California Photographers Decide to Close Business Rather Than Shoot Same-Sex ‘Weddings’

MaiSAN FRANCISCO — A California couple has decided to shutter their photography business rather than be forced to shoot same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.

Nang and Chris Mai operate Urloved Photography–that is, until recently, when the couple announced that it was discontinuing its business due to harassment from homosexual advocates over making a referral rather than agreeing to shoot a same-sex ceremony.

“[W]e have come to a difficult decision that we will no longer be in the wedding photography business,” the Mai family writes on their website. “We are grateful for this experience as it has caused us to think about how our personal beliefs intersect with our business practices.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, earlier this month, San Francisco resident T.J. Kelsall posted a comment on the company’s Facebook page stating that Urloved Photography had declined to photograph him and his partner, Thai Lam.

“Great shots, but this company denied me and my fiance, a same-sex couple, from their services,” he wrote. “Stand up and say something about it.”

According to the Mai’s, the couple rather referred Kelsall to another photographer that they thought would be more suitable as they personally were not comfortable with agreeing to the request themselves.

But the couple also states that following Kelsall’s complaint, the company has been “flooded with hate calls, emails and accusations that inaccurately depict [their] business.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“As wedding photographers, we directly take part in capturing a couple’s love and commitment for each other. We take the medical doctor stance of if we were emergency room doctors we would want to give our best to anybody that comes through our door. It is not photographing a couple who have different personal beliefs that we have difficulty with,” they wrote in their closure announcement.

“We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day,” the Mai’s continued. “We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve.”

Following the announcement, Kelsall wrote a second post asking friends to stop contacting the Urloved Photography and writing negative reviews and comments on their various online pages.

“They acknowledged that if this were pursued any further it wouldn’t fair well for Urloved Photography,” he wrote. “They understand the law and told us they have decided that in light of their personal beliefs they will be shutting down their business.”

“Thai and I consider this issue resolved and would urge you to stop posting on their FB page, Yelp, and any other social media site,” Kelsall continued wrote, but praised those who had been “supportive and active” thus far. “We must respect that Nang and Chris have decide to shut down their business because of their beliefs. I wish the outcome could have been different, but it is what it is.”

A similar situation has been making its way through the court system for the past six years, as Elane Huguenin and her husband Jon, who run Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico were turned into the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for declining to shoot a lesbian ceremony. As previously reported, the case was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the matter.

“The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” wrote Justice Richard Bosson for the New Mexico Supreme Court. “That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

It is not yet known whether the Huguenins will be pursuing further legal action to protect their right of conscience as business owners.

Photo: Urloved Photography


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    One day, the sodomites are going to attack someone who will respond to the attack with violence. Possibly deadly violence. So beware perverts. Don’t assume that those you attack will quietly go away. Or, do assume that. Makes no difference to me.

    • Phipps Mike

      ” Possibly deadly violence” that’s TWICE now, Gary that you want violence as an answer. You keep forgetting that OTHERS may not LIKE the idea of a jail sentence for juvenile behavior.

      • Liz Litts

        “Gay rights” groups are making death threats all the time.

        • Phipps Mike

          show me.

          • janmit63

            Show me they don’t.

        • raytheist

          No they aren’t. Bearing false witness is a sin, isn’t it? Look at history and see who has been killed or beaten for being gay. The gay community is NOT the one bringing violence to the table.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          Baloney

      • Gary

        I don’t want violence. But if the only choices are submitting to the homosexuals, or violence, then violence is preferable.

        • Phipps Mike

          who said you have to SUBMIT to them? Only bosses you have is your employer, the law and God.

          • Gary

            The law is on the side of the perverts. That is unacceptable.

          • Phipps Mike

            actually I found out not long ago that the federal discriminatory law does NOT cover sexual orientation as a protected class. That should prove interesting for future cases.

          • Gary

            But some state and local laws do. And they should not.

    • raytheist

      Do you realize that the LGBT community has been the recipients of violence for generations? Can anyone be surprised that the LGBT community is now rising up against that sort of thing?

      • briand212

        are you seriously saying because the LGBT community may have had it rough in the past it somehow gives them the right to seek out and destroy anyone that doesnt agree with the perverts?
        I still say the photographers got it wrong .. I would have offered to shoot the pervs wedding.. and of course in very fine print on the contract I would make you sign.. would be all pictures will have large a banner proclaiming homesexuality is a mental disorder ..
        what these people need to understand the gay mafia is using some really underhanded tactics. I highly doubt these two pervs wanted their services .. they just called around until someone said no.. then did their best to destory the photographers buisness

        • raytheist

          “somehow gives them the right to seek out and destroy anyone that doesnt agree with the perverts? ”

          That is YOUR claim. I have seen no evidence that same-sex couples are “seeking out” anything. You can pretend in your mind some nefarious scenario or conspiracy, but there is no proof of that.

          They have a right to expect service from any business open to the public. It is only when same-sex couples expect to be treated like everyone else, that a small percentage of Christians throw a fit and pretend their religion should interfere with conducting a secular business transaction or should keep them immune from following the law.

          • briand212

            you dont see the evidence ? are you blind or do you just secretly agree with the tatic.. call around until somone refuses to perform services for you supposed same sex wedding then run out to social media and bash the H#!! out of them or sue them to put them out of buisness. how many more times does it have to happen before you “See it” I bet your tune would chang if people went around to gay owned places and identify themselves as westboro baptist church members and demand they must provide servics at anti gay events. and when they refuse.. SUE !

          • raytheist

            Seriously, briand212, you are making a preposterous claim that you need to substantiate with proof and not just conjecture and persecution fantasies. Show me proof that this couple called a bunch of photography studios until they found one to “attack”. Why would any couple call around a bunch of places in search of someone NOT willing to work with them, just to make a case? That’s not only irrational, it has never happened.

          • briand212

            ok raytheist .. lets see which one would you like to talk about first.. the gayvegasblacklist that does just what you claim gays dont do (that is just one of many that you can find). then there is GLADDS hit list for tv interviewers. I notice you pervs have started taking down the links to your black lists like antigayblacklist and are moving back to your forums.. yeah we can read those too.
            . or maybe the case in NY where Jennifer Mccarthy and her pervert partner melisa erwin called liberty ridge farm out of the blue.. keep in mind neither had ever even visited the place. and were told no to using the place for a same sex wedding.. but low and behold they were recording the call and then sued.. because you know everyone records all their calls right .. sure they do..
            dont forget the famous wedding cake fight in colorado.. where gee how is it they found the 1 bakery that refused ..and then sued. it was just fate.. right.. um huh..
            now we have another case where magicly the one that does not support gay weddngs has been found .. and then bashed
            such a remarkable find. dont you think ?
            so since you are ok with this tactic.. is it ok for the christians, or muslims to hunt down gay business that do not support some anti gay event and then sue them.?

  • Frank

    Justice Richard Bosson for the New Mexico Supreme Court is not a Christian in any sense of the word. If he ever was he has fallen away and is actively working for the devil. We need to be putting Christian judges on the bench.

    • janmit63

      AMEN TO THE COMMENT OF PUTTING CHRISTIAN JUDGES BACK ON THE BENCH.

      • raytheist

        That would be unconstitutional, since there shall be no religious test for public office, at any level. No candidate’s religion (or lack thereof) should be an issue in any elected office, and definitely not in any appointed office.

        • Frank

          No it would not be unconstitutional as people have elected and have the right to elect whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish.

      • BeWhoYouAre

        How would you feel if it was a Muslim judge? Religion’s OK as long as it’s YOUR religion?

  • Jose

    These sodomites are getting out of hand, the same way the are trying to push their crap down our throats and are crying for “tolerance” they should TOLERATE those who don’t believe in their perverse disgusting habits instead of ruining a honest and just business.

    • BeWhoYouAre

      Is it really necessary to use inflamed language like “sodomites”? Hardly a fair word to use considering the number of straight couples that engage in anal sex.

      • raytheist

        And “sodomy” includes both oral and anal sex, gay or straight, giving or receiving. And, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, it is entirely legal.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          When people throw words like “pervert” and “sodomite” around, you’re not dealing with someone reasonable. Faith-based hate is a formidable opponent because it doesn’t care about facts.

          • Jose

            Oh wow where did all that revelation come from? I had no idea this two words meant you were dealing with someone reasonable?! It’s plain and simple, gays are sodomites (as plainly explained in the bible) and I call it like I see it. Does it offend you? Then don’t be gay,and above all don’t ruin honest people businesses Bc same people don’t see eye level do you’re preverse practices (again bible terminology) and if you don’t like it, don’t do it. But as I know you people already instead of not doing it you just prefer to ignore the bible and I dulge in your twisted practices, not even Mother Nature is on your side.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Well, I don’t think it’s difficult to find gay men who aren’t into sodomy. Many of them hate it. Bet you didn’t know that. So why would you call someone a sodomite who is gay but doesn’t engage in sodomy? Also, notice how this has NOTHING to do with the Bible? Care to explain your position further?

          • Jose

            Am I supposed to tak your word on that? And what would you like for me to explain my position further that isn’t in the bible?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            I don’t care what you do. Your issue isn’t with me, it’s with the dictionary. If you want to misuse words and expect people to understand what you’re talking about, be my guest.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – chaste homosexuals want to remain in the life of Jesus Christ just like chaste heterosexuals. Yes, homosexuals can be chaste as it is a choice they make and yes, by not accepting this lifestyle they do not become misguided.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Nice. You’re asking homosexuals then to live loveless and sexless lives simply because you think it’s what your holy book wants. I am not an atheist but their approach to letting people love and be loved as they see fit makes a lot more sense to me.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – Forget the bible. Homosexuals have the freedom to love and have all the unnatural sex they want. A marriage license will not provide any more love or sex. No one is denying anyone of love or sex. Two men who can’t control their sexual appetite can satisfy themselves in the back seat of their car, in a motel room, or in their home. Who cares what they do in private.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Interesting choice of words, “can’t control their sexual appetite” – why should they if they are in love? Would you say the same thing if you were talking about a straight married couple?

            As for unnatural, I guess real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – Mentally disordered homsexuals need medical help when they finally come to realize that they have a problem.
            Your comparison is sort of funny. Using non-living things and compare with living things. Unnatural homosexual feelings is better compared with beastiology were both are living animals.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            tschraad – everything you said flies in the face of common sense, modern medicine and the words of mental health professionals. As long as your backwards religion continues to call homosexuals “mentally disordered” you will end up looking ridiculous, and as it is you must know you are on the wrong side of history.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – time will tell who is on the wrong side. When I meet Jesus and he judges my life, he already knows which side was correct. So I plan on being on his side while on earth. His teachings are absolute.
            Anyone who observes an unnatural occurrence and has common sense knows naturally that it is a misfit of nature.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            tschraad – you are doing the opposite of what Jesus wants. Jesus does not want you to hate your fellow human beings. Jesus taught love. And tolerance, and acceptance. Hate is not a family value.

          • tschraad

            Be whoyouare – You can hate all you want. For me, hate is a waste of time. Jesus did teach us about love of God and love of neighbor. He also told us that we must admonish the sinner which if you do not understand, is what I am doing. Admonishing the sinner is an act of love as it redirects the sinner back to God.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            tschraad – you: Gays are evil, gays are perverted, gays are unnatural.
            Me: Homosexuality is found in all aspects of nature, is not an illness, requires no cure, and is accepted by science and mental health experts as normal.

            Which one of us is the hateful one?

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – lousy try stating an untruth. I have never said homosexuals are evil. Homosexual lifestyle is a perversion of nature, immoral, abnormal and has a mentally disordered agenda.
            The rest of your rant is your opinion not shared by normal people.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Except that it’s not. That’s a view held ONLY by religious bigots and no one else. Homosexuals don’t have a lifestyle. They have a life, like you and I. And you should let them live it free if your hatred.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – you said “homosexuals don’t have a lifestyle” Really?
            Homosexuals lifestyle and culture is well documented. It is in the media news. Your head must be in a dark hole if you are unaware of this issue. All homosexuals (if any) can live unnatural life anyway they desire. They have chosen badly but it is their choice.
            Your unreligious bigotry is duly noted. The only hatred I see is you hating Christians and normal people. For me, hated is a waste of time. I leave that up to people like you, you are an expert.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Fundamentalist Christianity is brain cancer. You, sir, are Exhibit A.

            Why can’t you get it through your tiny head that for a homosexual, to partner with someone of the opposite sex is what wuold be unnatural for them? They are wired the opposite of you. That’s all. Nothing sinful about it. They just are wired backwards and want the right to live like everyone else. And hate-filled BIGOTS like you want to deny them that basic human right.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – Your opinion is noted.

            Homosexual unnatural sex is only natural for mentally disordered homosexuals. Unnatural sex can never be natural. Just it is unnatural for pigs to fly.

            “In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that “violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples”.[4] Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, “Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            It’s none of your business though. They don’t poke around in your bedroom so why do you need to poke around in theirs? It doesn’t affect your life in any way. And you do not have science on your side in this debate, only fellow hateful fundamentalists. The American Psychological Association believes you are wrong about “mentally disordered homosexuals”. There is nothing mentally disordered about them…nothing at all.

          • tschraad

            Be who you are – No normal person would poke around in a bedroom of these perverts.
            The rest is just your illogical opinion.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Go on beating people over the head with your Bible just as Jesus DIDN’T want you to do. Ten percent of the population are perverts, are they?

          • tschraad

            Bewhothey are – Not beating anyone with the Bible except those who need admonishing as the Bible says.
            Did I say 10% of the population are perverts? Not true. 1-2% at most are homosexuals. The other perverts I would have to check.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            So you know better than all the medical journals do you? And it is not your place to admonish, especially when you have zero understanding of homosexuality.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – I don’t read medical journals, do you? Even a 5th grader can tell the difference between a pig and a bird.

            “Most homosexuals don’t want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            The medical journals and all the research done by scientists says precisely the opposite of what you do. You are a living example of willful ignorance. I wouldn’t be proud of that fact if I were you.
            Your quote is pure ignorance.

          • tschraad

            Bewho you can be – pure ignorance? Really? All the scientists? Hmmmmmmm.

            “1973 is the date that Satanists have gained control over the field of psychology. Today there is little protest over taking the diagnosis of homosexuality out of the DSM. I believe from speaking with colleagues that many professionals do not openly express their dismay with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM out of fear of ridicule or even reprisal.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Oh my God, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read. You HAVE to tell me who said that so I can spend the rest of the year ridiculing them for their stupidity. SATANISTS yet. If you want to blame someone for making strides and advances in modern medicine, blame the SATANISTS, it’s all their fault. Too funny.
            And you really must ditch your annoying little habit of posting quotes (even if they are as funny as this one) without attributing them to anyone. Here’s an example of how to do it properly:

            “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
            ― Anne Lamott

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – some professionals do not agree with you.

            “Depression is often a major issue with homosexuals. Most homosexuals in addition suffer from a broad spectrum of psychosis and serious emotional disturbances.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Jack Chick is not a “professional” – he never even went to seminary school. So he would know precisely nothing about this subject.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoouycanbe – As you being a follower of Jack Chick’s ideology, I am surprised by your comment.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Nice try. Jack Chick’s stuff is illegal in my country for being hate speech, which makes it ideally compatible for you since you and he are fellow fundamentalists.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyoucaynbe – so you are trying to kill your leader and savior? Democrats are doing the same to Obama. Some Democrats finally are realizing the stench from his failed leadership stinks like garbage.

            “I can’t think of a better name,” says Joe Blough, a plumber from Minot. “It’s darkly colored and it’s full of shit. That pretty much sums up Obama.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            “so you are trying to kill your leader and savior”

            How on EARTH did you arrive at this conclusion?

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyoucanbe – your effort to push out your messiah Jack Chick an wanting to replace him, the easiest method to be your new savior for your crowd.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Jack Chick isn’t my messiah. I loathe the man, he’s a fundamentalist like yourself and propagates hate with his little comic book tracts. So what on earth are you talking about?

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyou are – Not even a good try. Just put Jack Chick name on your posts and nobody would find any difference. Funny that you consider his hate in bad taste and yours as a virtue. Sad.

            “North Carolina Judges Continuing to Resign After Orders to Conduct Same-Sex ‘Marriages”
            More people harmed by the intolerance and bullying of the perverts. Sad..

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Oh, I get it now. You’re a troll. Take the ultimate object of my scorn and try to make me look like a fan instead.

            Didn’t work. If I despise fundies it’s not likely I would be a fan of the #1 fundie. That’s like accusing Jews of being fans of Hitler.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – I hit the jackpot. A troll calling me a troll. Who would of thought. Did you play your last card?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            It’s not “would of thought”, it’s “would have thought”. And standing up to faith-based hate is not trolling. Pointing out bigotry is not trolling. Challenging you on douchebaggery is not trolling. Telling a Jack Chick hater he’s actually a Jack Chick fan is trolling.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – Your rules, your opinion. Then obey your own rules. Hypocrite.

            Apparently you are not aware of the sarcasm of “would of”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Oh no, it’s just that I’m not illiterate.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Don’t you realize with homosexuals that for them to be with people of the opposite sex WOULD be the unnatural thing? Why should you be forced to be with someone you have no natural attraction to? Why are you messing with the forces of nature on this, why can’t you let people just be who they are and be with who they want to be with? Homosexuals aren’t forcing anyone into relationships that aren’t wanted or welcome.

            That statistic you quoted is stupid by the way, where did you get it from?

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyou are – you said “homosexuals that for them to be with people of the opposite sex WOULD be the unnatural thing”

            So it is unnatural for a homosexual to be a part of a family that had as parents a mother and a father? If that was the case, they never could have been born. What a dumb logic.

            “In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Great job totally missing my point.

            It would be UNNATURAL fora homosexual to try to create a loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex because it would feel false, it would feel uncomfortable, it would feel exactly as YOU would feel being with someone of the SAME sex and trying to make THAT work.

            “”In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.”

            Quotes without references are pointless and have no value.

          • tschraad

            Bewho you are – Didn’t miss your point at all but you did miss my point in reply.

            Quotes w/o references? Google the Los Angeles times and you will find an article that will be very distasteful to you. I gave you the place.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            A random quote in a newspaper means nothing without a source.

            Regarding your hate posts about homosexuality, people like you were denying black people the right to vote at one time. We laugh at those people now. Imagine how stupid you’re going to look in 40 years.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – never posted hate about any homosexuals. Hate is a waste of time. Never denied any legal citizen from voting so you are lying when you claim this. The stupid one will be you.

            “Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: “If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent.”[

          • Malcolm Swall

            Nice!

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyou are – your opinion. Perverts, abnormal, mentally disordered, sodomy are being used every day by the homosexual activists. It is these people that are unreasonable. Facts by homosexuals only exist in their misguided lives. Faith based hate, not a chance. Opponents are against the filthy perverted sex you promote.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            It’s very interesting to see what fundamentalist Christianity has done to you – what you’re spewing is hate. It simply can’t be called anything else. There’s no such thing as “homosexual activists” for one thing, and there’s no “homosexual agenda” either, there are only homosexuals who are trying to live their lives free of the hatred that comes with fundamentalist indoctrination. If you want to talk about facts, this IS supported by facts – from the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and practically every other body of science out there, but if you want to go on believing a paranoid revenge fantasy based on fear and hate, be my guest.

          • Phipps Mike

            “there are only homosexuals who are trying to live their lives free of the hatred that comes with fundamentalist indoctrination”

            bingo!!! fundamentalists cant wrap their head around that, They deem themselves as appointed by God to try and CONTROL other peoples personal lives. Point blank they have NO RIGHT at all to do that, then they cry when homosexuals bite back. Boo Hoo!!

