Indiana Christian Bakers Who Declined to Bake Cake for Same-Sex Ceremony Close Shop

CakeryINDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — An Indiana bakery that came under fire last year when it declined to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony has closed its doors—but not for the reason most would think.

The situation began last March when Mike Stephens contacted the 111 Cakery in Indianapolis to obtain a cake for his commitment ceremony with his partner Shane Laney.

But as the owners, Randy and Trish McGath, are Christians, they informed Stephens that they could not fulfill his particular order, but would be happy to serve him in any other way.

“[The owner] said, ‘We don’t do that. If I can help you with anything else, but we don’t discriminate.’ That was the end of it,” Stephens recalled to Fox59. “It’s disappointing.”

However, the McGaths explained to reporters that decorating a cake requires personal involvement in creating the particular message that is to be expressed on the cake—whether artistically or with literal words.

“As artists, we have to find inspiration to create something special for our clients,” Mr. McGath stated. “When asked to do a cake for an occasion or with a theme that’s in opposition with our faith? It’s just hard for us. We struggle with that.”

He stated that his bakery has a policy about certain types of themed cakes that they can cannot fulfill, including cakes that would feature images pertaining to alcohol, drugs or violence. McGath also explained that he was well aware when he opened the bakery that it was in an area known as the “gayborhood,” and has served many customers who identify as homosexual since 111 Cakery’s 2012 opening.

  • Connect with Christian News

“There is zero hate here,” he stated. “This causes us to do a lot of soul searching. Why are we doing what we do? We want to show the love of Christ. We want to be right with our God, but we also want to show kindness and respect to other people.”

McGath said that he and his wife “just didn’t want to be party to a commitment ceremony” because it was in essence “a commitment to sin.”

But word of the incident was soon broadcast by a local television station, and was subsequently spread on social media. One man picketed the bakery and called for a boycott of 111 Cakery.

However, others who learned of the matter decided to show their support for the McGaths. They drove from sometimes over 50 miles away to place an order, and sales began to spike. According to USA Today, the boom in business lasted for three to four months.

Recently, Mrs. McGath decided that she wanted to call it quits with the bakery as the workload was “wearing her out,” and she wanted to have more time to spend with her grandchildren. The couple closed their doors on Dec. 31 and Mr. McGath found other means of work.

“We have decided not to renew our lease so we are now closed,” the business website reads. “We want to thank everyone for your patronage, support and friendship. It has been a true pleasure to serve you. Eph 2:8.”

The McGaths, who attend a Baptist church, reiterated to reporters this week that talks about the matter remained respectful even in the midst of opposition.

“We were just trying to be right with our God,” Mr. McGath stated. “I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I’m still in touch with some.”

Photo: Facebook


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
  • Oboehner

    Sexual deviants 1
    Constitutionally protected religious freedom 0

    • Paul Hiett

      Discrimination will never again be allowed in this country. I know you don’t understand it, but it works to protect everyone…even you.

      • Oboehner

        Unless it is against Christian business owners who disagree with the chosen activity of some deviant right?

        • Paul Hiett

          A Christian who owns a business, like all other business owners, made a choice to open that business, knowing full well that they may have to do business with people that their religion disagrees with. But, that’s still their choice to run that business.

          No one forced that Christian to open the business, at the same time choosing to abide by the laws that govern commerce. No one put a gun to their head to do it. They made the conscientious decision to open the business, and by doing so fell under the laws governing commerce.

          It was their choice to break the law, no one forced them to do that. Either run your business according to the law, or don’t run the business.

          • Oboehner

            No one forces sodomites to probe each others anuses either, no one put a gun to their head to do it, nor were they born that way. A chosen activity does not trump another’s religious beliefs – period.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Did you read the story? They chose not to renew their lease so she could spend more time with her kids. And he found work elsewhere. Sounds like they chose to close up shop, and not from lack of work.

