a Pride parade. I can’t change who I am.”

Glenwright argued that “homophobes” who are in leadership positions — such as Ford or Sotiropoulos — balk at nakedness “on a parade float” because it “triggers a primitive hatred” for “two men f**king.”

“It reminds them of what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms,” he wrote.

Glenwright ridiculed Sotiropoulos’ “concern for children” as a legitimate reason for opposing nakedness at the Pride parade.

“So let’s call it what it is and stop allowing these bigots and nudity-haters from masking their issues with concern for the wide-eyed children. And let’s remember that Pride is not the Santa Claus parade — its roots are in protest and sexual liberation.”

“Let’s get naked!” Glenwright concludes."

Is it fair to Sotiropoulos?  He's saying something against a behavior, not against what someone is.  Being naked in public is a behavior that people of any orientation can be arrested for.  Is it a surprise that people accuse gay activists of not wanting to have a serious conversation when they get their opinion shut down by "homophobic a-hole bigot" remarks?  It would make the most open minded person think these people are jerks.

Thats not the factual statement I was talking about. I very clearly said what I meant under a ''fact'' in my previous reply to you. You are, once again, twisting my post, so you can attack it easier. Shame on you, for real

"I love how people call Nintendo (or any other giant, faceless corporation for that matter) a family company. Considering their environmental and human right records, I'd say that Nintendo is anything but family friendly. Regardless, my family includes gay people but this is a non-issue to me because my home already excludes Nintendo products."

That is the one that really stood out. The original poster whom curl-6 quoted made an analogy with the whole cake fiasco that was in the media for months. 

And honestly, you are being intellectually dishonest yourself and distorting my message to suit your argument.  

"among certain gays "  was the terminology I used. Quite obviously, being gay myself, I know that there is a ton of variation. However, politically there is a large group of individuals (not a mafira) who wants to force private businesses to accomodate not their person as a whole, but specifically their activities which these other persons do not support, as if they need social approval for their perfectly ethical (notice I didn't use moral - that is an argument I don't get into) actions. 

I understand that. But there were a few people who viewed it as a right to be included in anything and everything, and that is who was addressed. 

Fair enough.

"they believe they are allowed to take a shit on people's beliefs,culture, religion and tradition"

Shame on you for making such a homophobic statement.

Get out of here with that crap, my language didnt indicate anything, it's just you trying your best to twist my post again so you can attack it easier. I swear to God, strawman is all you people know. Its kinda funny to watch actually. 

I said people might attack them because they feel their religion/culture/tradition is under a threat, not because their religion/culture/tradition tells them to. Thats what I meant...but why do I even bother, you'll probablly find a way to twist this too. Seriously, what is the matter with you?

I said I'd be ok with store owners having the right to refuse service TO ANYONE because of ANYTHING, but of course, in your typicall fashion, you twist my point so you can call me out on some non existant crap because you cant actually refute my argument or opinion but you still just cant let it be.

And if there was a time era I'd like to time travel to, it would definitely be the 50's :D or age of exploration

don't understand why this is a big deal. there's more important things in life to battle over. this seems real trivial in the grand scheme of things.