          • BeWhoYouAre

            They make the kind and generous Christians look really bad. More people need to stand up to them and their lies.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – Not spewing hate at all. Just presenting the truth that you conveniently ignore.
            If you do not believe there are no homosexual activists or an agenda, you must be living under a rock or follow the teachings of your (if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor) emperor Obama.
            Your hate and bigotry is your choice as for me, both are a waste of my time.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Wrong on all counts, I’m not American at all. Your “truth” is a lie. Homosexuality exists in 10 percent of all human beings and in all species, it’s not a sickness or illness you can cure with fundamentalist Christianity. I am not the bigot. I say live and let live, but you are not content to do that, you insist that people must live by your rules. You are sad and pathetic.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare – I don’t recall calling you an American. Maybe I did and I apologized for assuming you lived/born in North or South America.
            10% of all human beings are homosexual? Your opinion? I haven’t the slightest idea if fundamentalist Christianity can cure this mental sickness.
            You said “live and let live”. I disagree. When you say this, you have no regard for your neighbor. If he was a alcoholic, your logic would be to leave him alone. Don’t help him. You are Sad and pathetic by not helping your neighbor..
            No one has to live by my rules. I have never asked or mandated that they do. I present the Truth and you have the free will to accept or reject.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Here’s a link to the Smithsonian that says twenty percent of the population is homosexual, which I would agree is on the high side.

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/?no-ist

            At any rate, no, it’s not my opinion, and I could find you a lot more that say approximately the same thing, including Kinsey.

            It is evil of you to compare alcoholism, a genuine disease, with homosexuality, which occurs throughout nature and is not a disease. But I know you learned this from your religion.

          • tschraad

            Bewhoyouare –
            (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.

            http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

            “A more recent 1990 survey of more than 10,000 persons by the National Center for Health Statistics indicates that homosexuals and bisexuals combined amount to approximately 1.5 percent of the population.”

            “Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: “If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent.”

            http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

        • Jose

          Do you know where the word sodomy comes from? It’s from the sin of “soddom and Gomorrah” and it’s not anal sex and oral sex, it’s one male defiling another through anal sex. Those are sodomites. Learn where the word came from first if you will make those accusations. This word has been coerced to include all that but if you look into the bible where it originally comes from, it’s two males having sex.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” one male defiling another through anal sex”
            it makes no difference if its done to a man OR woman, it is the SAME to God. Newsflash: its not DESIGNED for entrance…even on a WOMAN. The sphincter muscle is designed to push OUT, not IN. So spare your “dumbness” for somebody else. Sodomy IS anal sex between ANYBODY.

          • Jose

            I never said that r was correct either way. But the original sin that was committed was a group of MEN (emphasis added in the bible when it says ALL the MEN of the town were going to sexually assault the two angels disguised as MEN. And God wiped them out for that SEXUAL IMORALITY (Jude 1:7) so if you are a sane person (who isn’t a liberal) it makes complete sense that sodomy and what angered God was the defilement of one male raping another male and they’re lust for that life style. So spare your “dumbness” from this thread Bc all you did is repeat what I said and just add woman to the mix

          • Phipps Mike

            no, you were trying to say the DEFINITION doesn’t include women, You are WRONG. It most definitely DOES and its the act of using an anus for intercourse. You are just upset you are wrong. The city was destroyed for lack of hospitality AND for greed and gluttony. God saw homosexual sex as “gluttony” NOT as perversion. His take was that since there were BOTH sexes in that city that could get married and have sex with each other, that there was no reason for homosexuality (gluttony). So it’s not the ACT, its the gluttony that made it a sin. Since this was the Old Testament, there is a chance he was concerned about the effects of the bacteria involved too as it was with eating from the cloven hoof. God was wanting to PROTECT, not be a DIRECTOR. You fundamentalists never seem to use your brains to see Gods intent, You just want to bastardize Christianity by using it as a crutch to go against ANYTHING that makes you uncomfortable, When are you people EVER going to be HONEST?

          • Jose

            Oh my gosh! I’m not even going to keep fighting this ignorant stance Bc I already did once look for it in this thread. But to simplify this stupid stance read Jude 1:7. Soddom was destroyed for sexual IMORALITY!! Not gluttony of sex (if so he should’ve wiped out Solomon who had thousands of concubines) or hospitality (the stupidest of all defenses homosexuals use

          • Phipps Mike

            Jude 1:7King James Version (KJV)

            7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

            WHERE did you get YOURS? The New Jerk Version? (NIV)

            Fornication means UNWEDDED sex which homosexuals were guilty of. Once again, I used your own scripture against you.

            Strange flesh is open to interpretation. I did mention earlier to you , this: “His take was that since there were BOTH sexes in that city that could get married and have sex with each other, that there was no reason for homosexuality”

            notice the “could get married”? part? I rest my case.

          • raytheist

            Well, no, Jose. We have to work with the legal (i.e., “real”) definition as the word is NOW used, not some misinterpretation of ancient myths. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

          • Jose

            No keep in mind we are on a Christian site, using the BIBLE as the truth not you legal libertarian system which is pagan in all its ways. If we’re discussing this through human standards than I have nothing to argue here, you win. But if we are going to argue this believing thereis one true God and his word is the truth to salvation than yes, it’s wrong

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Most of the Christians I know who also use the Bible don’t hate one tenth as much as you do. It’s because you are a fundamentalist.

          • Jose

            Well I already know the so called “cristians” you know they are liberals who believe that soddom was inhospitality and God accepts homosexuals and is all love dovy with no wrath (let keep in mind he’s still a consuming fire) so I’ll take that as a compliment 🙂 sounds to me like you and you little bunch of “Christians” are fullfilling Gods words and thank you for that too Bc it just reinforces me with faith 2 Timothy 4:3 ”
            “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

            I’d rather it be part of that group trust me. And it’s exactyl what you are. A new breed of “tolerant” loving christians that have no boundaries or moral laws that guide your lives. You live off of pure pleasures alone. And to be clear I don’t hate anyone, read my original comment I was mad at the hypocrite sodomites they cry for “tolerance” and “understanding” yet they can’t share or extend the same tolerence and understanding to a honest couple who has different beliefs than they do, they treated them with the upmost respect and even rendered them, yet they still come at them with violence and hatered and devastate their business and probably family if that was their income! But it’s all good this “fundamentalist” still believes in a just God, a consuming Fire and the devastation of the wicked will be swift swith the lord

          • BeWhoYouAre

            And your brand of Christian is someone who says we should ignore our dictionaries, believe that the word “sodomy” refers specifically to male anal sexual intercourse based on the word “know” in the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah, and call people you know nothing about sodomites and perverts. I’ll stick to my brand of Christianity – “liberal” though it may be, it’s a lot kinder and a lot more grounded in human rights. HATE is not a family value.

          • Jose

            Thank you yes that’s exactly it. Also add onto that that my band (me) uses actual bible verses and logic while you base yourself on “human” rights meaning standards. Human standards are nothing compared to Gods standards. You are considered pagans in Gods eyes and just like verse says you can’t stand sound doctrine and rather come up with your own and partner up with individuals who are on the same boat. News flash that isn’t christiany. So keep it, it’ll only lead to eternal devastation.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            No, the kinder brands of Christianity use the Bible too, they just don’t twist the words to mine hatred from it. By the way, you still haven’t told me why you call gay people sodomites when they engage in exactly the same sexual behavior as straight people. No BS about the original meaning of the word this time please, you’ve already been busted wide open on that one.

          • Jose

            Wait are you kidding me? You make me laugh lol “I’ve been busted wide open” haha by who? A bunch of homosexuals who twist the words of the bible? I’ve already explained myself and given bible verses. You on the other hand have proved nothing and just repeated the same lies over and over again and no bible to back you up. I’ll RE explain my stance the moment you explain for the first time how in the world you think u hospitability was the sin? Go ahead I have all day to hear…

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Never said I was homosexual, like everything else so far you’ve pulled it out of your butt. Find me the words “anal sex” in the Bible and maybe then we can talk. For now you’re a hate-filled fundie idiot.

          • Phipps Mike

            “just God, a consuming Fire” God is NO LONGER a “con suming fire” Jesus died for our sins to END his fire. Wrath is OLD Testament before Jesus died for us. Spare the fire and brimstone nonsense. Fear never works on anyone, anyway.

          • raytheist

            Then, as you say, I win. Thank you.

        • tschraad

          raytheist – so is the killing of innocent unborn human beings. Legal murder for convenience. Both sodomy and killing is evil.

      • Jose

        However told you anal sex between a woman and man lied to you. Sodomy is the defiling of two men by having anal sex. Study the bible where the word originally came from and not what other ppl tell you

        • BeWhoYouAre

          sod·om·y ˈ(sädəmē/)
          noun
          noun: sodomy
          sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation

          No mention of the male or female sex in this definition. Is the dictionary lying?

          • Jose

            Well your error is that your taking that word from the dictionary (and it originally doesn’t come from there) like I already said it has been twisted from its original meaning and even broadened but “oral sex” isn’t soddoms sin. The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, or “sin of Sodom” and is derived from the Greek word Σόδομα Sódoma.[8] The Book of Genesis (chapters 18-20) tells how God wished to destroy the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Two angels (literally “messengers”) are invited by Lot to take refuge with his family for the night. The men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that he bring the messengers out, so that they can “know” them. Lot protests that the “messengers” are his guests, and offers them his virgin daughters instead, but the Sodomites threaten to “do worse” with Lot than with his guests; whereupon the angels strike the Sodomites blind, “so that they wearied themselves to find the door.” (Genesis 19:4-11, KJV)

          • BeWhoYouAre

            OK, so how do you go from the word “know” to suddenly and magically mean “anal sex”? You haven’t done a single thing to say why the original meaning has anything to do with anal sex, all you’ve done is say the dictionary is wrong. And your Bible knowledge is lacking too, since the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was one of inhospitality, not sex.

            I’m sorry. You’re going to have to find another word to hate with. This one doesn’t work and makes no sense.

          • Jose

            Oh man you are really dumb. Ok I’ll break this down as easy as k can so maybe you can grasp. First of all read Jude 1:7 (actually read the whole chapter) and you will see soddoms sins was SEXUAL IMORALITY not inhospitality, “most Christians” don’t actually believ that just the ignorant liberals who want tolerance and try to twist the word of God for there own perverse desire (also in that chapter hope it doesn’t hurt your feelings) now comes the hard part so hold on so maybe you can grasp this. First of all how can the sin of that city be i hospitality? Inhospitality to who exactly? man maybe I didn’t learn my 10 comandments roght but I can’t rememebr the last time God said “thou shalt let your brother in, if not I’ll kill your whole city” then you said that how did I go from “to know” to sex well, will you be ignorant enough to think that when the bible wrote it like that it was Bc the all the men that were outside were furious that lot wouldn’t “let them “know” and meet the two angels?” If you are then why does lot then offer up his two daughters and mentions “they are virgins” (since that was an incentive back then for men to have sex with a particular female). Why would lot mention the two girls are virgins if no sexual act was being disputed. Also how can “to know” possible just mean to get to know or meet someone when the men later got even more angry and said “bring them out or we’ll do “onto you worse things than them” ….I guess that means they would just shake his hand more firmly hahah please sir study your scriptures of you want to debate this intellectually

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Until you can explain to me why you think “know” means anal sex – since there is ZERO reason to believe so – I’m going to assume you’re talking out your ass. If you want to argue that “know” means simply to know sexually that would be one thing but that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying it means anal sex. That’s why it’s impossible to take you seriously. That, and you disregard the dictionary.

          • Jose

            Look at that you’re pathetic you can’t even explain your point of hospitability haha and now that you see it’s an absurd stance you close yourself up and just call me dumb with no facts or points to back your stance lol. And if you were smart and now that you can grasp the fact that “to know” was referring to a sexual encounter, now you will deny the fact that it was anal sex?!? (Can’t you read the time of that verse and the men outside?) they were furious and lusting in their desire (that even when the angles struck them blind they still were killing each other to get to the door, that’s how powerful their list was) do you really think when they said “well do onto you worse than onto them” they were talking about giving each other hand jobs? Or oral sex? There’s only one way they can forcefully (Bc atleast we can agree it was through force that they wanted to sexually know them) have sex with them. And it’s by overpowering them and having sodomizing them. Not forcing the Angels hands on thise private parts for pleasure that doesn’t really sound like “worse” to me. Also learn how to read, I neversaid the dictionary was wrong. I said they broadened the term! And originally (from the bible that it comes from wasnt that broad) and when it comes to sin and what God wants I think I’ll listen to the bibles version over a dictionary that’s based on human standards

          • Jose

            Also I hope you’re not like those homosexual christians that claims soddoms sin wasn’t sexual immortality but a “lack of hospitality” lol Bc that is just a really far reach

          • BeWhoYouAre

            It isn’t homosexual Christians who think that, it’s most Christians. I think I could far more easily prove that than you could prove that “knowing” means anal sex.

      • tschraad

        Bewhoyou are – sodomites is no longer an inflamed word. It was mandated by the liberals that we must love this perverted lifestyle or we will be punished by the government. Intolerance and bullying can only be used against Christians.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          “Sodomites” as a word isn’t inflamed, but its meaning is anal sex and it’s by no means exclusive to homosexuals. In fact, how many lesbians do you think engage in it? I’m guessing virtually NONE, so that wipes out half the homosexual population right there. And many, many gay men do not engage in it. It’s entirely the wrong word to use to describe homosexuals since so many straight people engage in it as well. This isn’t an intolerance issue, it’s a definition issue. People should not bend the English language to support their hate.

    • Trix

      So, that’s how “Christians” talk now??? Using “perverse disgusting habits?” Jesus never used those words. I thought you’re a Christ follower???

      • Jose

        Then I’m guessing you’ve never talked to a true follower of Christ and only washed out soft people that don’t tell it how it is. In the bible it says God detests sexual immorality and he wiped out a whole city for its PERVERSE ACTIONS so yeah I think I hit it on the nail with my terminaology. And jesus was an authoritative man, abounding in love but also said and pointed out sin like it is (Matt 23:27) whatever religion you have been taught about tolerance is a lie and twisting of the truth by the devil it sounds nice and all but that won’t get you closer to Jesus, living a holy and righteous life will and we are called out to REPROACH evil deeds not live happily ever after with them. (2 Timothy 3:16)

        • Phipps Mike

          “we are called out to REPROACH evil deeds ” no your not. Its not YOUR right OR business. You have the right to STFU.

          • Jose

            See it is that ignorance where trouble comes in. You don’t believe in the bible or an absolute moral law and think everything is twisted. You make up your own twisted desires for morality and expect people to listen to you? On what grounds? Your “intellectual” points? (Which mostly just stupidity coming out of your mouth) at least I have actual verses to back me up

          • Phipps Mike

            Jose, The Bible CLEARLY states that GOD will be the judge on Judgement day. The ONLY thing he calls on Christians to do is WITNESS…. NOT “control” other peoples lives by voting against their freedoms.

          • Jose

            No Phipps that’s where you’re wrong again. We actually are called to judge and to judge righteously. That’s what the bible is used for 1 Tim 3:16″All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.”

            Or how about john 7:24 “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly”

            The bible never says to not judge but instead teaches I show to judge. That’s why we have his word. To lead people astray from evil. But yes the only part that you got right is that God is the ultimate Judge and he will ultimately condem us to heaven or hell. If God didn’t want us to judge then why did he appoint a series of judges for his people? The only people that believe that we shouldn’t jude are the ones who the bible doesn’t conform to their standards and feel convicted Bc “it’s too harsh” so they end up living there whole life saying “only God can judge me” and live unaccountable lives

          • Phipps Mike

            “We actually are called to judge and to judge righteously. ”
            Lets fine tune this a bit, shall we?
            Judging from God INCLUDES “action of persecution”.
            Judging that God wants us as people to do is NOT including that “persecution”. That’s where you don’t have the right.
            You are allowed to SAY things (talk) to sinners but you may NOT persecute them. Voting against SSM is PERSECUTING.

          • Jose

            Yes you are right. We’re supposed to reproach them. The ones persecuting here are the homos. Read the article and my original comment that’s what started all of this. We’re supposed to guide them to the ways of the bible but once we’ve done all we can the blood no longer runs on our heads. But at the end of the day I’ve debated you many time and you’re entitledto your wrong opinion, but I already did all I can, I guess we’ll have to wait till we die to see who was wrong and who was right (I’m right;))

          • Phipps Mike

            you wont KNOW until God comes again. “We’re supposed to guide ” yes GUIDE as in TALK, not VOTE AGAINST.

    • Malcolm Swall

      “These Christians are getting out of hand, the way they are trying to push their crap down our throats.”

      That was fun. Now what?

      • Jose

        YOURE ON A CHEISTIAN website idiot…. I really can’t stand no sense

        • Malcolm Swall

          Um, CHEISTIAN? do you mean Christian?
          idiot – ad hominem fallacy
          “no sense”? probably means nonsense, right?

          My parody was to show that just saying something like “those guys are getting out of hand” doesn’t really make any sort of point, it neither advances an argument or rebuts another.

  • Neiman

    It is a shame that by cheap thuggery gays and their liberal allies are denying Christians the right to own a business or hold a job unless they agree to abandon their faith. But, that is now the law of the land, that is what America has become. while a very strong majority still, falsely, profess the Christian faith, the American government, mostly through a liberal judiciary, are at war with Christ, they have turned their backs on the First Amendment, they are intent upon silencing the Christian witness in our land. They have given us, as a nation, over to debauchery, to moral dissipation, making us into a Libertine society that is thoroughly anti-Christ. This once great nation is now officially anti-Christ.

    We can pray for each other and for our nation, but there is no turning back and I believe that as we have so long been blessed by God, that His Judgment against the world must begin here in America. He has removed His Divine Protection and given us over to our many lusts in this nation’s service of Satan and we must have pity for all those thus devoted to killing the Christian Church, for while we children of God will be saved, great will be their torments forever for their open warfare against Christ and His Church.

    Fellow Christians this is but a sample of the seething hatred for Christ and His Church, it is a growing, malignant, terminal, moral cancer that must, as some of them have admitted here, result in anyone having faith in Christ not being able to earn a living, being put in jail and some even killed for their faith. It is a sign that we are rapidly advancing towards the rise of the anti-Christ and seven years of hell on earth.

    • The Last Trump

      Isn’t it amazing how this gay couple “stumbled upon” one of the few Christian photography businesses LEFT IN CALIFORNIA! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Man, homosexuals sure love them some CHRISTIAN photography!….and bakeries…and church marriage licences…and tee shirt shops….

      • Neiman

        Obviously they search these places out looking for a payday and some payback for Christians opposing their sexual lifestyle. It don’t take no genius to figure that out.

        • Phipps Mike

          “payback for Christians opposing their sexual lifestyle”

          yes, but I dont think money has anything to do with it.

          • Neiman

            Let us say, the money doesn’t discourage them. I do think they are primarily money motivated, but that is just my opinion.

          • OldArkie

            Your correct, the American way is to sue so you can live large.

          • Neiman

            In matter of fact, we have become a grossly litigious society, using the courts for malicious reasons, as a form of cheap thuggery and to ruin legitimate businesses for personal gain.

          • Alan Sands

            Money hungry or not, the cultural/political motivation is
            bad enough. The gay argument used to be,
            “leave us alone let us live how we want”. But now it seems they don’t practice
            what they preach.

          • Phipps Mike

            because the Christians haven’t practiced at ALL. They still go against SSM, so why SHOULD they practice what they preach when you haven’t let them “live how they want”…aka SSM

          • Alan Sands

            If you see bans on SSM as an injustice, then you should be happy the courts are resolving it. You’re getting what you want now, but that isn’t good enough? Basically what you are advocated is legislative revenge. “The Christians” used to have laws that were unfair to us, So now let’s make laws that are unfair to them. By your logic, blacks should’ve been able to take whites as slaves after the civil war. Not necessarily former slave owners, but just any whites.

          • Phipps Mike

            how is it “revenge” to marry somebody you love? That makes no sense to me, The gays want to be a couple who have a lifelong bond and the only bond honored, IS marriage, That’s not about revenge. Slavery has ALWAYS been OPPRESSION. So no, my reasoning has NOTHING to do with that. I am 100% against oppression hence the reason I support SSM. I have to ask you to provide any laws against Christians that was made here in the United States, if that particular law/s prevent oppression against anybody else, then it was a SOUND and FAIR law. Christians have ZERO right to oppress in the name of their religion.