          • Oboehner

            You’re telling me the pervert’s attack has absolutely nothing to do with the decision?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Did you read the story? “Recently, Mrs. McGath decided that she wanted to call it quits with the bakery as the workload was “wearing her out,” and she wanted to have more time to spend with her grandchildren. The couple closed their doors on Dec. 31 and Mr. McGath found other means of work.”

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I don’t think they broke the law in Indiana. sexual orientation isn’t a protected class in that state. They closed on their own. According to this story she quit to spend more time with her children because the workload was too high. Also, only one person boycotted according to this story. This sounds like they’re trying to make an issue of a non-issue.

          • Frank

            The laws were changed after they were in business to immoral laws. So your premise and insults fall apart.

          • colt721

            Why oh WHY is NO ONE reading the article???
            To respond to your post here…
            The cake bakers broke NO laws.
            No one forced them to close for being horrible ultra religious jerks.

            And for your point that no one forced them to open the business, No one forces the customer to shop at these businesses.

            All my life I have seen those little signs saying that the business owners or managers “reserve the right to refuse service.” They can refuse service to anyone they want at anytime.
            I have been refused service a couple of times, No big deal I took my business elsewhere.
            Everyone needs to just stop going on about this.

      • TheBBP

        Weren’t you the gent in another article that marriage should be protected except for instances when you don’t agree with it? I am pretty sure that it was you who considers your flavor of perversion to be OK, but not Polygamy. You should quit lecturing other folks on discrimination.

      • Jean Adams

        You are discriminating against Christians! Why can’t you see this?

        • dark477

          because they aren’t. it’s not discrimination to follow the law

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      How so?

  • Oshtur

    People aren’t going to support a business that discriminates like this. Same thing happened in Oregon, the business closed before the first ruling on any legal action even made it to court.

    • Gary

      I would go out of my way to support a business that was anti-pervert.

      • Oshtur

        And others promised the same and followed through for ‘3 or 4’months, but the majority of people aren’t going to over the long haul.

        • Gary

          It is hard to drive an hour one way to buy things at a store very often.

    • colt721

      So I take it you did not read the article.

      To paraphrase from the article…
      The owners got so much MORE business with people driving “as far as 50 miles” to place orders that they were TOO busy and they wanted to spend more time with family so they closed the business.
      Maybe more to the point, since everyone seems to want to put their own spin on things, No one in the article said these people were being discriminatory or anything at all. The person who was denied a cake had no problem with the issue, the people in the neighborhood had no issue and, except for ONE person who boycotted the business, there was no issue or problem until all these other people came on here and started to make it a big deal.

      • Oshtur

        Yeah I know what the owner said, I am incredulous and he’s basically saying the business didn’t grow which is an issue.

        Glad to see a discriminatory business gone regardless.

        • Jean Adams

          Well I would not shop in a store with people who are obviously against God’s law. So you shop in your deviant’s stores and I’ll shop in none deviant ones.

          • Oshtur

            Will do – does bring up the question – how are you getting on the internet if you aren’t going to deal with stores that support marriage equality? Some iranian computer?

    • Jean Adams

      They were supported, so much that they couldn’t keep up with the extra workload.

      • Oshtur

        Yeah that’s the thing – if your business is growing you hire more people. Maybe the business was more a hobby and that’d explain the shuttering of a successful business.

  • Gary

    The best strategy, in places where perverts are protected by law, might be just to verbally abuse them while you do business with them. It would be interesting to see that happen. We have to stop trying to be nice to sodomites and their enablers.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Sexual orientation doesn’t appear to be a protected class in Indiana. Nobody sued them. The only thing that happened is that one person boycotted them, according to this particular story. She quit because she couldn’t handle the workload. Am I the only one here who reads the story instead of just the headline?

      • Gary

        I know what the story said. But I would still like to see business owners try to get you sodomites to not want to do business with them.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Pretty sure that would backfire.