          • Alan Sands

            I have a feeling you purposely misread my post in order to justify a more sensational reply. I didn’t think I needed to be this explicit, but apparently I do. So let me try one more time. You want same sex marriage to be legal, congratulation, your side is winning this one. But that isn’t good enough. Now “anti-discrimination” laws are being applied so anyone with a business that serves the wedding industry must be forced to participate in an event that violates their consious, under threat of penalty such as losing their business.
            Understand, I’m not saying a bakery owner should be able to kick out any effeminate male with a sweet tooth who simply wants a cookie, but participating in a wedding is a little more involved than a simple business transaction. (i.e. selling a cookie)
            This compulsion under the law is the “revenge” I’m talking about, not the actual gay wedding itself. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough (I honestly didn’t think I had to be, given the context of the article we are commenting on) but I’m predicting you will be to proud to admit you misunderstood my point.
            Now obviously, most advocates of these “anti-discrimination” laws don’t think of them as revenge. And even though I disagree with their ultimate objectives, I’m open-minded enough to believe their sincerity. I used the term very specifically in response to YOUR original reply.
            Your post implies, that since Christians have been able to legally ban gay marriage in the past (and such bans ARE indeed becoming a thing of the past) then that is THE REASON it’s ok to now force them to participate in gay weddings.
            Is that what you believe? Baking a gay wedding cake should be a Christian bakers punishment for supporting bans on gay marriage?

          • Phipps Mike

            “I’m predicting you will be to proud to admit you misunderstood my point. ”
            no, I DID misunderstand.
            I guess the big issue here is how do you define “participate”. Cooking a cake is NOT participation. Now if a person was asked to CATER the wedding or even be present AT the venue of the wedding, THAT would be participating. I didn’t write the business rules, so I wont answer FOR the people that did. My opinion is that, no, a person shouldn’t be forced to participate, but they shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to merely COOK a cake.

          • Alan Sands

            And I guess I was wrong about you on that point. And I must say, you are WAAAYYYY more tolerant than many of your friends. There have been photographers who have been sued (succesfully) for turning down a gay wedding. But it sounds like you agree that photographing a wedding definitely constitutes “participating”. On the cake, however, we may draw that line in slightly different places. Like my cookie example, I would say anyone, gay or straight, should be able to come in, buy a generic cake out of the case, and what they do with it is their business. Take it home, write whatever you want on it, put a plastic groom and a donkey on top if you like, and take it whatever kind of event you got going on.
            But a custom wedding cake goes beyond just “baking”. Words are usually written, decorations (plastic grooms), and often bakeries will deliver to the venue. To me that’s participating, to you it may not be.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Words are usually written, decorations (plastic grooms)”
            ya know, I have had this debate probably over 20 times about the cake and not once did somebody point out this to me, It obviously was something I overlooked. Yea, words scribed by the baker is a form of participating.
            My overall assessment about all of these businesses deciding to close down is that it makes it something that should be addressed. Its a shame and especially for THIS couple in the article when they make it very obvious that its not a PERSONAL thing, its just their religion.

          • Alan Sands

            glad we found some common ground.

          • The Last Trump

            Remember this?
            October 22, 2014
            “I hear you. Nobody should have to suffer discrimination. Problem with homosexuality occurs when Christians are forced to go against their conscience and their convictions in SUPPORT or PROMOTION of the lifestyle. If I’m a restaurant owner and a gay customer enters my establishment, of course I should serve him. Why not? It’s just an issue of another human being requesting food. Or clothing, or any other of a million different products and services. But, if the issue now becomes about baking products for a gay wedding or officiating at the wedding ceremony, is it really so hard to understand that Christians would be hesitant before Almighty God to partake in any kind of behaviour that appears to promote and support gay union? I think you can appreciate that, no?”

            Just sayin……;)
            Hope all is well!

          • Phipps Mike

            “But, if the issue now becomes about baking products for a gay wedding or officiating at the wedding ceremony,”

            not fitting to my statement above. I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the DECORATING The cake as being “participation”. So that was what i was talking about when I said “not one person brought that part up” because NOBODY had.
            Baking a cake WITHOUT anything to IDENTIFY it as a “gay” cake is NOT participation.
            Things are well and thanks for asking.

          • Tim

            No identity? Get a sheet cake from Wal-Mart.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Yea, words scribed by the baker is a form of participating.”

            How is that any more a form of participating than putting the ingredients together, baking the cake, icing the cake, making pretty flowers and otherwise decorating the cake? If they are creating something for a same-gender wedding, they are participating. To suggest that they aren’t participating until they write certain words or stick a topper on the cake, makes no sense.

            “that its not a PERSONAL thing, its just their religion.”

            Since religious belief is a very personal thing, and there would be no way to determine if someone’s stated religious belief was sincerely held or not, allowing religious belief to be a basis upon which someone is allowed to legally discriminate, would result in anti-discrimination laws being gutted. That is why the courts have ruled that religious belief is a not a basis upon which one is allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws.

          • Alan Sands

            How is that any more a form of participating than putting
            the ingredients together, baking the cake, icing the cake, making pretty
            flowers and otherwise decorating the cake? If they are creating something for a
            same-gender wedding, they are participating.

            Did you know my
            grandfather was a career criminal? He used to work on the GM assembly
            line. He “participated” in several
            crimes by building cars that were later used to rob many banks and liquor
            stores.

            “To suggest that they aren’t participating until they write
            certain words or stick a topper on the cake, makes no sense.”

            Who are you to decide for another person’s conscious where
            they draw the line on what they are comfortable with? I guess it should be of
            no more concern to the baker if the customer wants a big red swastika on top of
            the cake.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Now “anti-discrimination” laws are being applied so anyone with a business that serves the wedding industry must be forced to participate in an event that violates their consious, under threat of penalty such as losing their business.”

            No one is “forced” to participate in any event. It is a choice to own a business. It is a choice to decide what services you want to provide. If the owner doesn’t want to bake/photograph/etc., for same-gender marriages, then the owner is free to not offer services for weddings at all.

          • Alan Sands

            “It is a choice to own a business.”

            It is also a choice to accept employment at a particular
            establishment, but that doesn’t mean you leave all rights at the door.

            “If the owner doesn’t want to bake/photograph/etc., for
            same-gender marriages, then the owner is free to not offer services for
            weddings at all.”

            Under the current law, that seems to be the choice Christian
            business owners are forced (yes, forced) to make. But as an independent thinking
            individual, I don’t defer all my logic to simply what the law says. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to decline
            business from an event that violates their beliefs? Read my other posts on this
            thread. Not wanting to participate in a
            same-sex wedding is different from denying any effeminate male a box of
            cupcakes he is willing to pay for.

            You seem to think it’s ok to force them to make this choice.
            It’s people like you we’ll remember when we here homosexuals talk about just
            wanting to live their life like everyone else and be left alone.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is also a choice to accept employment at a particularestablishment, but that doesn’t mean you leave all rights at the door.”

            Agreed

            “Under the current law, that seems to be the choice Christianbusiness owners are forced (yes, forced) to make.”

            Only in certain places. Sexual orientation is not a covered category in all locations. But in those places where it is, yes, just like they would have to make the choice that if their religious belief says that the races should not mix, and a interracial couple asked for a wedding cake, they would have to choose what to do.

            “Why shouldn’t they be allowed to declinebusiness from an event that violates their beliefs?”

            Perhaps they should, but that is not how the law reads at this point. People are free to work together to put such exemptions in place.

            “Not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is different from denying any effeminate male a box ofcupcakes he is willing to pay for.”

            Agreed.

            “You seem to think it’s ok to force them to make this choice.”

            I do.

            “It’s people like you we’ll remember when we here homosexuals talk about justwanting to live their life like everyone else and be left alone.”

            Are you able to restate that in comprehensible English?

          • Alan Sands

            My mistake. I meant “hear” not “here”. Now COMPREHEND THAT!

            “People are free to work together to put such exemptions in place.”

            Then let’s put them in place. Laws are supposed to serve the diverse needs of society and respect everyone’s rights. Such exemptions would do that. I have no problem with such exemptions being specific toward gay weddings in particular, while NOT covering other “beliefs” like objections to interracial marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Then let’s put them in place.”

            Have at it.

          • Jack

            “under threat of penalty such as losing their business. ”

            There is no such penalty.

            “Baking a gay wedding cake”

            There’s no such thing as a gay wedding cake.

          • Alan Sands

            “There is no such penalty.” – follow the news more. I’m not going to do research on your behalf.
            “There’s no such thing as a gay wedding cake.” – Then there is also no such thing as a “wedding cake”. Right? It’s not like “Wedding” is a flavor such as Chocolate. Your failure to understand what I mean (whether you agree with me or not) is more indicitive of your lack of critical thinking skills than any error I made. But seriously, I think you are smart enough to know what I mean.You’re just playing nitpicky word games as a substitute for a logical argument.

        • Ali Sung

          This is truly the case. Before scrubbing his online presence (afraid of backlash..imagine!) Kelsall was on a rant about anything religious and spoiling for a discrimination suit. Odd given he is a white, educated, man of means in a free country. I scrambled to find a soap box where I was a victim enough to participate in this conversation.. alas (NOT) I am too blessed.

          • Neiman

            Thanks for that added information.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Before scrubbing his online presence”

            How did you come by this information? Were you an online follower of Kelsall before this incident?

          • Ali Sung

            His inflammatory posts were all over Urloved FB page. Kelsall’s personal FB page was public also. Until the blowback began.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So prior to this happening, you were following him and were reading his posts?

          • Ali Sung

            No. We were made aware of his attack by the wide net he cast in his call to action. Then we went to the company’s FB page and watched it unfold. Within two days, they announced they were closing. Within 5, Kelsall deleted all his comments.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Within 5, Kelsall deleted all his comments.”

            and “wrote a second post asking friends to stop contacting the Urloved Photography and writing negative reviews and comments on their various online pages.”

          • Ali Sung

            I don’t understand your confusion. The posts Kelsall made were on UR Loved’s public Facebook page.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          What “payday” are you talking about?

        • Jack

          The Huguenin case, mentioned in the article, is the only one of the handful of discrimination suits to make it to Supreme Court refusal. In that case, the complainants specifically asked for nothing other than legal costs (which would have been minimal had the defendant’s lawyer not appealed to four different courts. resulting in a hearing, three court cases and a final appeal to the US Supreme Court).

          The only other case that I know of where the complainants received remuneration is the farm in New York State where the two women denied service each received $1500.

          Unless you can provide information proving that someone is looking for a payday, it appears that you are gravely mistaken.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Given that approximately 70% of people in the US identify as being Christian, the probability of coming across a business that was owned by people who identify as Christians is very high.

        If this is come grand conspiracy, tell me, how would someone know, in advance, that the owners of a business felt it would be a violation of their faith to provide services for a same-gender wedding?

        By the way, churches don’t issue marriage licenses. Only the state does that.

        • The Last Trump

          Um, it was a joke. Unfortunately, it also happens to be true. Just hunt around the Net a bit and search for all the lawsuits filed by gays against Christians. Conspiracy? No. Cold hard facts. And let me guess, you support homosexuality right? And here you are on this Christian website. Shocker. It never ends…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Unfortunately, it also happens to be true.”

            I’ll ask again: how would someone know, in advance, that the owners of a business felt it would be a violation of their faith to provide services for a same-gender wedding?

            “hunt around the Net a bit and search for all the lawsuits filed by gays against Christians.”

            I was able to find 5. Are there others I am missing?

            “And let me guess, you support homosexuality right?”

            i don’t even know what you mean by that. How would one “support homosexuality”? That would be like asking: Do you support being left-handed?

          • The Last Trump

            Thought so. Nuff said.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s unfortunate you can’t provide an explanation for what you said, nor answer basic questions about the statements you make. Not surprising, but still unfortunate.

          • The Last Trump

            No explanation required. Embarrassingly self explanatory. A small child would understand. Find a grown up to help you out if you continue to struggle with the very simple concepts presented here. Or ask any of the dozens of people who had absolutely no problem whatsoever grasping the obvious and consequently up-voted my post. I don’t waste time playing word games with LGBT trolls on Christian websites. Nice try, though. 😉 Go waste someone else’s time with you’re ridiculous games. Unfortunate and shameful that you find these tactics necessary to support your cause. Not surprising, but still unfortunate. Again, happy trolling LGBT supporter! 🙂

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Find a grown up to help you out”

            I thought I had, but apparently I was mistaken.

            Always humorous to watch people attempt to justify their lack of ability to explain themselves by denigrating others. Unfortunate and shameful that you find that tactic necessary in order to attempt to distract from your own shortcoming. Not surprising, but still unfortunate. And most certainly transparent.

            I’ll ask again, and hopefully you’ll be able to answer since you stated it was fact, how would someone know, in advance, that the owners of a business felt it would be a violation of their faith to provide services for a same-gender wedding?

          • Jack

            You know, there are actually only a handful of lawsuits filed for discrimination based on sexual orientation. And a few complaints to executive agencies. You make it sound like an epidemic.

    • raytheist

      You claim, “It is a shame that by cheap thuggery gays and their liberal allies are denying Christians the right to own a business or hold a job unless they agree to abandon their faith.”

      Cheap thuggery? what is this? You are obligated to accept the fact that his couple was right to tell their friends and social media about a bigot in their midst. After all, is that what Christians are famous for doing – sponsoring all sorts of boycotts against companies who realize Christians aren’t the only customers in town?

      Denying Christians the right to own a business or have a job?? There is not evidence of this ANYwhere in America today. Nobody’s right to own a business is being taken away here. The Mais still have a right to run a business; but in accepting a business license they are obligated to follow all the laws of running a business. If they can’t do that, or choose not to follow the laws, it is their own choice to close up shop and find some other way to make money.

      • Neiman

        Yes gays do have a right to complain to their friends and via social media, if they think they have been treated unfairly, but the thuggery comes in when they file lawsuits to force Christians to compromise/violate their faith. It is the thuggery of the Left when they pass unconstitutional laws to fine Christian businesses to force them to submit to the demands of homosexuals, mostly because they want their votes and the money for their campaigns from gays. It is to use these phony laws and liberal courts to deny Christians their rights of free exercise of their faith under the Constitution.

        There are a host of cases wherein Christian people have lost their jobs because they refuse to compromise their faith and accept homosexuality as being normal. In cases like the one under this thread, because people of faith refuse to participate in homosexual events, the fines, court costs and lawyers create such an unfair financial burden that these people are forced to close their businesses.

        It is because people like you have so perverted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, creating a host of unreasonable laws that are openly hostile to people of faith, which make it impossible for Christians to enjoy their rights under the Constitution and that allow you to insist these companies not just serve homosexuals, which they virtually all do, but force him to participate in homosexual activities that is evil.

        But, while you are winning all these cases in the courts and are being very successful in silencing the Christian church for now and in attacking people of faith, God is just, He will defend his children and unless people like you repent, your everlasting fate is simply going to be too horrific to even contemplate. Everyone, gay or straight that are engaged in this open warfare against Christ and the Church, are going to pay a very high price for your vanity and hate.

        • raytheist

          I was under the impression this particular couple did NOT file suit against the Mais.

          And is it not “thuggery” when Christians lobby and vote and pass legislation against same-sex marriage, or adoption, or works so hard to PREVENT anti-discrimination laws?

          There are actually NO legitimate cases where a Christian has lost anything through anyone’s actions but their own.

          • Neiman

            A. The states have a right to pass laws to reflect their moral values. Gays have a right to try and pass laws that reflect their sexually immoral lifestyle, including for gay marriage. It seems the people in no state have for voted for gay marriage and plenty of states have passed laws against gay marriage. That is the democratic system, which your side hates
            B. Gays have only succeeded by constitution hating liberal judges and justices and a couple of liberal legislatures in forcing gay marriage on the people.
            C. It is not thuggery to pass legislation, it is to sue and by false manipulation of the law to force Christian to compromise their faith or die, I mean by losing their businesses or jobs if they do not submit to the gay mafia.
            D. You people remind me of the salesman who closed the deal and would not shut up and eventually said or do something that makes them lose the sale. Your side is winning the war against Christ and His Church, but that is not enough, you have to beat people into submission, force them to agree with you, force them to accept homosexuality and force them to turn their backs on their faith.

          • raytheist

            No, not every state voted against it. But every state that DID vote against it will have such bans overturned because you cannot vote away other people’s civil rights. The judges are following the constitution, they don’t hate it. This is Civics 101.

            You seem quite angry that justice is finally coming to pass. I feel sorry for you. There really is no “war” against Christians. We’re simply moving forward with or without Christians, and Christians cannot stop progress.

            Christians don’t have to like same-sex marriage. But they cannot throw a fit over it, because it doesn’t affect them at all. And until Christians learn to keep their faith to themselves and keep their noses out of other people’s lives, they will continue to experience problems, but it is entirely their own fault.

          • Neiman

            I hate it when people lie about what I write. I never said “every” state voted against it, so you falsely said that was my position. I said that no state yet has voted FOR gay marriage.

            Marriage is a civil right, but it is up to the people to define what constitutes marriage and gays simply do not qualify. It is no different than states having the right to set the minimum qualifications for a drivers license, hunting license, contractor’s license, the license to practice law, etc. They have the right to establish minimum qualifications for marriage and the people have decided throughout human history, with a couple of minor exceptions in morally profligate societies, that marriage only involves people opposite genders. While it is certainly contrary to the Christian faith, there are a host of other reasons why the Christian definition of marriage should be defended and maintained.

            Like all liberals, you have falsely accused me and other Christians of being angry or of promoting hate, solely because our faith opposes all sexual immorality and the idolatry involved in the debauched homosexual lifestyle choice. You folk would never dare go into a Muslim owned bakery, ask them for a gay themed wedding cake and certainly would never dare to sue them or turn them in to any government agency, primarily out of fear of their reaction. It is Christians and only Christians that are targeted by members of the gay mafia and by the godless liberals in this country. So yes it is an out and out war against Christ and the church.

            I hardly would describe it as progress, although you and the left label everything you do as progressive, to lead our country into a moral abyss and that to our own destruction, spiritually, morally and in many other ways. You betray yourself when you say there is no war against Christians and then you insist that they should keep their mouths shut, that they have no right to try and evangelize and thereby save souls from everlasting punishing in perdition. So you say there is no war, but they should shut up and they should give you your way or else.

          • raytheist

            You wrote: “It seems the people in no state have for voted for gay marriage and plenty of states have passed laws against gay marriage. ”

            And you are WRONG, because some states have successfully voted FOR marriage equality.

          • Neiman

            I could have missed it, which states, how many where the people, by popular vote, have voted for gay marriage? 2 or 3?

            Still, many, in many more states, I think 35-38, the people have voted against gay marriage, so the track record by the people is no.

            Marriage equality is a false issue, gays can marry in every state, just not each other, so they have equal access to marriage as it is defined by the people.

          • raytheist

            ” could have missed it, which states, how many where the people, by popular vote, ”

            Google is your friend.

            But it doesn’t matter how many voted for OR against. The votes themselves were unconstitutional, because you can’t vote away other people’s civil rights. That’s why we have judicial review, and that’s why judges keep overturning unconstitutional laws that were passed. Civics 101.

          • Neiman

            So you cannot list states that have voted for gay marriage? So you lied to me?

            This is not a civil rights issue by any definition. Yes godless, liberal, activist judges are legislating from the bench as front line soldiers in your hate filled war against Christ and the Church.

          • raytheist

            Lied? No way. I expected you to do your own homework and even pointed the way for you. Since you seem incapable of doing even that much for yourself, I will tell you: In the November 2012 elections VOTERS approved same sex marriage in Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

          • Neiman

            No, you didn’t know or you would have said so, after I challenged you, you were caught, it was either put up or shut up. Still, how many is that compared to all the states that voted for real marriage?

          • raytheist

            Of course I knew. I’ve been following LGBT legal issues almost 30 years, and following same-sex marriage issues since Prop 8.

            But also, as I earlier stated, it does not matter how many states put it up to a vote, the votes themselves were unconstitutional because you cannot vote away other people’s civil rights.

            And, for the record, a marriage between two people of the same sex is just as “real” as marriage between two people of the opposite sex. There is no significant difference in the nature and quality of the marriage relationships; they are functionally identical. There’s no such thing as “real” marriage vs. “gay” marriage. It’s just marriage, regardless which two people are joined. Marriage is the word that describes the relationship, not the sex or orientation of the two individuals, just like roommates, best friends, siblings, and other non-gender-specific relationship words.

          • Neiman

            Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, two people of the same gender do not qualify.

            No go away, I am tired of you and your lame arguments.

          • Malcolm Swall

            YOU can say same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. YOU can say the moon is made from green cheese.

            Bans on same sex marriage have been found in more than two dozen federal court decision to violate the US Constitution, the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendment.

            Abridgment of the fundamental right of marriage without due process.

            The opinions are all online, you can read any of them you choose.

            I do say that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, as there is a fundamental right that was being denied without due process.

          • Neiman

            I don’t care what these liberal judges and justices say, their decisions amount to legislation from the bench and based on their extreme left-wing bias. It has nothing to do with civil rights, they already have the right to marry, they have that civil right, just not to each other, but like heterosexuals they have the right to marry the opposite gender only.

            Historically, with only a couple of minor exceptions in morally profligate nations, marriage has always and only been defined as between two people of the opposite gender. The late Mortimer Adler, a one-time atheist, said that truth about a matter can be established if it was commonly held throughout all human history, in virtually every geographic location and society. You and your ilk can call the perversion of marriage between two people of the same gender to be marriage, but it will never be in matter of fact real marriage. It will be something entirely different and it will bring nothing but moral and spiritual harm to the people involved, their partners, their friends, their families, any children involved and society as a whole. It is the same thing if child molestation became acceptable and I should tell you that some scientists are promoting the idea that child molestation is genetic, but if every human being on the planet accepted the idea and called it normal, that fact notwithstanding, it would still be moral degradation and a moral crime against children. So, no matter how much you yell and scream, no matter how by cheap thuggery you may succeed in silencing the Christian church, no matter how many people on earth except that as being normal and healthy, it will remain gross immorality and vile sexual perversion.

            Now you can go way, get off my back, you are never going to change my mind. Why because I have a closed mind? No, first because God condemns homosexuality as being idolatry and when he first defined marriage it was only between a man and a woman; and, only people with the corrupt mind could deny that it goes against nature, it is a dead-end lifestyle choice.

          • James Grimes

            “there is a fundamental right that was being denied without due process.” Is that a right to further a sinful lifestyle?

          • Malcolm Swall

            I absolutely have the right to use my own moral compass as to what is “sinful”. Why do you assume that you get to define “sin” for me? Would you want a rabbi or mullah to enforce a ban on bacon because it is sinful?

            We live in America, a country that has religious liberty.

          • James Grimes

            If you want to live a sinful lifestyle, go ahead. I can’t prevent you from doing so. Since this is a Christian site, I have every right to condemn a lifestyle that the Bible says in sinful. BTW, as an Atheist, your comment is meaningless on this site. Bye.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Are you also as passionate about making it illegal for people to divorce for reasons other than adultery? Making it illegal for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage? Making it illegal for people to cohabit? Making it illegal for men to have long hair? Making it illegal for women to have short hair? Making it illegal for women not to obey their husbands in all things?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            How do you define a “sinful lifestyle”? I don’t think your church makes the rules here.

          • James Grimes

            The Bible defines what is sinful. It is the absolute guide to what is acceptable.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Well, thank God we have separation of church and state laws. I certainly wouldn’t want to be governed by your concept of sin since it’s at complete variance to simple basic human rights.

          • James Grimes

            Since this is a Christian site and the Bible is our guide in matters of behavior, and you are the stalker here, it makes no difference how you feel, what you think is right, and how you think it should be. You are the disagreeable Atheist here and the fact that you are haunting a Christian site is deplorable. You need to get a life and make something of yourself. You have been dismissed as a useless troll. Did I make myself clear enough?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            You seem to have issues with authority. You have no authority in this conversation and are not going to silence me, and your church has no authority with matters of law. I am NOT ruled by your pseudo-Christian morality, and there’s very little you can do about that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            And which sect of Christianity should be rely on regarding what is sinful and what is not? Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Amish?

            i do so hope it’s not the Amish – i’ve grown quite fond of electricity.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            No, it is the right to access a license offered by the state to citizens.

          • James Grimes

            Your comments here on a Christian site are meaningless. You have been dismissed.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What does this site being a Christian site have to do with the law and being consistent in applying Christian principles to all laws, not just certain ones?

            Or is that just your way of avoiding answering questions about your position so that you won’t appear to be a hypocrite?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            “Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, two people of the same gender do not qualify.”

            Too bad practically everyone in the solar system would disagree with you apart from certain stone age religions.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue”

            Yes, it is. The state offers a civil license to citizens. Citizens therefore have a right to access that license. Any restriction on the right to access that license is a civil rights issue.

            “two people of the same gender do not qualify.”

            At the present time, only in 16 states, and that will change relatively quickly.

          • Neiman

            States offer driver’s licenses, 5-year-old children, the blind and mentally ill have a right to a driver’s license or if denied it violates the Constitution, right?

            Or, is it possible the states have a right to establish minimum requirements for driver’s licenses? If they do, then they have a right to set minimum requirements for marriage licenses as well.

            You are right, all will approve gay marriage, but being forced to by liberal legislatures and liberal courts, in the vast majority of the cases it will not be by the votes and will of the people. It will be a result of judicial tyranny and be unconstitutional.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “States offer driver’s licenses, 5-year-old children, the blind and mentally ill have a right to a driver’s license or if denied it violates the Constitution, right?”

            Any restrictions which the state imposes on citizens receiving a license offered by the state must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons.

            “It will be a result of judicial tyranny and be unconstitutional.”

            How is a judge ruing that a law is unconstitutional, “tyranny”? What is unconstitutional about their rulings?

            It is no more complicated than this: In the case of same-gender civil marriage, the states have been unable to provide any rational, compelling, legally valid reasons why gender should be a disqualifying factor when two citizens apply for a marriage license.

            I know this action goes against your religious beliefs, but the US is not a Christian Theocracy. As such, there will be things that are legal that are contrary to the Christian belief system, just as there are now. Are you as passionate about making divorce except in cases of infidelity, illegal? Having sexual relations before marriage, illegal? Believing in a god other than the Christian god, illegal? All of those are contrary to the Christian belief system. Therefore, if you are going to justify denying marriage licenses to two citizens of the same gender based upon it being contrary to biblical teachings, you should also be supportive of making all those things illegal. Are you?

          • tschraad

            raytheist – A lot of bullshit you are spreading. Normal people just are not buying it and down the road you will find that your issue will be a short run and dead.
            Homosexual perverted marriages are not real marriages and never will be. You can redefine a pig an call it a bird, but it will never fly. Government need to stop mandating social issues. Nothing as unnatural as your lifestyle will ever be accepted, tolerated but will always be considered abnormal.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Except for polling in the US by Gallup and Pew show steadily growing majority support for same sex marriage over the last decade. 55%, 78% among the youngest.

            Soooo, “never” is obviously a fallacy if you were talking about most people.

          • tschraad

            Malcom Swall – yes the word never was meant as I stated. Homosexual unnatural marriage will never be accepted as normal.

          • Malcom Tucker

            Talks about unnatural lifestyle, uses a computer and electricity.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            I think I’m starting to understand you better. I think you’re a troll. You challenge someone, they accept the challenge and give you the EXACT information that proves you wrong, and you STILL refuse to admit it.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Maine, Maryland and Washington state enacted same sex marriage by initiative in 2012. The last time the issue was put to a vote.

          • Tux

            No such thing as marriage equality.

            Anyone who spouts the nonsensical notion that it does exist is just plain wrong. raytheist, if you are so supportive of making marriage equal, then why should it not be applied to incestuous, and polygamous relationships among others?

            Mothers marrying sons and daughters, Fathers doing the same and brothers and sisters getting married to each. Heck, why don’t they all just get married to each other and make one big group marriage? Then we will truly have marriage equality that you are suggesting.

            Surely this should be allowed since the only criteria is that the couple(or individuals) love each other right?

          • Rose

            I feel more sorry for your side that is ignorant of the facts of life that Christians have a keen understanding of. You may be moving forward, but it won’t be anything glorious. In fact, it will only lead to ruin and more crime. You’re wrong in saying that it doesn’t affect us at all. This is our society as well. It affects everyone. And sorry, but we won’t keep our faith to ourselves. It’s not our belief. It’s our belief to try to help you. Not everyone sticks their noses into others lives, it’s another generalization that i despise to see. But sorry, we won’t stay silent about our faith and love for God. We’re not gonna stop because you’re offended either.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “A. The states have a right to pass laws to reflect their moral values. ”

            The states have a right to pass any law they care to. In turn, citizens have the right to challenge the constitutionality of those laws in court. That is the system in the US, which you apparently, hate.

            “B. Gays have only succeeded by constitution hating liberal judges and justices and a couple of liberal legislatures in forcing gay marriage on the people.”

            Of recent votes, 75% resulted in same-gender marriage being approved by a majority of those who voted. Gay marriage was not “forced” on the people. People are not now “forced” to marry someone of the same gender.

            “C. It is not thuggery to pass legislation, it is to sue and by false manipulation of the law to force Christian to compromise their faith or die, I mean by losing their businesses or jobs if they do not submit to the gay mafia.”

            When you pass laws that result in financial and legal harm to other citizens based upon nothing more than disagreeing with the way in which they pursue their happiness and exercise their liberty, that is thuggery.

            “Your side is winning the war against Christ and His Church,”

            There is no “war against Christ and His Church”. People are free to believe as they care to. If something being legal in our nation that is contrary to the teachings of Christianity amounts to a “war against Christ and His Church, then divorce being legal is a “war against Christ and His Church”. Where is the outcry about that? in fact, why not say that the freedom to believe in faiths other than Christianity is a “war against Christ and His Church”.

            You seem to want to trash our constitution and replace it with a Christian Theocracy.

          • Sami

            It is thuggery when you tell all your friends to stand up and write negative reviews about the company just because it doesn’t agree with what you agree with.

          • raytheist

            No, it’s not thuggery to take advantage of word-of-mouth and social media to spread the word about bigots in the area. Thuggery is what Christians have been doing for years, trying to use the law as a weapon against gays and lesbians instead of minding their own darn business. Christians today are just beginning to reap what they’ve been sowing for years, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

          • Neiman

            You are quite the Christ hater and terribly dishonest.

          • raytheist

            Not at all.

          • tschraad

            raytheist – as Christ said “you are either with me or against me” and you definitely are against Christ. That is if you believe there is a Jesus Christ because you cannot hate a person if you do not know him.

          • tschraad

            raytheist – you cannot see the forest when you hiding in the trees. You can’t see the bigotry you have against normal people. Homosexuals are the bigots. We either accept their beliefs or they will try to ruin our peaceful lifestyle. Just as terrorist need to be eliminated, so do the mentally disordered must be treated so they can become productive members of society.

          • Desert Sun Art

            It’s one thing for the couple involved to “spread the word”, quite another when people then take it upon themselves to post hateful comments and emails to the business owners. That is bullying.

          • raytheist

            Uh-huh…. like Christians haven’t perfected the art of electronic bullying, putting up their massive letter-writing campaigns. People get themselves in an uproar over all sorts of things and they send letters and emails to express their disapproval. The photographers chose to discriminate without rational reason, and the public let them know that such discrimination is not acceptable in a civilized society. They should withhold their fake moral outrage and just do the job they opened their business to do.

        • Chrissy Vee

          He’s baaaaaaaaack! (o_O)

      • Rose

        Nobody’s denying Christian’s the right to own a business, however Christians are being stripped of the right to own a business the way they wish. Nobody should be forced to do something they don’t want to. And this couple saw that God was more important than going against his teachings. Either way in the end they have won for not going against their beliefs. We’re not famous for sponsoring boycotts, we’re famous for standing up for God. Keep in mind that we’re being persecuted, and we’re only standing up for our beliefs, something that even atheists would do if they were in our shoes, except for the fact that we’re doing it for God and you’d be doing it either to spite God or to spite christians.

        • Malcolm Swall

          IF you get a business license (a privilege not a right), you are agreeing to follow all of the applicable business regulation.
          You have a license to serve the public, not just the public you approve of.

          If you can’t to the time, don’t do the crime.

          If you don’t like anti-discrimination ordinances, than lobby to get them changed. Don’t pretend that your religion is a get out of jail card to ignore the law.

          • Desert Sun Art

            Any law that forces anyone to act against their beliefs and values is wrong-period. Being a business owner does NOT mean that the public can force you to do whatever they want.

          • SashaC

            So by your logic, if a business owner holds the belief that black people or women are inferior, and based on that they refuse to serve them, that would be acceptable?

            Being a business owner means agreeing to follow the laws governing businesses, whether they align with your personal views or not.

          • Malcolm Swall

            A segregationist owning a lunch counter would say the same thing about serving blacks.

      • tschraad

        raytheist – would you kill to keep your job? If you are ask to take a life via abortion, would you participate? If it was my business, my employees my money my sweat and tears and one of these perverts came into my store and demanded I do business with them, when I get done with them they will know that their intolerance and bullying yielded fruits that they didn’t expect. No homosexual terrorists will try to push me around unless they are really committed.
        Wake up America and tell these perverts to leave us alone. We do not need their business and they can do business with their perverted brothers.

        • raytheist

          So, you’re not really a Christian, I guess. There are no gay terrorists running around, wreaking havoc in the business world.

          As for performing a legal abortion, usually what makes them legal is that the people doing them are qualified.

          And 99.999% of the time, business owners have no idea if their customers are gay or straight or Christian or some other thing. It’s none of their business. But if you discriminate on the basis of person’s sexual orientation, you deserve to be hauled into court for it.

          • tschraad

            raytheist – and 99.9% of the time I would not know nor would I care. It is when the intolerant bullying perverts demand or mandate that I will do business with them or they will do all they can to close by business. These terrorists must be stopped.

          • raytheist

            Again, there are no gay terrorists. You need to tone down your hate-filled vocabulary and quit being so afraid of things that can’t hurt you.

          • tschraad

            raytheist – tell that to those who have been sued or run out of business. In my opinion, homosexuals are intolerant of Christians and when they need,use bullying as a PC agenda.

          • raytheist

            tschraad — clearly you are missing something along the way. NOTHING has been done to ANY Christian business owners EXCEPT what they have done to themselves. It’s called “reaping what you sow”, ever heard of that concept? They’ve been overstepping their bounds for decades, and they are merely upset they are getting back what they’ve dished out. You want to blame someone? Go blame Anita Bryant, one of the original Liars4Jesus™.

          • Elliott Soh

            I feel sorry for you. You can put everything you desire to a vote and call it civil rights but on the Day of Judgment, you cannot vote yourself into paradise. It is only by grace that we enter. We as Christians may not even qualify but as children of God whom choose to stand for His Word and obey His commands, warning others of His wrath, will meet the basic criteria no rights or constitutional or international laws will redeem you. With that said, God bless you, even if you don’t subscribe to Christ.

          • Desert Sun Art

            B.S.! You cannot force a photographer to photograph you. The business owners have rights too.

          • raytheist

            If a photographer advertises “Wedding photography”, then yes, they do, or they have to provide a legitimate BUSINESS reason for not wanting to do the very thing they opened their business to do. Hating gays is not a legitimate business reason. I could not demand a baker to take my pictures, because that’s not what the baker opened his business to do.

          • Desert Sun Art

            They do not HAVE to take on any clients that they do not want to. Trying to force a business owner to do something against their wishes, no matter what it is, is unethical and should be illegal if it isn’t.

          • raytheist

            You are mistaken. If they open a business to take wedding photos, they clearly DO want to take wedding photos. Unless they have a legitimate business reason to not accept a client, they are violating the law to turn away income. Moral objection is not a legitimate business reason.

        • Malcolm Swall

          “Segregation now, segregation forever!”

      • JudgeRight

        Freedom is possible only among good, decent people. Once you engage in perversion then perversion corrupts freedom and brings in oppression and tyranny. How hard is for people to see that this is anti-Christian persecution by militant homosexuals?

    • David J. Smith III

      Christ taught love.

      LOVE FOR ALL. Not for a select few.

      Whereas YOU, sir, seem to preach hatred and encourage others to join you in perpetuating the absolute EVIL that is the hurtful exclusion of your fellow man. That your hatred seems to stem solely from these two American citizens and their LOVE for one another is heartwrenching to me. I am honestly weeping as I write this.
      DISCRIMINATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Believe whatever you want to believe in the privacy of your own home, but if you own a business, and you do your business in the United States of America, you CANNOT refuse service to anyone based on race, creed, color or sexual orientation. Not only is that a statute that every L.O.E. in America is sworn to uphold, that is the embodiment of the American way of life. THOSE ARE THE FREEDOMS I CHOSE TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY TO DEFEND. To defend against all foes, foreign and domestic. You, sir, are the definition of a domestic foe to our American way of life.
      How dare ANY of the majority of ANTI-AMERICANS such as yourself, sir, try to deny the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness from AMERICAN CITIZENS. Do you think the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meant for the exclusive enjoyment of those who share your hypocritical, narrow-minded and misguidedly FALSE interpretation of a ‘religion’. The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, made it abundantly clear that EVERY religion be very carefully, very deliberate, and almost fanatically separated from our Constitutional Republic. (remember, America is NOT a democracy) It is through your very hate speak that you have proven you know nothing about Christ Jesus, His teachings, or His actions while he was among us.
      If you were in any way familiar with Jesus Christ, you would be well aware that HE taught us that if there are people that you perceive as enemies, YOU MUST LOVE THEM MOST OF ALL, LOVE THEM MORE THAN YOUR OWN FAMILY.
      That comes right from the mouth of the ‘God’ whom you claim as the basis for your anti-american, anti-Christian, completely WRONG point of view. It’s all over the bible. Trust me. I’ve studied in religious institutions for nearly half of the 41 years I’ve been privileged to have spent here on God’s green earth.

      I love you, sir.
      I love you because Jesus taught me that LOVE for your enemies is the only effective way to defeat the hatred that is born out of weakness and fear. Christians of every sect or schism have a holy obligation to set an example for the rest of the world through their love for all. Jesus of Nazareth didn’t say:
      “LOVE EVERYONE…well, maybe not EVERYONE, You should love everyone except for that group of people who happen to express love differently than you, yourself do. I want you to make those folks feel like second class trash because of who they are. My Father has made them this way, and it’s up to you humans to judge them…come on, really make them suffer for what Dad and I did to them. How dare they?”
      Jesus would be so sad to hear that someone who publicly professes to follow Him could get His message so COMPLETEY, TOTALLY and MIND BOGGINGLY wrong. You realize you are fomenting seditious thought processes which are diametrically opposed to every ideal He instructed His followers to espouse. The idea that love is for everyone EXCEPT those that disagree with you is PRECISELY what He came here to conquer, and you seem to be trying your damndest to do exactly what He told you NEVER to do. TRUE CHRISTIANS would celebrate love in ANY incarnation.
      Brother, If there is anything I can do to help get you back on the path to true salvation, I will do everything in my power to assist you. For you, sir, are full of hate, and I’m so sorry that that’s where you are on your journey. As a Christian, I consider it my obligation to walk in Jesus’ footsteps with you, and to possibly carry you along the path for at least some of that way.
      I love you.
      And I will pray for you every single day for the rest of my life, so that you may find your way back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
      In the name of the Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit.
      Amen.

      • Neiman

        First of all, you are bearing false witness against me, because you cannot prove any hatred in my heart for anyone, when you accuse me of hate it is your subjective and biased opinion solely because I speak against sin.