          • Gary

            Yeah, I don’t understand why Christians would want to open a business in a place like that to start with. I never would. It makes the business owners’ story suspect.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I assume they did some sort of business model ahead of time and found that bakeries did good business in that part of town. This entire story seems like click bait to me. Nobody pursued legal action and their business wasn’t negatively impacted by their refusal to provide a product.

          • Jean Adams

            I think bakeries should stop providing cakes for special occasions. ALL special occasions. Then they could serve everyone.

        • LeftleaningTx

          Well I’m glad to see that you will at least be man enough to openly admit you’re a bigot

      • LeftleaningTx

        Oh yes it is under the ” accommodation”
        In June the Supreme Court will rule against religion and bigots like you and you WILL see a plethora of lawsuits against all of the religious Reich bigots forcing them to either obey the law or be forced out of business.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          You obviously haven’t read the story, you haven’t read any of my other comments, and you certainly haven’t read the public accommodation laws specific to Indiana. I am gay, and I wish you were on the other team. Do your homework next time.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Are you to stupid to know that federal laws trump state laws ?
            Civil / equal rights / accomodation laws are FEDERAL.
            And we’re just about to see IN JUNE how the FEDERAL SCOTUS will strike down all of the remaining state bans on gay marriages making gay marriage the law of the land regardless of individual state laws or state constitutions.
            You may be gay but that doesn’t insulate you from being ignorant and you might be a better candidate for the log cabin republicans but until you jump ship you need to keep your mouth shut, listen and go educate yourself so that you don’t look like such an ignorant moron.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            1) You meant to use the word “too” instead of “to”.

            2) I assume you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please feel free to show me in that particular piece of legislation where it prohibits discrimination against sexual orientation. I’m not saying that I agree with it, I’m just saying that as of now, she has not broken state or federal law.

            3) The Supreme Court ruling in our favor is not a silver bullet that will end all discrimination against LGBT people. Public accommodation laws will still have to be fixed state by state which will probably take years.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Seriously, is your argument so weak that you need to be so petty as to point out spelling errors ? That only makes YOU look stupid and not me. Rest assure that no only do i outstripe you on this argument but on IQ as well and apparently ignorance pervades not only the bigoted heterosexual population in your state but the gay one as well.

            It doesn’t have to, it is implied it is to all peoples and that is why the SCOTUS will EASILY clear up the matter IN JUNE.
            The SCOTUS ruling WILL be a silver bullet toward openly institutionalized discrimination and will set precedence to usher in all of the rest of the equal rights Ie housing, employment, hate crimes ETC.
            The accommodation laws on the books will spark MANY lawsuits as soon as gay marriage is legal and businesses (even christians ones) will comply or close their doors as this lady has done.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            This one is riddled with too many errors for me to tell you about, but for starters you meant rest assured, and you meant outstrip.

            Laws are not implied, they are expressed. If it isn’t in writing, then it isn’t real. That being said — in 1964 nobody in a position to pass a law cared about gay rights, so we’re not implied.

            You really need to calm down. You are not doing our side any favors by trolling week old news stories.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Seriously ?
            Your stupidity is beginning to annoy me.
            It’s like talking to a conservative in an alternate reality bubble!!

            So lets do what I ALWAYS do with a stupid conservative, go to the dictionary. I’ve chosen the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you may not have heard of it but it IS the gold standard for word definitions.

            out·strip outˈstrip/
            verb
            move faster than and overtake (someone else).

            Now that we’ve cleared up that moronic point lets move on.

            “Laws are not implied, they are expressed”

            No that is incorrect as well which is why overturning the gay marriage bans have been so easy state after state and why the SCOTUS ruling be be easy as well.

            Clearly I disagree with you but given that you are so riddled with inconsistencies i’ll just assume that you’re basing your opinions out of ignorance or hearsay.

            I’m totally calm. Clowns like you who try to move points along through spelling checks and infactual word definitions scream to be put in their place as i have done with you.