        I would point you to John The Baptist, who reproved everyone that came to him of sin in the strongest possible terms and made it clear that without repentance for those sins, a sincere repentance from the heart, they could not be saved, he even condemned those coming to him that refused to admit they were sinners. It would not fall under your definition, your worldly definition of love, when this same prophet of God called Herod and his wife of being adulterers and headed for damnation. More importantly, I would point you to Jesus Who not only called people to repentance, Who not only spoke against sin, but at one point used a whip to drive moneychangers out of God’s temple, would you call that by your worldly definition – love? If you read in the Revelations of Jesus Christ, the last book in the Holy Bible, you will find were Jesus commended two churches for their hating the teachings and sins of certain people and said that he also hated them. I would also point you, and I will provide a link below this paragraph, wherein Almighty God the Father spoke of his hatred for certain sins and certain sinners. So speaking against sin in the strongest possible terms, hating those sins, first in ourselves and then the world is in perfect harmony with the spirit of God. You people of this world forget that God is not only a God of love, He is also a God of justice; Whom satisfied his infinite love for every human being and His demand for Divine Justice and punishment against sin, by sending his own Son to Calvary. http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-hate.html

        While every human example of the divine Will and Way is limited and flawed, the following is my explanation of the difference between the Love of God and the false love of people of the world: let us say that there is a man with a life threatening cancer (sin) and he doesn’t know he has the cancer and he refuses to go to the doctor, wanting to bury his head in the proverbial sand. Friend #1 (you) says to everyone, “shut up,” about this man having cancer, I love this man and it will only offend him and offend his friends that you caused him to be afraid, if you tell Him that without a cure he will die. Friend #2 (Christian) says to Friend #1, “I love this man and even if he gets angry with me and even if you get angry, even if you both and all of his friends attack me, I am willing to suffer your abuse, if I can get this man to admit he has this life-threatening cancer (sin) and to make sure he knows there is a man (Jesus) that can cure him and give him long life.” By your definition of love, you would rather allow that man to suffer and die, rather than to risk offending him and by offending him save his life. By the Christian definition of love, we are willing to risk everything, including your hate, if there is any chance of saving this man. Now which one really loved this sick man, Friend #1 (you) or Friend #2 (the Christian)? I would submit that it is Friend #2 and that you in truth hate the sick man (sinner).

        There are two kinds of love, the kind of love of the people of this world, which only and always results in death. The other kind of love is selfless and self – sacrificial, willing to pay any price if it will save even one human being.

        For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to suffer and die for them. God’s invitation is to “whosoever,” a most blessed all – inclusive word, that leaves no one uninvited. But, the condition is that one has to be aware they are a sinner and deserving of hell, that they willingly and sincerely repent of those sins, which involves a willingness to stop sinning; and, then accept salvation by the free gift of God’s grace, by faith in and by Christ Jesus. It is the Love of God that his children are his instruments on earth, by the Holy Spirit within them, to convict the world of sin and to turn them to God for his salvation. So, rather than hate as you falsely charge, to speak against sin, to oppose sin as a precondition for people to find God’s salvation, it is the ultimate expression of the love of God.

        Unless you are ready and willing to confess Jesus Christ as your only Savior and your Lord, to repent and turn from your sins, then please do not pray for me because you are praying to God Who will not hear you, he does not hear the prayers of sinners. I also don’t want your worldly love, which only brings death.

        • David J. Smith III

          There are no Revelations of Jesus Christ. John wrote Revelations.
          I bear no false witness. You want to deny a fellow human being the basic rights you enjoy because they are different from you. That is hate.
          Christ Jesus never said one word that in any way alludes to prohibiting two human beings from being allowed to love each other just because they happen to be people who share similar genitalia. No where does he ever come close to saying anything about it.
          If you believe that two people of the same gender being in love and entering into a monogamous relationship is a sin, do you also believe eating shellfish to be a sin? That’s right there in the very next paragraph. Carries the same penalty. Stoning. The Bible says you are a sinner for eating shellfish about three verses after the verse about a man lying with a man as a woman.
          Do you wear polyester at all? Cotton/Polly blends? A nice linen and silk blazer for Summer? According to The Old Testament, wearing clothes made from two different fabrics is a much more serious offense than same gender love.
          Has your wife ever worn an article of your clothing? The Bible instructs you to kill her for “wearing that which pertaineth to a man.” So, by your logic, aren’t you then obligated to shoot your wife or daughters for putting on your hat, shirt or coat less than two paragraphs before the ‘man lying with a man’ verse. Also punishable by death? Divorcing one of your wives in favor of a younger member of your harem.
          You seem to practice cafeteria Christianity. Picking and choosing which of the 3,000 year old laws you get to ignore and which are justification for bigotry and hatred. (laws, i might add, meant to keep a nomadic Jewish People alive in the desert)
          The last line of my last post, where I offered you love and guidance in the face of your anger and hate, you will notice I REFER TO JESUS CHRIST AS MY SAVIOR. I DON’T BELIEVE YOU DO, SIR. Certainly not the Jesus written about in the bible. The Jesus who sat and ate with moneylenders, prostitutes and lepers, spreading love to the downtrodden. Not bigotry, apartheid and threats.
          Again, Sir…look to the words of Jesus the Nazarene. I do not think he means what you think he means.
          I love you and pray for you.

          • Neiman

            You are an dangerous man, you are filled with hatred for Christ, for gays, are probably self-loathing and you know NOTHING of God’s Word:

            Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:” It is the revelation of End Times events from Jesus, to John who was in the Spirit and for the Church. You are absolutely wrong.

            Gays are not denied the right to marry, which means one man to one woman, but not people of their own gender. So once again you are absolutely, factually, wrong.

            Is a hate to deny a five-year-old child a drivers license? No, because he does not meet the minimum requirements set by the “states” for a drivers license. Is it hate to deny a person a contractors license, even if he cannot prove and demonstrate his qualifications? No, he does not meet the minimum requirements set by the “states” for a contractors license. In a similar manner, the “states” have the right to establish minimum requirements for marriage and that has historically covered only people of opposite genders.

            No I am not a cafeteria Christian, everything required for salvation and Christian living are contained within the New Testament, under the gospel of grace. Those things you mentioned applied to Israel, to the Jews under the dispensation of the law, which is contained within the Old Testament. You know that, but you are trying to mix things up that you might deceive people. So pardon me if I dismiss your lies and move on.

            You say that Jesus Christ is your Savior, but you do not share his hatred of sin. God hates sin because for the lost, if they do not repent, which includes stop sinning, they cannot be saved and they will be separated from him and his love forever. God hates sin for the believer, because it separates them and him from intimate fellowship, as sin can’t enter his presence. I gave you a reference the scriptural passages that spoke of God’s hatred of sin and other passages which speak of Jesus hatred of sin. I showed you were Jesus, John the Baptist and all the apostles called men first to repentance, before they could bring them to Christ for salvation. God hates sin because he loves the sinner.

            If you do not hate sin as God hates sin then you oppose God and you can claim to be a Christian as long as you want, but if you oppose God you are a liar. You offer love but it is worldly love, it is not the selfless, self – sacrificial love of God for lost souls, it is a false love. God will not be mocked, he will not accept an empty profession of faith, but demands the kind of faith that hates sin and seeks his salvation on his terms. As long as you defend homosexuality, which he condemns from Genesis to Revelations, as long as you defend the blasphemy of gay marriage, when he established in Genesis the only basis for marriage which was between one man one woman, wherein they became one flesh before him, yours is a false profession of faith. It is not a surrender to God and “thus saith the Lord,” but it is an insistence upon God bending to your will. From cover to cover in the Bible God condemns all sexual immorality, in Romans One he declares lesbianism and homosexuality to be a form of idolatry and in no uncertain terms makes it clear that if such people do not repent, if they did not turn to him for healing and salvation they will be self condemned.

            You may continue to rage on and on, you may try to deceive people with your phony expressions of love and promises of prayer to a God whom you disobey in your defense of homosexuality and gay marriage, but you are not fooling God and you are not acting in his love at all. You know not God’s Word, you do not understand God’s Love and you are leading precious gay souls, people that Jesus died to save, into eternal punishing in hell. I pity you and herein I pray that God will heal with your hate, your lies and if at all possible to bring you to repentance and to Salvation in Jesus.

          • David J. Smith III

            where did jesus ever say that men are not allowed to love and marry men? NOWHERE. nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of same gender sexual relationships. the ONLY place that appears in the Bible is in the old testament, right next to where it says that you should be put to death if you work on Sunday.

          • Rosanna Miller

            And JESUS answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and
            said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE
            JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?” Matthew 19:4-

            Notice, He doesn’t say anything about God creating man to be with man from the beginning or woman to be with woman from the beginning! And there is a good reason for that, homosexuality is NOT from Him. It is from the god of this world, Satan.

          • Neiman

            You are so steeped in sin and so deceived by Satan that nothing will ever convince you of the truth. It is unfortunate, because all you are do is storing up greater wrath against yourself in eternity. God offers you the same healing and salvation that many gays have experienced, even from New Testament times. I can only feel pity for you.

            While the Bible does address homosexuality,
            it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is
            clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and
            unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9
            states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the
            kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned
            in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will,
            and would be, in fact, sinful.

            Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24,
            describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife.
            In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33,
            the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a
            woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a
            woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a
            stable environment for that family.

            The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this
            understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been
            the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in
            world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular
            psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and
            emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family,
            psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which
            both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in
            which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay
            marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to
            “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual
            intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship
            between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues
            against gay marriage.

            So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage
            being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today?
            Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled
            as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition
            is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing
            for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and
            non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay
            couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some
            form of civil union?

            The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows
            that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to
            suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and
            attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize
            homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal
            plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32
            illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The
            truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and
            the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by
            many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an
            indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to
            overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in
            the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the
            modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

            To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give
            approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and
            consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against
            the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong
            and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from
            contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an
            evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a
            woman.

            According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6).
            Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of
            marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians,
            we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of
            God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including
            homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
            As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is
            personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words
            of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
            If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is,
            you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
            That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html#ixzz3JiTqCl9B

          • David J. Smith III

            JESUS NEVER CONSIDERED A PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO HUMAN BEINGS WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE THE SAME REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS TO BE A SIN. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM? WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS A SIN? WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THIS CALLED A SIN?

          • Rosanna Miller

            “On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or
            do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
            God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
            adulterers, nor effeminate, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9

            There are others but I am aware you have no real desire for anything but the lies that support your lies.

          • Neiman

            It was Jesus, by His Spirit, in Romans One that powerfully condemns sex between people of the same gender. Only one completely deceived by Satan could read it otherwise.

            http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-homosexuality.html

            http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

          • Rosanna Miller

            What right, do we have, that they are being denied?

          • http://www.poetrypoem.com/musicman Tnmusicman

            Uh, David those laws are for JEWS ONLY yet Christ reiterates the issue of homosexuality being forbidden in 1 Corinthians 6:9 , I believe.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Jesus makes clear in Matthew that homosexuals are born that way.

        • Michael L Hays

          It is characteristic of Christians like Neiman that they are incapable of discovering the log in their eye. In this case, it is hatred of, not love, for all, including his “enemies.” Another Christian hypocrite revealed by his own intemperate words.

      • Rosanna Miller

        What discrimination?!? Sexual orientation is not a protected area UNDER GOD’S LAW! I don’t care whether the whole USA bows to Satan and his peons, they would all be wrong!

        You want to know who is being discriminated against? The Christians since they do have their freedom of religion and speech being discriminated against every which way!

        No worries, you and your thugs have a time to wage war against the Saints of God. You will be the vessels of wrath spoke of in the Word.

    • salter

      A war against Christ! How sad that you would make a statement like that. My spouse and I both love Jesus, but we have difficulty using the term Christian, because so many people relate the word to hate. We now tell people that we are followers of Jesus. The biggest problem is the lack of love shown by the Church, as the writer above exemplifies. The Church is not a waiting room for saints, but an emergency room for sinners. We have all been washed in the Precious Blood of Jesus. The words of the writer do not draw the unsaved to Christ. Instead they condemn God’s children to hell.

      • Neiman

        Are you right in all of your charges against me? Well, let’s examine the matter from Scripture and see if perhaps you are dealing only in emotion, not realizing God’s Word.

        Tell me, when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip made out of cords and was kicking over their tables, does Jesus meet your definition of Christian love? How about when he called people snakes? What of John the Baptist, when he reproved everyone coming to him of sin and the danger of the fires of hell, and in a loud, clear voice called them to repent, calling some of the people gathered serpents, when he confronted Herod and his wife and called them adulterers and worthy of damnation, does that meet your definition of Christian love? When God tells us in the book of revelations that he is going to pour out his wrath on the entire world, bringing death to men women and children all over the world, is that love? Or, is it possible even remotely possible that your more emotion based, saccharine sweet form of love, does not conform to God’s definition; wherein He first reproves the world of sin, that they might know the utter sinfulness of sin, wherein he makes the wages of sin – which is everlasting torment abundantly clear, whereby men might be driven to him in repentance and seek his salvation which is in Christ, does it meet your definition of Love? Is it possible that your kind of love which does not confront and oppose sin, which covers up and excuses sin, including false teachings, leaving people in their sins and in danger of perdition, actually hate for lost souls?

        Now about a war against Christ. If you have ever actually read the Bible, even if just the New Testament, have you never read where Jesus said as the world hated him even unto murdering Him, because he reproved it of sin, that this same world would hate his true children too? Does the world hate you? If not, are you really His child? Did he or did he not warn his children that in the last days they would be persecuted, beaten, sent to prison and killed for their faith? Did he not tell us that in the end times the world would be given over to the spirit of the antichrist? If Jesus warned us of all of these things, knowing he never speaks falsely, am I at fault for talking about a war against Christ and His church in these days? Especially considering all the stories in the daily news, wherein they are being forced by law to either compromise their faith or lose their businesses and even their jobs, where they are being forced to accept things that God calls evil as actually being good or those things that he calls good, as being evil.

        Sadly, you don’t even seem to know what the church is. It is not any man-made religious organizations/denominations or sects, Jesus calls his church the Body of Christ, made up all of those who by the grace of God alone, by faith alone and even that faith is his faith, in Christ alone as both Savior and Lord. Yes, God does call sinners, Jesus said he didn’t come to save the righteous but sinners, but how can they be saved if through his children the world is not made to know they are all sinners and deserving of hell, which means exposing sin as being sin. Unless they know they are sinners deserving of hell, why would they repent or seek a Savior?

        Honest people of good faith might rightly be turned off by my words, but you will have to prove by God’s word that I have lied or spoken against his word. Otherwise, I can only walk by the light I have and that is because I love everyone, even my enemies and believe I am like a watchman on the wall, if I fail to warn people of the dangers of their destruction because of sin, I will be guilty of not doing my duty, but that if I dutifully warn everyone I meet and point them to Jesus as their only means of redemption, my conscience is clear.

        • salter

          I will allow this article by Dr. David Gushee speak on my behalf. It is because views such as yours that people are running away from the church. That is very sad.

          WASHINGTON—

          It looked like a typical evangelical service, except for the same-sex couples in pews: a man leaning his head on another man’s shoulder, a woman with her arm around her female partner.

          They were among the several hundred gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians who recently gathered at the National City Christian Church in Washington for a meeting of The Reformation Project.

          The group was founded by Matthew Vines, who grew up in Wichita, Kansas, after an hour-long YouTube testimonial he posted two years ago about being Christian and gay went viral.

          Biblical passages that mention homosexuality:

          Leviticus 18:22 – Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

          Leviticus 20:13 – If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

          Romans 1:24-27 – Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

          I Corinthians 6:9 – Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.

          1 Timothy 1:10 – For the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

          Source: biblegateway.com

          He said the aim is to show that “there is a path to both affirming the full authority of the Bible and affirming same-sex relationships.”

          Most evangelical Christians believe the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexuality. The Book of Leviticus calls male-male sex “detestable,” while in the Book of Romans, one of Jesus’ apostles, Paul, condemns men who commit “shameless acts” with other men.

          But Vines said homosexuality was seen differently in the ancient world, and believes these passages are about lasciviousness, and do not apply to loving same-sex couples.

          “The heart of the scripture’s teaching is that marriage is about commitment – that is about keeping one’s covenant with one’s spouse in the same way that God keeps his covenant with us,” he said in an interview. “And that is something that same-sex couples can do just as well as opposite sex couples can.”

          Vines also argues the traditional teaching is wrong because it has failed in its objective – it has not stopped homosexuality and it has caused much suffering among Christians with same-sex attractions.

          But critics argue he is reinterpreting scripture to justify his own sexual orientation. One of those critics is Sam Allberry, a British pastor who said he is attracted to men, but stays single.

          “What you have to do to the Bible to make it approve of same-sex relationships is profoundly un-evangelical,” he told a meeting last month of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

          At that meeting, Baptist leaders toned down past rhetoric about gays without changing their core beliefs. That prompted some comparisons to Pope Francis’ recent efforts to reach out to gays, while not changing church doctrine.

          The biblical passages dealing with homosexuality are central for Evangelical Christians, because they read much of scripture literally. But evangelical ethicist David Gushee said they are blown out of proportion.

          “The Bible has 31,273 verses,” he said in an interview in Washington. “The number of verses that can be called on to support the traditional position is essentially six passages, maybe 15 verses at the most. That is something to pay attention to.”

          Gushee, who teaches at Mercer University, a Baptist divinity school in Atlanta, Georgia, recently caused a sensation in evangelical circles when he changed his own position and published a book called “Changing Our Mind.” He said the change partly came about from meeting homosexuals, and after his younger sister came out as a lesbian.

          “When I stopped thinking of this mainly as a sexual ethics issue, and started thinking about it mainly as a human suffering issue – rejected children, people kicked out of their families and churches, people wanting to kill themselves because of what they were hearing from their parents and their friends and their churches… it is not just about those six passages, it is about how marginalized people are supposed to be treated,” he said.

          In his speech at the conference, he spoke at length about his other area of expertise: Christians and the Holocaust.

          “I will view what got us here as one of those tragic situations in Christian history, in which well-intentioned Christians, just trying to follow Jesus, misread scripture, causing great harm to oppressed people,” he said.

          A stained glass window above him in the sanctuary depicted the martyrdom of St. Steven, a biblical parable that many Christians historically have read in an anti-Semitic vein, even though both killers and victim were Jewish.

          In the interview with VOA, Gushee said the gay issue is just another example of biblical distortions resulting in what he calls “un-Christlike” behavior.

          “I think it remains very hard for Christians to say this simple thing: ‘We were wrong,’” he said in the interview. “We’ve been wrong on slavery, on race, on women, on a whole host of issues.”

          • Neiman

            What about Jesus In John 6:66, “66As a result of this [His teachings] many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.” I guess He turned off a lot of people. What about Him saying narrow is the door/way to life and very few find there way therein? Many are called, few are chosen. It seems that Jesus not only upset many people, as many left following after Him, some conspired and killed Him, so I guess because of Him many ran away too. It is the lot in life that anyone preaching against sin will turn most people off and keep them from coming to Church, right?

            Yet, those churches that water down the Gospel, that don’t preach much against sin are filled and prospering, so what you are saying is that Christians like me are bad unless we water down the Gospel, stop talking about sin and hell and just let people live the way they want, right? Christians are much more attractive if they shut up and condone sin. That is what most people here want, Christians to shut up, be all saccharine sweet and get off the Gospel nonsense.

            There is no comparison between homosexuality and gay marriage; and, slavery, race and women. These latter three are based on immutable, God created characteristics, homosexuality is conduct.

            > When God spoke of marriage, He never spoke of anything constituting marriage but one man to one women. If He had no problem with same gender people getting married, He was deceiving His people and treating gays quite wickedly not to mention gay marriage at all. If He is all knowing, didn’t He know about gays and if He did and He approved, wasn’t He negligent not to mention them in a positive way and cause them all this trouble?
            > You, this man and others can twist Scripture all you want, to make it say anything you want, but every reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a negative one and never once, not in the most remote way, did He ever mention homosexuality in positive terms.
            > Any sexual relations outside of marriage is called fornication and a sin and yet, as I mentioned, He sure did not say it was okay for two people of the same gender to marry. In fact, He said that a man and a woman would become one flesh before Him, never a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

            So, here is the point, to admit homosexuality and gay marriage as being approved by God, then His never mentioning that they were permitted to marry and never having said a good word about homosexuality, His Word would be imperfect, hateful and if imperfect, He cannot be God at all. If these things were okay and He remained silent, He is guilty of child abuse by omission, but as He would have no motive, then again He cannot possibly be God. To rewrite His Word, makes those doing so just like Lucifer, they are placing themselves above God, knowing better than Him; but again, if that is okay, He cannot possibly be God.

            To admit homosexuality and gay marriage as being approved by God, it is to deny His very existence and it is foolish for you folk to worry about pleasing a God that does not exist. If His Word is true, there is no homosexual that cannot be saved, if they repent, turn from their sins, including homosexuality and are born again, which means they would no longer be homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, if they are Christian without condemning the sin of homosexuality, they were not repentant and are not saved in the first place.

    • Michael L Hays

      How weak are they in faith if taking pictures at a gay wedding would undermine their faith. Many of us of stronger faith know that such claims reflect an unstable, insecure faith requiring all sorts of artificial, external props.

      • Neiman

        By taking pictures they were participants, They were not just serving they were playing a vital role in a ceremony that is against God’s word..

        As the Holy Spirit through Paul tells us, whether it involves food offered to idols or observing special Sabbaths and feasts, if in their hearts they truly believe that to participate is a sin, even if God might not call something a sin, to do something that we think in our heart is a sin, it becomes a sin because it is rebellion against God. As God in Genesis and later in the Gospels and epistles declare that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is only between people of opposite genders, these people according to their good Christian conscience felt that their taking photographs of a gay wedding, is something God would not approve, it would be a sin and they were right to say no.

        Just because in your opinion it indicates an insecure faith on their part, that does not make it so. It is only when our faith is put to the test, when we have something to lose by standing faithful to God, that faith grows. You brag, you boast about your stronger (to you) faith versus these fine Christian people, what you call inferior Christians that you choose to attack; but, your faith is not superior, as the only time we can operate in faith is when it is the faith of Christ in us, his faith, and if there is any boasting, as you did, it should of been in the Lord and not in yourself.

        • Michael L Hays

          Attendance at a wedding is not participation in it. The wedding has three participants: bride, groom, officiating minister. That’s it. Since you cannot get these social facts right, you cannot be trusted to get anything else right. You words are false testimony to the Light.

          • Neiman

            No, photographers are active participants, they are recording a blasphemous ceremony and would be guilty of sin. It is no different than going into a temple of Satan and eating food sacrificed to idols.

            You are the one that called these fine young Christian people inferior to you and bragging about your own superior faith. You are the one attacking them, if you are a Christian, which I seriously question, you sinned against them.

            What light? That is nonsensical, meaningless unless you state what light and how I gave false testimony, it is the reaction of a child and an enemy of Christ.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “It is a shame that by cheap thuggery gays and their liberal allies are denying Christians the right to own a business or hold a job unless they agree to abandon their faith.”

      Complete hyperbole. Christians are free to own a business and free to hold a job. They are required to agree to abandon their faith.

      “they have turned their backs on the First Amendment”

      Again, hyperbole. There is nothing in the First Amendment that has been violated in this situation.

      “This once great nation is now officially anti-Christ.”

      More hyperbole.

      • Neiman

        it’s too bad you are unable to argue intelligently.

        “Complete hyperbole. Christians are free to own a business and free to
        hold a job. They are required to agree to abandon their faith.”

        You are right, they can own a business and hold a job IF they agree to compromise and abandon their Christ faith. Otherwise by cheap gay thuggery they are fined and sued and harassed until the lose their business or their jobs.

        “Again, hyperbole. There is nothing in the First Amendment that has been violated in this situation.”

        Their right to freely exercise their faith, anywhere in this nation has been violated by the law suits of gay thugs and their liberal allies.

        “More hyperbole.

        By your side forcing Christians to compromise or abandon their faith and by the lie of evolution, we have an official State Church and it is atheism.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          It’s too bad that you have so little to offer that you have to resort to attempts at insult.

          “You are right”

          I’m glad we agree.

          “IF they agree to compromise and abandon their Christ faith.”

          No one is required to “abandon their Christ[ian] faith” in order to own a business or hold a job.

          “Otherwise by cheap gay thuggery”

          You believe it is “thuggery” to hold a person accountable to the law?

          “Their right to freely exercise their faith, anywhere in this nation has been violated”

          There is no such right. The only protection provided by the first amendment is that Congress (and via the 14th amendment, the states) will pass no law PROHIBITING religious expression. That does not mean that people have a right to express their religion at any time, any place, or in any way, they care to. There have always been restrictions.

          “By your side forcing Christians to compromise or abandon their faith”

          No one is required to compromise or abandon their faith. That is simply a lie.

          “by the lie of evolution”

          What is your basis for saying that evolution is a “lie”?

          “we have an official State Church and it is atheism.”

          That is simply a lie. There is no “official State Church”.

          • Neiman

            “You are right”. . . “I’m glad we agree.

            You know we did not agree, as the “IF” made it into a disagreement. That was not honest.

            “No one is required to “abandon their Christian faith” in order to own a business or hold a job.”

            Nonsense, in every one of these cases, either the Christian give into gay/liberal thuggery, or they will be fired if it is a job or fined and sued and lose their business if they are owners. So it is either compromise and deny their faith or they are nor allowed to make a living.

            “You believe it is “thuggery” to hold a person accountable to the law?”

            Yes! It is thuggery for gays to deliberately choose a Christian owned business, when they have plenty of options for the same services. It is the old protection racket, it is criminal racketeering.

            “There is no such right. The only protection provided by the first amendment is that Congress (and via the 14th amendment, the states) will pass no law PROHIBITING religious expression. That does not mean that people have a right to express their religion at any time, any place, or in any way, they care to. There have always been restrictions.”

            It is called “free expression” and any restriction as to time or place means it is no longer a right, they have lost “free expression.” The Congress may pass no laws that infringe on this right in any manner and any such laws or decisions by the courts violates the 1st Amendment “free exercise” clause.

            “No one is required to compromise or abandon their faith. That is simply a lie.

            They are forced to compromise or they cannot earn a living. A Colorado Human Rights Commission judge said that Christians must surrender their faith at work or in business if they are not to violate the law.

            “What is your basis for saying that evolution is a “lie”?

            That is too lengthy a subject, but evolution is not science, it is left wing political correctness to attack the Christian Church. You cannot, it is absolutely impossible, to have design, let alone incredibly complex design by random mutations or cosmic accidents over time.

            “That is simply a lie. There is no “official State Church”.

            When the State prohibits any discussion of Creationism and the Christian faith in schools in preference to atheistic evolution, they have established evolutionary atheism as the official State Religion and that violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Nonsense, in every one of these cases, either the Christian give into gay/liberal thuggery, or they will be fired if it is a job or fined and sued and lose their business if they are owners.”

            The folks in the this article were not sued. They CHOSE to close their business. They could also have chosen to no longer provide photography services for weddings. No one forces them to offer wedding photography.

            “It is thuggery for gays to deliberately choose a Christian owned business,”

            First, there is no such thing as a “Christian owned business”. There are businesses that are owned by people who identify as being Christians. Given that 70% of the population in the US identifies as Christian, there are few businesses that would fall outside of that description.

            Second, then you would call it “thuggery” if an interracial couple were turned away because the owners said it was their religious belief that the races should not mix, and then the couple notified authorities that the business had broken the law, correct?

            “it is criminal racketeering.”

            Please provide the legal rationale for why holding a business accountable for violating the law would be considered “criminal racketeering”.

            “any restriction as to time or place means it is no longer a right, they have lost “free expression.The Congress may pass no laws that infringe on this right in any manner and any such laws or decisions by the courts violates the 1st Amendment “free exercise” clause.”

            You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what protection the 1st amendment provides. The 1st amendment does NOT provide a protection that citizens are allowed to express their religion in any way, at any time, or in any place they care to. The protection is very clear – religious expression cannot be PROHIBITED – that does not mean it can’t be restricted. As with all rights, the expression of those rights must not infringe upon the rights of others nor threaten the general welfare.

            Human sacrifice is not allowed as a religious rite. You can’t go out in the street at 3:00 in the morning and express your religious belief with a bullhorn. You can’t stand up in a restaurant and start shouting out your beliefs. Churches can’t ring their bells at before a certain hour of the day. Etc., Etc. And, you are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws based upon your religious beliefs.

            “A Colorado Human Rights Commission judge said that Christians must surrender their faith at work or in business if they are not to violate the law.”

            I find that very unlikely. Citation, please.

            “When the State prohibits any discussion of Creationism and the Christian faith in schools”

            Creationism is based upon the Christian belief system. The state, through the public school system that serves ALL children of ALL faiths, as well as no faith, and is paid for by taxpayers of ALL faiths, as well as no faith, has no business teaching the religious beliefs of ANY religion. You have churches and home to provide whatever information you care to. Is that not sufficient? Are you so weak in your faith that you are not able to make a convincing argument for it unless it is taught as part of the public school curriculum?

            There is no state which prohibits the discussion of the Christian faith in schools. There may be restrictions on the place/time/location of the discussion – as there is outside of school – but the discussion is not prohibited.

            “That is too lengthy a subject”

            So you have no basis. Got it.

            “but evolution is not science”

            Evolution is a theory based upon science. Creationism is a belief based upon faith.

            “to attack the Christian Church.”

            In what way is the Christian Church “attacked” by the theory of evolution? Are Christians no longer free to believe as they like?

            “You cannot, it is absolutely impossible, to have design, let alone incredibly complex design by random mutations or cosmic accidents over time.”

            What is your proof that is “absolutely impossible”?

            “they have established evolutionary atheism as the official State Religion”

            No, they haven’t. There are many people of faith who believe in evolution. Believing in evolution does not require that one dismiss the involvement of a deity.

            “that violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.”

            if you believe that to be true, you should mount a legal challenge. Let me know how that goes.

          • Neiman

            These exchanges are simply getting too lengthy and require too much debate to be fairly served here. That is typical of you Christ hating liberals, you are all a bunch of cheap thugs that beat Christian people over the head by mounting , exhausting arguments in a format which demand too much time to fully debate and then you just claim victory because people get tired of your thuggery. So, I will pick and choose what I want to answer.

            “The folks in the this article were not sued. They CHOSE to close their business. They could also have chosen to no longer provide photography services for weddings. No one forces them to offer wedding photography.”

            You know darn well that most if these people get sued and that this case will still end up in court because these gay militants, these homosexual Nazi’s want to silence all opposition to their depravity by cost to the victims of their hate, all Christian victims. Plus they don’t mind personally getting rich by attacking Christians.

            “Second, then you would call it “thuggery” if an interracial couple were turned away because the owners said it was their religious belief that the races should not mix, and then the couple notified authorities that the business had broken the law, correct?”

            I will not allow you to compare degenerate sexual conduct to the immutable characteristics of race. They are not at all comparable, one is an immutable characteristic the other is willful conduct. The first is a civil right, they other is only an attempt to legalize sexual debauchery.

            “You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what protection the 1st amendment provides. The 1st amendment does NOT provide a protection that citizens are allowed to express their religion in any way, at any time, or in any place they care to. The protection is very clear – religious expression cannot be PROHIBITED – that does not mean it can’t be restricted. As with all rights, the expression of those rights must not infringe upon the rights of others nor threaten the general welfare.’

            Show me where in the 1st Amendment there are any such restrictions on the expression of religious faith anywhere, at any time or any place. No, you cannot and it has nothing to do with criminal or bizarre acts of some fringe religions, I am talking about the free expression (speech) of one’s faith. But, leave it to people like you, all of a degenerate mindset, to bring into the conversation things which are extreme and do not apply. Expression is the ability to express by words, in any form, the beliefs of an individual. If your liberal, anti-Christ definition was applied, no speech of any kind, even political speech not approved by the liberals courts could be denied, thus eviscerating the 1st Amendment.

            ” Evolution is a theory based upon science. Creationism is a belief based upon faith. “to attack the Christian Church.” In what way is the Christian Church “attacked” by the theory of evolution?
            Are Christians no longer free to believe as they like?”

            They may privately believe what they want, but anywhere, even in the home, if it violates sexually degenerate and/or liberal dogma, it has been made into a criminal offense. Evolution and Creation science use the exact same scientific data – exactly the same data; the only difference is in their interpretation of that data and the underlying life model. So it is a lie to say Creation Science is not science; but, you anti-Christ Leftists, expunging all mention of the Christian faith only want YOUR interpretation of the data presented, no opposing thoughts are allowed and that is because you folk want to have your God is dead beliefs to be the only things taught our children, which God opposes your godless socialism, wherein the State is God, wherein the Liberal Ruling class become the high priests of your godless religion.

            .“No, they haven’t. There are many people of faith who believe in evolution. Believing in evolution does not require that one dismiss the involvement of a deity.”

            People of faith is generic and can apply to people that have faith in your godless liberalism. But, once a person saying they are Christian deny the Genesis account, they expose themselves as practical atheists. That is, they say they are Christian but deny the words of the Divine Author of that faith, making their own faith shipwreck.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “which demand too much time to fully debate and then you just claim victory because people get tired of your thuggery.”

            If you can’t answer questions about your post, then you can’t. No reason to blame me.

            “You know darn well that most if these people get sued”

            Name some that got sued.

            “and that this case will still end up in court”

            There is no basis for this case to go to court – the business did not break the law.

            “Plus they don’t mind personally getting rich by attacking Christians.”

            Citations, please.

            “I will not allow you to compare degenerate sexual conduct to the immutable characteristics of race.”

            You have quite the grandiose opinion of your abilities to allow or not allow the actions of others. No surprise there.

            “one is an immutable characteristic the other is willful conduct.”

            Sexuality is not conduct. It is a state of being. Civil rights and anti-discrimination laws do not require that a trait be immutable. Discrimination based upon religious belief is covered, yet religious belief is most definitely a choice. Should we remove those protections since religious belief is a choice?

            “Show me where in the 1st Amendment there are any such restrictions on the expression of religious faith anywhere, at any time or any place.”

            The Constitution isn’t a document that spells out restrictions on citizens. It spells out protections. Show me where in the constitution is says people are not allowed to murder.

            “I am talking about the free expression (speech) of one’s faith.”

            The examples I gave are each an example of free expression that is not allowed by law.

            “to bring into the conversation things which are extreme and do not apply.”

            Talking about your faith is “extreme” expression? Ringing church bells is “extreme” expression? Regarding religious expression, who would decide what was “extreme and do not apply”? If certain things “do not apply” then you are acknowledging that restrictions can exist on religious expression. Thanks for the assist.

            “Expression is the ability to express by words, in any form, the beliefs of an individual.”

            if that is the definition of “expression” then laws which prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation would not violate free expression, as the business owner would still be free to talk about his/her faith. Again, thanks for the assist.

            “If your liberal, anti-Christ definition was applied”

            What definition is that?

            “no speech of any kind, even political speech not approved by the liberals courts could be denied, thus eviscerating the 1st Amendment.”

            You do not represent my position accurately. I am a strong supporter of the first amendment right to free speech.

            “They may privately believe what they want, but anywhere, even in the home, if it violates sexually degenerate and/or liberal dogma, it has been made into a criminal offense.”

            Hyperbole on steroids. Please point to any law in the US that makes it a criminal offense to believe as one cares to.

            “So it is a lie to say Creation Science is not science”

            I never said that. Are you prone to bearing false witness?

            “because you folk want to have your God is dead beliefs to be the only things taught our children,”

            I don’t believe God is dead, nor do any of the “liberals” I know. You are free to teach your children (God help them) anything you care to.

            So you have no basis for your statement “A Colorado Human Rights Commission judge said that Christians must surrender their faith at work or in business if they are not to violate the law.”. Got it. So you lied.

            So you have no basis for your statement “it is absolutely impossible, to have design, let alone incredibly complex design by random mutations or cosmic accidents over time.” Got it. You lied again.

            For someone who claims to be a Christian, you certainly do lie a lot. I guess that makes you – according to your criteria – a practical atheist.

    • Jack

      Killed? In the US? For refusing to provide service based on a person’s sexual orientation?

    • 1PierreMontagne1

      When will Gays declare that Heterosexual Marriage cermonies are offensive to Gays and request they be banned?

  • DawnMcK

    God will not forget what you have stood up for – HIM…may HE bless you most abundantly. <3 As for the couple involved – may GOD embrace them & convict them….may they be acknowledged for their part in stopping the flood of hate mail, etc. We all have our faith & values….even if not the same. We must not condemn each other – only speak |TRUTH| in love…

  • James Johnson

    Why Christian business owners should be able to discriminate: http://www.project315.net/-wedding-discrimination.html

    • http://www.beyondtheshadesofgray.org/ Dean Bailey

      Excellent Find! I’m sharing.

    • Gary

      I believe we all have the God-given right to choose who we associate with. Relationships should be voluntary and not forced, whether those relationships are personal, or business. The government has no more right to choose customers for a private business than they have to choose friends for someone.

      • Phipps Mike

        ” or business.” because business is DESIGNED for the GENERAL public, that is why there are business laws.

        • Gary

          That isn’t fair. But then, you have never been about fairness. Only about promoting evil.

          • Phipps Mike

            promoting evil? melodramatic much? how is it not fair? when you provide the general public, you don’t get to play “favorites”. That’s bad business practice.

          • Gary

            It is not your business to tell others who they must associate with.

    • Phipps Mike

      James, from your link: “Conclusion:
      I could see the legitimacy of the complaint (of civil rights being violated) if homosexuals just came in for a birthday cake, or photography services for a birthday party and the owner screamed, “Get out of here, I don’t serve queers!”

      Well about 90% of the Christians use the FACADE that its the religion they are that is the issue when indeed it REALLY is the “I dont serve queers” that is going through their minds. Most Christians ARE bigots against homosexuals on a PERSONAL level and just use God as an EXCUSE for their bigotry. If the court had a device such as a bigot-o-meter and those Christians could pass the test on those meters, then it would be feasible to keep their rights intact of refusal to serve. Bigotry will NOT be and SHOULD not be tolerated…EVER,

      • Neiman

        You anti-Christian folk keep insisting that these people refused to serve gays or were hateful of gays and the facts prove just the opposite. What they refused to do was photograph a homosexual wedding, thus by their participation giving their approval to something against their faith, just like the baker’s that did not refuse to serve Lesbians, just a Lesbian themed wedding cake, again compromising their faith. No Christian should be forced by law to compromise their faith by making them participate in an activity that is against their strongly held beliefs. Lastly, these gays were not denied their rights, they could have found any number of photographers willing to photograph their wedding, they were just looking for a payday and to cause harm to this Christian couple.

        What you falsely call bigotry is protected by the First Amendment, the free exercise of their religious faith.

        • Phipps Mike

          Neiman, my FIRST post was deleted from here and it makes NO sense whatsoever, I was taking the side of the Mai couple this time because of this: ““We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day,” the Mai’s continued. “We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve.”

          see that? I give THEM credit for NOT being bigots. Asians are BETTER people than standard white European root people as a whole. They are CARING. I also said that something needs to be done to stop closing all of these businesses.
          Once again, I am anti-BIGOT, not anti-Christian. The bakers WERE bigots. Bigotry is NOT protected by the 1st amendment when it becomes discriminatory.

          • Neiman

            A. Why were the bakers bigots, the ones I was referring to served gays and never asked about sexual orientation, but just would not make a Lesbian themed frosting, which would make them participants in a gay wedding, which is activity against God?