            Quite the contrary, you are not doing our side any good by trolling ME. Wouldn’t your and intellect (if you have one) be better spent elsewhere instead of fighting with someone on your own side ? That just seems rather stupid to me but then apparently that is a foregone conclusion. However, if that is not the case then I accept your apology.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            “Rest assure that no only do i outstripe you on this…”
            That’s from you. Red squiggly lines mean that you need to rethink your spelling choices. You can’t possibly think that protections for LGBT Americans are just implied. We are not yet a federally protected class of people. Assuming that SCOTUS rules in our favor, we will still not be a federally protected class of people. We would need to be added to the list of protected classes expressly stated in the civil rights act in order to be protected.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Apparently there is just no end to your stupidity.

            Yes I DO think they are implied which is why this lady just closed her doors because she (or her attorney) realized that this would not be ruled on with a summary judgment and that in the end of a long costly battle they would lose, so Yes that is why I say I is implied.

            And I disagree, we are federally protected, it just needs to be ruled on which it will IN JUNE and set the necessary precedence for any future cases regarding gay rights.

            “Assuming that SCOTUS rules in our favor”
            Lord you are so out of your league here.
            Is it really necessary for me to break down even the simplest things to you ?
            First, the SCOTUS had a chance to “stay” the rulings by the Circuit Courts and choose not to, remanding the cases back to the rulings of the Circuit Courts thereby TACITLY approving gay marriage because they know full well that by not staying and hearing the cases that many gay marriage licenses will be applied for, granted and many gay people married.
            They did this as a way to avoid the case until there was a conflict between the Circuit courts in which case they would have NO choice but to hear the case and rule on it.
            That has happened and that is why they are hearing the case IN JUNE.
            They also know that to rule against themselves and their “tacit” approval they would cause a tremendous amount of chaos because of the marriages that they ALLOWED to happen. that will never happen and most assuredly theY will rule IN FAVOR of gay marriage in June.
            Interesting to notE that notoriously anti gay homophobe Anthony Scalia is already out saying “don’t paint me as anti gay” because although homophobic he also see he’s about to be indelibly printed down in the history books as anti gay.
            I would not be surprised that if Anthony Scalia himself does not vote in favor of gay marriage in June.
            Look, try as you may you are just completely outclassed In this conversation with your lack of logic and knowledge and as I’ve already told you , you would be better off fighting a stupid conservative instead of trying to battle a losing argument.
            Stop while you’re behind.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            How incredibly long-winded of you. I’m not willing to exert the effort necessary to read it.

          • LeftleaningTx

            I don’t believe you.
            I believe that you actually read every single word I had to say and realized how out of your league you were and decided to take the weak kneed approach of saying that you hadn’t read it while criticizing the long explanation that was necessary to rebuke your positions and statements

            I’ll take that as a loss.
            I have enjoyed our spirited conversation but again I would suggest that you exert your intellect on a conservative as opposed to some on your own team, even if you have subtle differences.
            Cheers !!

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Oh, and here: http://www.in.gov/icrc/2651.htm , since you’re obviously google challenged.

    • Paul Hiett

      So much for that whole “turn the other cheek” motto of your idol, eh?

      • Gary

        You cannot be nice to perverts. Or their equally perverted supporters.

        • Paul Hiett

          So, tell me, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?

          • Gary

            He said adulterers and fornicators are wicked and will not be admitted to Heaven. (that leaves only one other destination). And he said that marriage is the union of a man and a woman only.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where, exactly, did Jesus say this?

          • Gary

            Mark 7:21, Mark 10:6-8

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “He said adulterers and fornicators are wicked and will not be admitted to Heaven. ”

            All the more reason to allow two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage. That way, when they have sexual relations, they will not be fornicators. Surely you support helping people to commit less sin, right?

            “And he said that marriage is the union of a man and a woman only.”

            Please cite where Jesus said that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman only”.