            B. Freedom of religious expression covers not engaging in practices which violate religious faith and such discrimination is protected, if the 1st Amendment is taken as written. The lesbian women had other choices in the area where they could get their wedding themed cake made and were not denied any critical services.

            C. That is racist to say Asian are better caring people than white Europeans. I have spent a great deal of time in Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, the Peoples Republic of China and Japan and there are just as many racists and bigots there as anywhere else. In medical care, my area of interest, in my experiences they are much less caring about the sufferings of others.

          • Phipps Mike

            I wasn’t referring to the lesbians, I was talking about the two guys several months before that who were also refused service by a baker couple.
            My wife is half Japanese and lived in Tokyo the first 8 years of her life. It was her experience at that time 1969-1977, that the Japanese were good close knit people who practically worshipped visitors from around the world. Also, it has been MY experience witnessing the same in Des Moines, Iowa for over 45 years. Vietnamese, Chinese AND Japanese….all mature and welcoming. I guess we are just lucky? Interesting you are into the medical care thing, My wife just about two weeks ago FINALLY landed the career of her dreams. She is a health unit coordinator at the VA nursing home in Union Grove, WI. She loves it there and they treat her right. She was a home care CNA for over 11 years prior to getting this job. It was killing her back, This job is a desk job and she comes home without her back hurting.

          • Neiman

            I do not know what story you are referring to, but some Christian people can cross the line in dealing with gays and I would have to know more details. I will say that for any Christian, as the Holy Spirit through Paul tells us, if they genuinely think something is a sin, even if they are wrong, like not eating meat offered to idols, if they do something they think is a sin, it is a sin for them, because in their hearts it would be rebellion against God, even if by God’s Word it is not listed as a sin. If they have to pay a price for obeying God, even if in ignorance, then that is what they should do and while God will honor them for obeying Him, hopefully He will bring about correction in time.

            I like Japan and the Japanese, but their politeness is a cultural thing, not always about genuine caring or compassion. In other Asian countries you can experience people that are kind, but partly because there are so dang many of them, they tend to not be truly caring outside their own families or neighbors. Even here in hospitals, I have seen that they do their jobs well, but are not particularly good in bedside manner or showing genuine concern at all, while blacks and whites tend to pay more attention to the person and in treating them kindly. The point is, they are not IMO any better than white Europeans.

            I have spent the better part of my life, among a few other short term professions along the way, in health care, in clinical medicine, in research, teaching and even new product development. Honestly, I prefer nurses over most doctors.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” if they do something they think is a sin, it is a sin for them, because in their hearts it would be rebellion against God, even if by God’s Word it is not listed as a sin.”

            my father in law (the pastor), said that a lot of Christians treat their beliefs like they are building a house of cards. You take one card from them and they panic. He said that its not what YOU do that gets you saved, its GODS decision and he will save you if he thinks you are one to be saved. So to narrow that down. one need not “jump through hoops”.
            I know a lot of QUACKY nurses, but a lot more bad tempered and in a hurry type doctors. Fortunately, I have a GOOD primary doctor…guess what? he’s a avid Christian…lol. Go figure. I suppose in your profession you have encountered many more cultures and different people than I so I will take your word for it. (about bigotry)

          • Neiman

            I disagree with your father-in-law. God’s call is to “whosoever will,” a most blessed, all inclusive term that excludes no one. Yes, as He is outside space and time and can see everything at one moment, He does know who will/has answered His plea, but He does not say this one wil be saved and this one not because He likes or dislikes one or the other.

            We are saved by grace, a free gift, but it is the nature of man, even after conversion to Christ to try and please God, to be religious minded and do something. If as the Holy Spirit tells us they think something is a sin and do it anyway, it has become the sin of rebellion and the same Holy Spirit tells us that even saved by grace, we are not to willingly go ahead and engage in those things He has called sin. So, until each believer grows and gains more light, they will struggle with the idea of sin and they must act according to their good conscience as they mature.

          • DD

            Wrong…you are a bigot.
            “I give THEM credit for NOT being bigots. Asians are BETTER people than standard white European root people as a whole.” You speak out of both sides of you mouth, sir.

          • Phipps Mike

            no I don’t, in MY experiences, what I wrote is 100% fact. I have NEVER encountered a bigoted Asian….EVER. On the other hand,almost every other Christian I encounter IS a bigot.

          • DD

            Christians are not all ‘white, European root people’ so once again you prove yourself to be a bigot with a strong racist bent.

          • Phipps Mike

            Did I say they were? anybody knows that there are millions of black Christians as well. You prove yourself to be an assumer.
            Where am I being racist? I am English/French, myself. I have no problem with Europeans EXCEPT that there are exponentially way more of them that ARE bigots than in any other race. There are WAY more closet white supremacists out there than you think. I think YOU are bigoted against anybody that attacks your “buddies”.

          • janmit63

            And just how was the bakers bigots. They never denied them any kind of cake in fact quite the opposite as they had done business with this couple on several occasions, but because of their faith they said they could not bake the cake for their so called ssw, so there was no difference in the bakers or this photographers. Just because they didn’t refer them to another bakers does not make them bigots.

          • Phipps Mike

            they were quoted as saying, “we dont serve your kind” meaning homosexuals. The owner was actually proud of himself. Thats a bigot.

  • jmichael39

    Honestly sad that the truly intolerant here are those who deny these people the right to apply their honestly held religious beliefs to their business. Frankly, they did it the right way too. It wasn’t that they were denying them their right to a good photographer. They honestly thought it would be in their best interests to have someone photograph their wedding who had a better understanding of the situation. In this particularly case, photography requires the photographer have the ability inject themselves into the event to be able to better capture the moments. They admitted their inability to do that and rather than deny the couple their own right to be married, offered to help them find a photographer who they felt could do a better job. How is that horrible? How is that not at least considered compromise. Another option could have been for the business owners to take the job and subcontract it out. But that would cost more and be likely a minor breech of contract (since the couple would have been contracting for THEIR talents, not the subcontractors)

    To me, this particular situation is no different than if a man came to me asked me to do some boudoir portraits…oh HIM. I don’t care how good I might be at doing boudoir portraits of women, I just can’t inject myself into the situation well enough to be able to do justice to what he is asking of me. Would I be guilty of sexism?

  • Reason2012

    So should black people who have no problem photographing white people be forced to photograph a “white supremist” meeting? No. Same here. They have no problem photographing those who currently enjoy homosexuality – but they cannot be forced to photograph the ACT of a wedding that’s something besides one man and one woman. It’s that simple. In the end, it’s God every one of us will be answering to.

    • Phipps Mike

      should a Satanist be forced to photograph a Christian wedding? Put it this way Reason, Christianity is NOT the LAW, It’s a religion that we have a choice to NOT partake in if we don’t FEEL like it. Comprende? I don’t think this couple should lose their business, but I also don’t think that Christians should be considered above ANYBODY.

      • Reason2012

        No he shouldn’t – nor would he be forced to do so – huge difference.

        You’re right: Christianity is not the law of the land, but neither is anti-Christianity.

        Are black people considering themselves “above” white people when they’ll photograph white people all the time but refuse to photograph the ACT of a white supremist metting? Not at all.

        Same difference.

        Thanks for posting.

        • Phipps Mike

          Reason, NOT same difference. Homosexual is the PERSON, not the act. White supremacy is an act. Homosexual is DEFINED as one who is ATTRACTED to the same sex. It doesnt include a pre-requisite to ACT on that attraction to be defined as homosexual.

          • Reason2012

            No, homosexual is not the person – adults continue to permanently turn away of their own accord from homosexuality, proving it’s not genetic, but brought about by indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse. A wedding that’s not one man and one woman is an ACT – and it’s that ACT that they refuse to promote, all the while having no problems photographing those who profess homosexuality.

          • Phipps Mike

            “permanently turn away of their own accord from homosexuality, proving it’s not genetic,” that’s the SILLIEST thing I have ever read. So if a priest goes celibate too, does it prove that he is not born hetero? lol geesh dude, you can do better than that. Indoctrination is the term that fits Christianity as a whole. It doesn’t apply to just environmental factors, so you are misusing the term. The only thing you got right in your reply is that marriage is an act. And by the way. it IS genetic as according to an article that was posted HERE. I already went down this street and proved 4 different people wrong about it.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say they stopped acting upon it – I said they turned away from it and will readily admit as such. Easy to google testimonies of those who used to believe the lie, even for decades, they were “born that way”.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            No, homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality that isn’t chosen, isn’t an illness, requires no cure, and is not a sin. Ever heard of the American Psychological Association? And if you disagree with them, about a zillion other mental health experts?

            You are exactly the kind of person who needs to learn all this the hard way by having one of your kids come to you one day and say “Dad, I’m gay.”

          • Reason2012

            Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality back to heterosexuality on their own even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way” which proves it’s not genetic.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            False. Ex-gay therapy, widely debunked, suffered a fatal blow recently when Exodus International folded and the founders apologized to homosexuals for misleading them.

          • Reason2012

            I never said therapy. Adults on their own continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality. A simple google ex-gay testimony will show a growing list of cases and their testimonies.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            But becoming asexual or practicing abstinence only isn’t a realistic solution either, asking a person to live a loveless and sexless life simply because they are homosexual is cruel.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not just abstinence. Again, if you want to claim they are all lying and are just abstaining, then by all means prove they are all lying. And no one asked them to – they did it on their own.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            I don’t have to, it’s been done already. You cannot alter your sexuality.

            http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx

          • Reason2012

            I don’t see where they’ve listed everyone that points it out and proved they are all lying. Saying they’re lying doesn’t make them liars. Why is it you hate those who have turned away from homosexuality? Perhaps because it makes you realize it’s a lie to believe people were “born that way”?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Look, I don’t make the news, I just report it. Exodus International, the biggest “ex-gay” organization on the planet, shut their own doors, admitted they were fraudulent, and apologized to their customers. I’m not making this up, you can Google all of it. I don’t like to call anyone a liar but if they believe they have altered their sexuality, they simply haven’t because you can’t.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not “news” to call all the people who individually point out they’ve turned away from homosexuality “liars”. So no one can show they’re all lying. I rest my case.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            I’m not calling them anything, but if they think they’ve changed their sexuality, they’ve managed to do what science has told them is impossible. You work it out.

          • Reason2012

            It’s observable, repeatable scientific fact that adults of their own accord have permanently turned away from homosexuality, proving it’s not genetic. The opinions of homosexual activists do not change this observable, repeatable, scientific fact. Those with the opinions that it’s impossible can take it up with the adults that continue to turn away from it, and how_sexual abuse tends to make more recruits out of boys when they’re young.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Define “turning away”. Are you going to tell me they altered it to be attracted to the opposite sex? Yes or no?

          • Reason2012

            I’m not going to tell you that – they are. They didn’t “alter” it – they just rose above their unnatural lusts and returned to what they were born as.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            What you call “unnatural lusts” I think most reasonable people would call natural attractions. And time and again we hear the stories of how even after years of marriage, they cannot do it anymore and return to their natural attractions. Human sexuality cannot be altered. This is simply scientific fact.

          • Reason2012

            it’s not natural to lust after someone of the same_sex. The fact that only 3% of the population end up with these lusts shows it unnatural. Meanwhile it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact adults have, on their own, permanently turned away from homosexuality and are no more affected by those lusts.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Your argument is not with me, sir. It’s with medical science.

          • Reason2012

            Your argument is with observable, repeatable, scientific fact. If homosexual activists wish to call them all liars, it’s on them to prove it.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            They have. Over and over and over. I don’t know why you’re not getting this.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            There is nothing scientific about your “facts”, and it’s not “homosexual activists” (whatever THEY are) calling them liars. It’s respected bodies like the American Psychological Association.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            There is nothing “scientific” about your “facts”, quite the opposite. It’s not “homosexual activists”, whatever THOSE are, calling them liars, it’s respected bodies like the American Psychological Association.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            There is nothing “scientific” about your “facts”, quite the
            opposite. It’s not “homosexual activists”, whatever THOSE are,
            calling them liars, it’s respected bodies like the American Psychological Association

          • BeWhoYouAre

            You lose all credibility in an instant when you use phrases like “homosexual activists” and “recruits”. Both ideas are offensive in the extreme and blatantly false.

          • Reason2012

            You mean there are no people who are active for the cause of homosexuality? Of course their are. And it’s also known fact that some professing homosexuals became that way after abuse as a boy, which yes is far more than merely offensive and is why they are trying to keep kids protected from such abuse.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Homosexuals are not interested in children. You are thinking of pedophiles.

          • Reason2012

            And yet even the biggest homosexual activists leader and his boyfriend were just arrested for raping a young boy.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Obviously it’s possible to be a homosexual and a pedophile, just as it’s possible to be a heterosexual and a pedophile.

      • janmit63

        1) No Christian would even consider going to a satanist, so that point is moot. 2) Our laws are to be based on the Bible since this is a Christiasn nation. 3) Christianity is not a religion. 4) Christians do not considered themselves above any body else, but it’s a fact that homosexuals are the ones who believe they are above everyone else.

        • Phipps Mike

          1. it wasn’t meant to be serious anyway. 2. no they are not and have not been based on Christianity, I think you need to go do some research. 3.It IS a religion, especially the way people like YOU are about it (organized and forceful). 4. yes they do, on a daily basis. and no, Homosexuals are only asking for whats rightfully THEIRS (their own freedom to do what they want behind closed doors and SSM). Marriage does NOT belong to Christians only.

    • janmit63

      Stop playing the race card.

      • Reason2012

        Who’s playing the race card? Just pointing out the difference between refusing to support an ACT and not a refusal to service individuals for who they are.

        • raytheist

          Homosexuality is not an “act”, it’s not a “behavior”.

          • Reason2012

            It sure is when adults continue to turn away from it and turn back towards heterosexuality of their own accord.

          • raytheist

            You really need to do your research. There’s no such thing as “ex-gay”. There are bi-sexuals who are happy to go either way, but a true homosexual does not and cannot change their natural orientation, no matter how well they act straight.

          • Reason2012

            If you wish to call all those who have turned away from homosexuality on their own liars, it’s on you to do so. But their growing number of testimonies proves otherwise.

  • Bradley Dugas

    I don’t understand why people get so fucking upset, just go to someone who will accept your money and realize that not everyone is going to like your lifestyle choices, gay or straight. Fucking panzies.

  • http://www.beyondtheshadesofgray.org/ Dean Bailey

    I wish the Mai’s well, but I wonder if this is the “right” decision? Perhaps it’s high time that we stand our ground?

    “We ought to obey God rather than man,” the Apostle Paul blatantly told the religious and governing authorities of his day. (Acts 5:29) I would that the Mai’s should have retained their business and defied the unholy mandates of the State of California, refusing to pay any fines and continuing to operate their business by Christian business ethics and morality, and that the Body of Christ would rally abound them in civil disobedience to this government mandated, homo-fascism!

    I hope that the evil thievery of the LGBT agenda would be forced to repay them seven times over for this loss of livelihood.

    • Phipps Mike

      “”We ought to obey God rather than man,”
      ok then Dean. lets just go round up the posse and go stone all the sinners to death, Man does’nt have any authority!! Geesh, get a grip.

      • Neiman

        Wrong, stoning gays is not part of the Christian faith, that is under the laws of Moses and applied to Israel, the Jews only.

        • Phipps Mike

          I said SINNERS, not gays. God called for rebellious sons to be stoned to death outside the town gates.

          • Neiman

            Sorry, but the same rule applies.

          • Phipps Mike

            so you are saying that only the JEWS, whom are GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE that were to be stoned? why does that sound crazy?

          • Neiman

            No, I said those laws, which seem severe to us, were part of the laws of Moses, they were laws that applied only to Jews and about how they should treat their people caught in certain sins. It is impossible to educate you or most people about God’s dealings with Israel, about why the Law existed, why God punished the rebellion of the Jews and is still punishing them to this very day; and yet, how despite people recoiling at it today, it was all an expression of Divine Love for both Israel and the world, always pointing to the time Christ would come and offer redemption to everyone.

            These laws are not for the dispensation of God’s Grace, for the Christian era or for Christians, even the Jews do not practice them today, for obvious reasons. We are told in the New Testament that to understand the mystery of God’s plan for saving mankind, for any understanding of His way, it requires people to have His Holy Spirit within them, for only the Spirit understands the things of God. Further, even though Christians have an understanding by the Spirit, it is impossible to help people without the Spirit to understand them. While that may seem a cop-out or an attempt to place Christians as being above other men, for Christians we can only accept God’s will and way. If you will recall Jesus said many times when speaking of why He taught in Parables, that it was because without the Spirit, people were unable to hear, see or understand spiritual truth.

          • James Grimes

            Very good explanation. Thank you.

    • Chrissy Vee

      Unfortunately, the homosexuals terribly harrass, threaten and in some cases trespass (Sweet Cakes case) the businesses that deny them; and apparently, they are allowed to do so. This couple and the other businesses would not be able to peacefully run their businesses without looking over their shoulders for the next “suit”. Besides, the fines are really high. Makes me sick.

  • James Grimes

    At least two people are happy with this news. They are degenerates – not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their actions and attitude in not respecting the position of the photographers. Since they were calling for harassment and hatred against the photographers, their actions are despicable.

    • janmit63

      AMEN TO THE COMMENT OF PUTTING CHRISTIAN JUDGES BACK ON THE BENCH.

      • Phipps Mike

        Judges are NOT allowed to use religion as part of their ruling. The more OBJECTIVE the Judge, the more “fair” he is seen as.

        • janmit63

          Christianity is not a religion. Judges are to base their rulings on the word of God.

          • Phipps Mike

            NO, you are DEAD wrong, Law has NOTHING to do with the word of God.

          • janmit63

            No you are dead wrong. Law has every thing to do with the word of God & if you don’t like it go live in N Korea

          • Phipps Mike

            You are not very smart:

            “But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

            “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.”

            “. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

            In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, “ancien scripture”, in reference to common law history. The term meant “ancient scripture” but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean “Holy Scripture,” thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

            “And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that ‘Christianity is part of the laws of England,’ citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that ‘The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.” In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.”Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot’s, or on one another, or nobody.”

            The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: “The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines.” Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.”

          • janmit63

            I am not ebven going to read your stupid babble. Don’t bother to reply as I am wiping the dust off my feet of you.

          • Trix

            You must be living in the OLD TESTAMENT! During those times, men lived by LAW. When Jesus died on the cross to save us from all our sins, we are already living by the GRACE OF GOD. Thus, the FREE WILL (New Testament) Read up! http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/

          • janmit63

            Nope just because 1 has free will still makes homosexuality a sin & it always will be. And i got to the second paragraph of that website & stopped because it’s garbage, the act of homosexuality is spoken of in the Old Testament & the New Testament… (1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid
            fornication, let every man have his own wife (WOMAN), and let every
            woman have her own husband (MAN). Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave
            them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the
            natural use into that which is against nature (HOMOSEXUALITY):
            27
            And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
            in their lust one toward another (HOMOSEXUALITY); men with men
            (HOMOSEXUALITY) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
            themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
            28 And
            even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
            them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
            convenient. 1 Tim 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves
            with mankind (HOMOSEXUALITY), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured
            persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound
            doctrine.) All of these are from the new testament.

          • Phipps Mike

            “TREY GRAHAM, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church Melissa, Texas”

            “The responsibility of a judge, however, is to put aside one’s beliefs and use only the law as the measuring stick. Judges should not allow their life experiences or personal values to affect their judicial rulings. The common metaphor in these discussions in that a judge should act as an umpire and simply call balls and strikes based on an objective standard, the strike zone. In the role of a Supreme Court justice, the U.S. Constitution sets the strike zone and justices are to faithfully and objectively call balls and strikes, regardless of their personal beliefs”

            source: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2009/07/texas-faith-should-a-judges-re.html/

            do some reading and educate yourself instead of being so BLINDLY indoctrinated against common sense.