          • Gary

            God regards all s-x, other than between a man and his wife, as either fornication or adultery. God does not permit ssm. There are no instructions regarding ssm in the Bible, and no examples of it. Every marriage in the Bible consists of a husband and a wife.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “God regards all s-x, other than between a man and his wife, as either fornication or adultery. God does not permit ssm.”

            While I accept that is your belief regarding God views, unless you are God you cannot state his views with certainty. Are you God, Gary?

            So you can’t cite where Jesus says that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman only”. Got it. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

          • Gary

            God has made his views very clear in the Bible. If you can prove from the Bible that God allows ANY moral expression of homosexuality, then do it. And if you cannot, then shut your lying mouth.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “God has made his views very clear in the Bible.”

            That is what you have chosen to believe. There are many texts which claim to contain the views of God. The Bible is but one. Have you chosen to believe that God’s word in contained within the pages of the Bible, does not make it definitively true. It is a matter of faith.

            “And if you cannot, then shut your lying mouth.”

            I never said that the Bible says that God allows any allows moral expression of homosexuality. What I said was that unless you are God, you cannot know for certain what his views are. I’ll ask again, Gary, are you God?

          • Gary

            Since God has revealed his views about homos-xuality and marriage in the Bible, I am confident I know for certain what His views are.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly free to believe that is true.

          • Gary

            Not only do I believe it, but all Christians do.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes. That is what the Christian faith is based upon. Just as the Koran is the book upon which the Muslim faith is based, and the Book of Mormon is what the Mormon faith is based upon.

          • Jean Adams

            Gary you can’t reason with the deluded, don’t try. Just ignore him/her/it.

          • Rose

            Romans 1:26 and 27 is an obvious warning about homosexuality. NIV is the version I read this verse from.

            26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned relationships with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I was focusing more on direct quotes from Jesus, not the musings of the authors of the gospels, which were hand-picked from many for inclusion in the Bible because they best suited how the Church wanted to control people as well as providing the most consistency (although still inconsistent, but not as much as the other gospels which were not included), so as to lend a greater level of credibility to the book.

          • Rose

            The rest of the bible is still important. Jesus never said anything about saying that homosexuality being okay with God. The other authors of the bible still spoke with God, and had a relationship with God. Now Jesus is still way more important, but God spoke to these men and God told us these things through these men.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The other authors of the bible still spoke with God, and had a relationship with God. Now Jesus is still way more important, but God spoke to these men and God told us these things through these men.”

            So those men claim and there is nothing to back up their claim other than their word on the matter. Seems pretty self serving to me: “This is what I said, and it’s true because God spoke to me and told me to write it”.

            Well, pretty much anybody could say that. Like, for instance, the founder of the Mormon Church. Or Jim Jones. Or Mohammad. Etc., Etc.

            That you have chosen to believe that their words were guided by the Holy Spirit (although it seems a bit odd that the HS would tell them to write things that are inconsistent from one account to another. I mean, I would think that the HS would make sure that all the accounts matched in their details if the HS was truly trying to get people to believe in something – maybe the HS just forgot to proof read, huh) does not mean they were. Anyone can SAY that what they write comes directly from God. While I respect that you have chosen to buy into the “it’s true because I say it’s true” line of reasoning, that does not make something true.

            “Jesus never said anything about saying that homosexuality being okay with God.”

            Nor did he say it wasn’t. Given all the various things Jesus spoke about, one would think that if homosexuality were such the big deal that Christians make it out to be, that Jesus would have said something.

            He did, however, makes his views on divorce for reasons other than adultery quite clear. Yet, you see no outcry from “Christians” about outlawing divorce or making it illegal for those who got divorced for reasons other than adultery to remarry, despite their living in sin. I wonder why? Could it by hypocrisy? Why, yes, I believe it is.

            Few things as annoying as pick and choose Christians attempting to use law to harm those they don’t agree with by citing the Bible as their rationale, but then completely ignoring other parts regarding law. Hypocrites, one and all.

          • Rose

            The why would you believe what Jesus says? It’s all or none, and if you don’t believe in the men God chose to write the bible that all Christians read, then why believe that Jesus is really the son of God? I believe that Christians pick and choose what they want to believe but that’s simply not the way God wants it to be. God doesn’t give us a bible full of lessons about his love and how he wants us to avoid sinning, just so we can pick and choose, and really, that’s what you’re doing. Like I said, Jesus was the most important happening in the bible, but how would we know of this amazing happening if it weren’t for those authors?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It’s all or none”

            Why is it “all or none”? So you follow everything in the bible? You don’t speak out in church? You are subservient to your husband? You don’t wear jewelry? You would allow your daughters to be sold into slavery? You wear your hair long? On Sunday’s you do nothing besides spend time in worship? Do you follow the Baptist belief of no alcohol or dancing? Do you follow the Mormon belief of no caffeine? Do you follow the Amish belief of no electricity? Which version of “all or nothing” do you abide by?

            “God doesn’t give us a bible full of lessons about his love and how he wants us to avoid sinning,”

            That statement requires the belief that God actually did give us the bible. That is a matter of faith, not fact.

            “and really, that’s what you’re doing.”

            While i believe the Bible is an amazing book and contains many valuable teachings, I do not view it as the definitive word of God nor do I believe it is rational to do so. It was written by men, based upon society at the time, based upon the plight of many people at the time who had lost hope for a better tomorrow. It’s contents were written years after Jesus was dead. It includes the personal views of the authors. It has been translated and retranslated numerous times. It’s contents were handpicked by men to include only certain gospels out of numerous ones written, it has been changed multiple times regarding certain passages, and is interpreted in various ways by the many different sects of Christianity. For any one person or sect to state definitively that their interpretation is the “true” and “correct” one is simply without reason.

            I respect that you have chosen to believe that the Bible contains the word of God. Just as i respect that others have chosen to believe that the text they follow is the word of God. One of the great freedoms in our nation is the freedom to hold to whatever belief we care to. But to suggest that because you have chosen to believe in something that therefore everything you have chosen to believe is without question true, is without merit.

            Finally, it is completely without merit, in a nation where liberty, freedom, and equality serve as the bedrock of our way of life, that Biblical prohibitions should serve as a sole basis for our laws.

            As to your first question: “The why would you believe what Jesus says?”

            it’s not a question of my believing it or not believing it. I bring it up to point out that while some Christians who, by the very nature of their name follow the teachings of Jesus, feel quite righteous citing certain concepts in the Bible that were not addressed by Jesus to condemn something, but ignore this particular passage in which Jesus actually does address homosexuality.

          • Rose

            I believe in what the bible teaches, which is the ten commandments. I do not believe in the Jewish beliefs because when Jesus died on the cross, it was made clear that such ritualistic things were unnecessary. Not saying that it’s bad, but it’s still unnecessary. I am not a Baptist, I’m nondenominational, which means I don’t make my relationship with God a ritual. And the passage you presented to us is once again an assumption as to that is what he addressed. Unless you present information to me that that is what he meant, and that it didn’t just mean ‘a man doesn’t have to have sexual desires’ which is what I and probably other Christians reading this passage got out of it, I’m afraid it’s not very valid.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I believe in what the bible teaches, which is the ten commandments.”

            That’s the Old Testament. Yet, you don’t live by all of the Old Testament, because you say that you don’t have to because Jesus said you didn’t have to – which is in the New Testament. So you follow some of the Old Testament and some of the New Testament, based upon your preference. You are a “pick and choose” Christian. Convenient.

            “And the passage you presented to us is once again an assumption as to that is what he addressed.”