          • janmit63

            Sorry but I do not listen to false preachers & Trey Graham is an
            ignorant fool. He is not a Godly man at all. And FYI I read all the time
            & I am far from indoctrinated. I just love it when I was taught the real history of this country I am considered indoctrinated, but you are buying the lies of the government & you considered yourself taught

          • Phipps Mike

            I think you should read the PROOF below about how common law came to be. If you read all the time, then read THAT. You calling the Govt “liars” mean you just blew your own credibility because since you are anti-Govt, then you are against the founding fathers who were ALSO the Govt. Since common law was NOT introduced by Christians and rather was by the Saxons, that is proof in itself that a Judge who ENFORCES law does it from the Saxon tradition.
            If you read, you should also know about “checks and balances” The Supreme court judges are to make their rulings COMPLETELY based on the Constitution which is OBJECTIVE , NOT Christianity nor any other religion biased. What part of FREEDOM OF RELIGION and Congress shall make no laws establishing….don’t you get? This is NOT a Christian nation. it only happens to CONTAIN a Christian majority.

          • janmit63

            I am not against government I am against big government. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves seeing what the big government is doing to their country. The laws of the land are to be based on the Bible not what man makes up to suite their agenda. This is a Christian nation & the Constitution is based on the Bible & there is not 1 thing you can or will say that is going to change that fact. Any judge who enforces the laws other than what is from the word of God is corrupt. And what part of FREEDOM OF RELIGION do you not understand? Don’t bother to reply as I am wiping the dust off my feet of you.

          • Phipps Mike

            so your assertion is that EVERY law written that isnt addressed in the Bible is not to be used as a law of the land, So lets see, lets write out ALL traffic laws. ALL gun laws. ALL laws against shooting bows and fireworks within city limits, All laws that pertain to ANYTHING that came AFTER the final copy of the KJV. Does that about cover it? Freedom Of Religion is also freedom FROM Religion…meaning that NOBODY can be persecuted for their beliefs.

          • janmit63

            Now you are just being stupid, we have traffic laws so we don’t kill others. God gave us guns to hunt & protect ourselves with, same with bows for hunting. Don’t know what you are getting at with the fireworks. I am talking about moral laws & you just proved my point FREEDOM OF RELIGION means we can not be persecuted for their beliefs so why are you all persecuting all these Christians for? Stop it

          • Phipps Mike

            it was YOUR words: “Judges are to base their rulings on the word of God.”
            so say what you mean and mean what you say (articulate).
            You didn’t SPECIFY it as ONLY moral laws. So I took you there. The Saxons law overlaps Christian law so they are common SENSE laws as well as common laws.
            Basically my argument to you is that law and religion don’t go together (except in those laws such as no killing, stealing…etc..) You come across as VERY BITTER so it surprises me that you are a female.

          • janmit63

            Nothing over rides Christian moral laws. Nope not bitter at all because i know God will win in the end.

          • Trix

            You’re a christian? Wow! That’s so “christian” of you to judge Trey Graham. Oh dear Jesus! Please enlighten these people like him. I know you are NOT like them. AMEN!

          • janmit63

            We are to judge righteously. (Jesus commands in John 7:24, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
            Judge by the Word of God and Its principles, not by someone’s skin
            color, whether they are tall or short (inherited physical traits), etc.
            You may also misjudge a situation because it may “appear” to be
            different than what it is; for example, you may not have all the details
            of a situation to make a righteous judgment. If you must err, it is
            best to err towards mercy… give someone the benefit of the doubt.
            2. We are to judge without hypocrisy. “And thinkest thou this, O man,
            that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou
            shalt escape the judgment of God?” (Rom 2:3)
            Judge yourself first
            to see if you are guilty of that sin. Live what you preach. Only after
            you get your life cleaned up by turning from your own sins and receiving
            pardon through repentance and faith in Jesus (i.e. you get saved) you
            can go and help others to be saved too. If your life has been
            transformed by the love of Christ, by all means, go and help your brother.
            3. We are to judge only by what we know. “He that
            justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both
            [are] abomination to the LORD.” (Prov. 17:15). So yes I am judging him. And if you are praying to Jesus about me I am a female & I am already enlighten by Gods words.

          • tschraad

            Phipps Mike – so there are no liberal judges according to your opinion. How did Roe vs Wade ever become law when most experts in law have called the decision was not based on a “right” contained in the constitution.

          • Phipps Mike

            no, my opinion is that ALL Judges are to base their decisions in an OBJECTIVE manner. Meaning neither religious nor political bias should be used. “The responsibility of a judge, however, is to put aside one’s beliefs and use only the law as the measuring stick”
            Roe vs Wade is PROOF that you cant use religion as a guide in judging. The premise is how is life DEFINED in the Roe vs Wade.
            You cant “kill” something that is not “viable” to begin with.

          • tschraad

            Phipps Mike – you said “You cant “kill” something that is not “viable” to begin with.”
            Depends on when you use the word viable.

            I disagree. If the following embryos were not viable, they would not have to be killed. And if they were viable, then all humans from conception are viable.

            “More than 2,000 human embryos, stored and frozen, are sentenced to be destroyed –dare we say murdered – from Saturday 22nd November. There are 10,000 embryos in storage in New Zealand”
            These are viable human beings being killed as they are no longer wanted. Decision by the government to allow this to happen.

          • Trix

            Christianity is becoming a religion because of “christians” and church people.

          • janmit63

            No it’s not. Christian will always preach Gods words not man’s made words of what God says.

    • Peter Leh

      are customers obligated to respect the position of a business? Do i have to respect Dan Cathy’s position on SSM in order to receive service at chickflia?

      • James Grimes

        Yes, absolutely. If you didn’t, you would not give him your business. Now, since you are asking my opinion and I gave it to you, I hope that you will show some respect. Have a great day.

        • Peter Leh

          “Yes, absolutely. If you didn’t, you would not give him your business.” perhaps. generally i go to a business because of the quality of product and service offered.
          “since you are asking my opinion and I gave it to you”
          you did. and it was an opinion. thank you

          • James Grimes

            No problem. Thanks for being cordial.

  • Vee Bee

    Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee (NKJV causes you to sin), pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna – the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where rubbish was burned).

    Jesus is not intending this saying to be taken literally. Our right eye or hand or foot cannot literally cause us to sin against God. Self mutilation is not required.

    He is speaking in a parable and is referring to those things that we take great pleasure in doing in this life. Things that are as precious to us as our right eye or hand or foot but that cause us to sin against God. These things we should stop doing; even though it pains us to do so.
    God bless you always God will reward you well and I will pray for you

  • Phipps Mike

    ““We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day,” the Mai’s continued. “We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve.”
    that is progress. I think the couple should have taken that referral. Asians are very much a people oriented race who don’t seek out to harm out of just bigotry. Its a shame to see all of these businesses continuously getting attacked and or shut down. Something needs to be done.

    • Phipps Mike

      HERE is my original reply, Neiman. I dont know how it got clear down here.

  • Liz Litts

    I have been thinking -Why can’t we use the RICO act agianst them in cases like this? They are acting like mafia thugs. Threating people because they are not getting their way. RICO was made for going after the mafia-so why not the gaystapo

    • Phipps Mike

      maybe because you are making an unrealistic melodramatic link between the two.

      • texan

        Liz is not far from the truth.

    • texan

      The powers that be are behind all this garbage. Not every Christian business is targeted only a chosen few here and there, for now. They are testing the waters to see how this harassment affects the Christian communities across America and how they will respond. It has been a slow process and has gained momentum since Obama took office. In due time they will resort to the hitler type treatment of all Christians. They will then progress to all Americans who are against the government. Christianity is being used as an example to those who rebel against authority. The homosexual agenda is the perfect platform that has ignited this destructive wave of evil by way of declaring it is their right to marry. I wonder if they will still be screaming for their rights behind the walls of the concentration camps Fema has in store for everyone who is anti-government. Those who have left homosexual lifestyles are silenced by the media, even in Christian programming. Satan controls the airwaves therefore the testimonials of these people are not reaching the public as they should. Mega churches have pastoral leaders who are afraid of the persecution and loss of the almighty dollar if they even preach against homosexuality. What is also not being reported are the numbers of homosexuals who are afflicted with diseases that come from the unnatural acts they must perform on each other. Then there are those who have died as a direct result of this and any sinful lifestyle. The bottom line here is this. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Peace be with you.

  • Kurt

    Wrote Justice Richard Bosson for the New Mexico Supreme Court. “That
    compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the
    tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. In
    short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the
    price of citizenship.” To Judge Bosson I would say, with the utmost respect, the Huguenins know that their citizenship is in heaven, as it is for each Christian. Compromise of the Word of God and tolerance of sin is not an option. Hopefully the judge will come to understand that before it is too late for his soul.

  • Greg Halvorson

    The New Mexico judge could NOT be more wrong — the gay movement is a FASCIST movement that DESTROYS citizenship and demands compliance at the expense of rights and freedom of thought… This is Fascism — through and through.

  • Michelle Bowen

    I am so sick of this attack, go ot the ones they recommended if the quality was just as good. How dare you idiots sick your stupid friends on this person. We should have the right for our own personal beliefs and morality to not be waived null and void because of us being glued as a nation? Thats stupid! I am never going to accept what you believe, I don’t and I wont’. That doesn’t mean you should attack me. WE’re supposedly allowed to do that, in our personal and business life! It should not matter!

  • Arrie

    They will be blessed elsewhere in photography. Do not be surprised if their names comes up in the future regarding pictures about nature that is astounding.
    In Jesus’ name!

  • EdWalton

    The fag gots demand that everyone participate in their depravity.

    • Gary

      What they want, and what they get will be different.

    • truthnothate

      Nope,they demand to receive the same treatment as humans than the rest of us, but hey of course I forgot that your education is limited and I should have imagined you were homophobic too…

  • Steven Rogers

    I honestly don’t understand how providing a service to a gay couple compromises or violates anyone’s faith. It’s not as if anyone asked them to turn gay or to have sex with someone of the same gender. I take people on raft trips. If I take a gay couple down the river, I will not suddenly turn gay (it is not contagious), and I haven’t done anything that would be against the tenets of even the most extreme religion.

  • Eggshan

    The homosexual mental illness requires sufferers to receive constant attention and validation of their mental illness / fecal fetish.

  • Eggshan

    I would LOVE to see these sodomites step into a business owned by Muslims or devout Jews and demand that their mental illness / fecal fetish be validated, just one time, I’d LOVE to see that!

  • Sami

    This is really sad. If a photographer explained why they cannot provide the service and referred to someone who would provide a better service then they don’t deserve to be treated that way. Don’t impinge on other people’s beliefs and stir hate towards others because they don’t think like you. No one deserves harassment because they don’t want to provide a service they don’t agree with! Especially when they explain why.

    It’s so ironic how same sex marriage advocates also shove their beliefs on to people while they tell others off for ramming their beliefs on to them.What happened to this new age thinking of “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. It doesn’t exist if you’re in the minority. Post-modern society is so convoluted

  • elizabeth

    What a disgrace that due to the arrogance of the gay’s and liberal’s this couple lost there business. Good for them that instead of going against their beliefs they stood up and took a stance.

  • Wayne

    I wouldn’t close down my business due to two sexual perverts wanting to take a picture.

  • Trix

    I see the point of this couple, but as professionals, they could’ve just said, they’re booked up or has other commitments rather than stating “we refuse to shoot same-sex weddings” which might have saved their business. Most of my friends, and colleagues are straight, but there’s not a single time they treated me differently. When we have a project together, they don’t even bring up the issue of sexuality. Why? Because it’s not relevant at all, and it’s NOT gonna put money in our pockets. Good business should all be about the QUALITY of work, NOT SEXUALITY!

  • ThCakeIsALie

    Good for them for sticking up for what they believe in!

  • BarkingDawg

    Discrimination is never a good business practice.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Discrimination is always bad for business.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Same sex marriage changes marriage like women voting changed voting. Same right, more enfranchised.

  • David J. Smith III

    None of you are Christians. Not a single one of you.

    Christ taught love.

    LOVE FOR ALL. Not for a select few.

    Whereas YOU, sir, seem to preach hatred and encourage others to join you in perpetuating the absolute EVIL that is the hurtful exclusion of your fellow man. That your hatred seems to stem solely from these two American citizens and their LOVE for one another is heartwrenching to me. I am honestly weeping as I write this.
    DISCRIMINATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Believe whatever you want to believe in the privacy of your own home, but if you own a business, and you do your business in the United States of America, you CANNOT refuse service to anyone based on race, creed, color or sexual orientation. Not only is that a statute that every L.O.E. in America is sworn to uphold, that is the embodiment of the American way of life. THOSE ARE THE FREEDOMS I CHOSE TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY TO DEFEND. To defend against all foes, foreign and domestic. You, sir, are the definition of a domestic foe to our American way of life.
    How dare ANY of the majority of ANTI-AMERICANS such as yourself, sir, try to deny the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness from AMERICAN CITIZENS. Do you think the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meant for the exclusive enjoyment of those who share your hypocritical, narrow-minded and misguidedly FALSE interpretation of a ‘religion’. The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, made it abundantly clear that EVERY religion be very carefully, very deliberately, and almost fanatically separated from our Constitutional Republic. (remember, America is NOT a democracy) It is through your very hate speak that you have proven you know nothing about Christ Jesus, His teachings, or His actions while he was among us.
    If you were in any way familiar with Jesus Christ, you would be well aware that HE taught us that if there are people that you perceive as enemies, YOU MUST LOVE THEM MOST OF ALL, LOVE THEM MORE THAN YOUR OWN FAMILY.
    That comes right from the mouth of the ‘God’ whom you claim as the basis for your anti-american, anti-Christian, completely WRONG point of view. It’s all over the bible. Trust me. I’ve studied in religious institutions for nearly half of the 41 years I’ve been privileged to have spent here on God’s green earth.

    I love you, sir.
    I love you because Jesus taught me that LOVE for your enemies is the only effective way to defeat the hatred that is born out of weakness and fear. Christians of every sect or schism have a holy obligation to set an example for the rest of the world through their love for all. Jesus of Nazareth didn’t say:
    “LOVE EVERYONE…well, maybe not EVERYONE, You should love everyone except for that group of people who happen to express love differently than you, yourself do. I want you to make those folks feel like second class trash because of who they are. My Father has made them this way, and it’s up to you humans to judge them…come on, really make them suffer for what Dad and I did to them. How dare they?”
    Jesus would be so sad to hear that someone who publicly professes to follow Him could get His message so COMPLETEY, TOTALLY and MIND BOGGINGLY wrong. You realize you are fomenting seditious thought processes which are diametrically opposed to every ideal He instructed His followers to espouse. The idea that love is for everyone EXCEPT those that disagree with you is PRECISELY what He came here to conquer, and you seem to be trying your damndest to do exactly what He told you NEVER to do. TRUE CHRISTIANS would celebrate love in ANY incarnation.
    Brother, If there is anything I can do to help get you back on the path to true salvation, I will do everything in my power to assist you. For you, sir, are full of hate, and I’m so sorry that that’s where you are on your journey. As a Christian, I consider it my obligation to walk in Jesus’ footsteps with you, and to possibly carry you along the path for at least some of that way.
    I love you.
    And I will pray for you every single day for the rest of my life, so that you may find your way back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
    In the name of the Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit.
    Amen.

  • Ohso

    They are Not Alone. Here are some hot topics in Civil Rights that the USCCR should look at – closely, Because:

    The Pace of the Persecution is picking up, particularly in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia – now that the Gaystapo have pretty much consolidated power – in a Governor & legislature unfit to pass gas and Turkey Baster Creationist courts to uphold any anti-scientific lunacy they propose.

    Check out the latest story – which is going viral nationwide, about Gaystapo Enforcers and the fanatical targeting of anyone who dares to have a Conscience not obedient to their Rank Misandry::

    SEE

    Some People Want the Duggars’ Show Cancelled Because They Oppose Men Using Women’s Bathrooms

    “That so-called “LGBTQ fear mongering”? It’s about the Duggars’ opposition to a Fayetteville, Ark., ordinance the family believed could allow individuals to use a bathroom different from the one designated for their current physical sex…”

    …We just broke 10,000 signatures on our petition defending the Duggars, and it’s gaining steam!
    http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/20/people-want-duggars-show-cancelled-oppose-men-using-womens-bathrooms/?

    &

    Why some women shun feminism -By Esther J. Cepeda

    …she sees feminism not as pro-women but anti-men. This is a viewpoint that many other women and men hold as well…

    Most importantly, a lot of us just don’t want to be associated with a supposed movement that has no unifying theme except for seeming both anti-man and against any woman who disagrees on the topic of what feminism means.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/esther-cepeda-why-some-women-shun-feminism/2014/11/14/4a77a04c-6c45-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html

  • Rosanna Miller

    Praise the Lord. Thank God for this couple standing up against the abomination of homosexuality. Let God be true and every man a liar!

  • Bolvon72

    Nice picture, good thing their photographer wasn’t against taking photos of Asians.

  • Pete Long

    I still say that they took a good word (gay) and made it perverted. Years down the road when history classes talk about the gay 90’s people will think that the people were a bunch of degenerates. So come on now and bash me. I don’t care weather you want to do another guy. or the ladies want to do other ladies just don’t force it on me to be ok with it.

    • Jack

      Do you have a similar attitude to the word “hussy”?

  • Rosavera

    For sure the homosexuals are happy with outcome, this was their aim to begin with and if they claim it wasn’t they would not have gone to this photographer to begin with and they didn’t want to accept the recommended other photographer… this is their aim, the homosexuals purpose to destroy Christians at all costs so that their lifestyle, in their mind, will eventually be justified if Christians give in to them. It is sad and disgusting to see that this couple who had their heart in their business now are closed…

    • Opus35

      How did you know our plan? All of us, every single one of us are out to get you. Wow that 1.6%. That comes to something like 505700. Wow what we can do with so little. We are so powerful, taking on the largest religious group in the world.
      Here a thought, maybe out of 505700, a few individuals are not going to take your religious freedom from the world largest religious group.

    • Jack

      What, then, gave these photographers away that the couple was able to go to them and no one else?

      Whether the couple accepted the recommendation or not is irrelevant to the refusal of service. The recommendation was PART of the refusal.

  • Rafael

    The creeping darkness from Mordor will soon pass away.

  • Michael L Hays

    Except for the recalcitrant, the law for about half a century is that service cannot be denied to all comers. And it seems contrary to faith to refuse to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Of course, many fundamentalist believers are Christians more than citizens.

  • JudgeRight

    The wicked rule in San Francisco. Homofascism is on the rise. Expect further decline of liberty and normalcy in that once great country as it slips into darkness and cruelty.

  • Evan

    It’s fascinating how hypocritical some people claiming to be Christian can be. There are REAL Christians . . . then there are those who claim to be Christian but don’t follow the teachings of their Bible.
    If they believe it’s wrong to shoot a gay wedding, how do they feel about shooting a Buddhist wedding? Or how about a non-religious wedding? Or how about the second- third- or fourth- weddings of Christians? Doesn’t the Bible speak against all of those things?
    Then there is the example of Jesus. He went out of his way to associate with people NOT following his teachings, and at all times treated everyone equally regardless of whether they followed his teachings or not.
    Somehow, the fake Christian today believes they can pick-and-choose what parts of the Bible they follow, and homosexuals are the target for ‘you must not be accepted’! The wedding of a known murderer? No problem! The wedding of an adulterer? Not a flinch. The weddings anyone EXCEPT homosexuals are okay.
    In what way are these people following the Bible?
    In what way are these people following the teachings of Jesus?
    This isn’t Christianity–this is bigotry at work. “But he answered and said, Truly I say to you, I know you not.”

  • Michael Cornish

    Remember the tired old line that the gays gave us. How will our marriage affect you? Or the classic – stay out of our bedroom! Well the gaystapo don’t mind poking around in our businesses and attacking our lives.

  • Ransom Backus

    Actually you can stay in business. 1: make it a private contractor or freelance business where you choose your jobs or on invitation only. 2: If you wish to remain open to the public, simply don’t do weddings but do every other photoshoot job.