            Actually, no, it is a rational conclusion based upon reviewing historical review which clearly shows that “eunuchs” were referred to in different ways in biblical times. History shows that there were indeed differences and that “eunuchs” that were “born of their mother’s wombs” were distinct from others and were men who were used to guard over women as they had no sexual desire for women. Not due to a lack of testes. But, rather, due to lack of desire – in other words – homosexual men.

            When Jesus said “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,” you are assuming that he meant that ONLY a man and a woman may enter into marriage. Jesus makes no such statement. Unless you present information to me that that is what he meant, and didn’t just mean that men do leave their parents and marry women, I”m afraid it’s not very valid.

          • Rose

            1 John 2:4-6 If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.

            Last I checked, that’s new testament. I’ve reviewed the historical information. http://www.gotquestions.org/eunuch-eunuchs.html

            The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could also be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex—i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in ancient times for rulers to castrate some of their servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was especially common to castrate men who tended the royal harem. Queen Esther’s eunuchs are mentioned in Esther 4:4.

            I gave you a source, an answer, and it’s backed up with a bible verse. Present your information so that I and many others out there will know if what you’re saying is an assumption or pure facts.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. ”

            Oh really? And did jesus say that? Or is that simply something that you read?

            Jesus specifically mentions a group of “eunuchs” being born that way. No one is born castrated. The probability that a man would be incapable of reproduction is so tiny that it would be nonsensical to suggest that Jesus would bother to name them as a distinct group.

            “The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality.”

            The eunuchs who came from their mothers wombs weren’t castrated, Rose.

            “I gave you a source, an answer, and it’s backed up with a bible verse”

            No, you gave me opinion and attempts to justify a quote from Jesus that conservatives don’t want to mean what it clearly does.

            Here ya go:

            “Some Christians confidently assert that God did not create homosexual people “that way.” This is important because they realize if God did create gays “that way,” rejecting them would be tantamount to rejecting God’s work in creation. In pressing their “creation order” argument, some Christians are fond of saying, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” To bolster their position, they often cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5, where he responds to a question about whether divorce is permissible:

            “Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at 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”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

            From these words, some Christians draw the conclusion that heterosexuality is the creation norm and, thus, heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate way for people to form romantic relationships. Ironically, Jesus’ own words in this very same passage refute these conclusions.

            As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:

            “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

            Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

            In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The implication of his statement is profound — God created gay people the way they are! Jesus says so.

            Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Jesus feels no need to “cure” these born eunuchs. He speaks no words of condemnation. Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.

            Thus, when Matthew 19 is read as a whole, we see Jesus teaches that most people are created for heterosexual marriage. (We too accept this as God’s predominant creation paradigm.) But, unlike some modern Christians, Jesus does not see this as the only honorable way to live. He acknowledges that some human beings have been created by God to follow a less common, but equally legitimate path. There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God.”

            There is additional information here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

            And more here: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html

          • Rose

            Thank you for the citation, but I fear that’s more opinionated than what I have given you. I respect the amount of faith you have in this article, but that’s just not the teachings. I do believe that some people are destined to have different struggles, and the perversion of homosexuality is just one of them. It’s no different than one of my personal struggles with anger. In my eyes, what you have shown me is a misinterpretation of the Bible. And I believe that what I gave you clearly stated what an eunuch was. But I assume that’s what you thought of my post, and that’s fine. If we have different interpretations of the Bible, that’s’ fine and we’d just be arguing for nothing. But the main root of the argument is the definition of an eunuch, which now I can see there is no reason for trying to argue that considering that we can never really find that true definition unless Jesus handed it to us on a silver platter. Either way this conversation is getting us nowhere now and you have proved where your belief lies, and I mine.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “but I fear that’s more opinionated than what I have given you. ”

            Quite the opposite. I gave you links which reference the Talmud, Roman law, historically accurate customs, and explanations of the root of the word “eunuch”.

            What you provided me was more information on men who were castrated, which was a separate category according to Jesus.

            But, if you want to be blind to what Jesus said, to the historical record, to Roman law, and to the definition provided in the Talmud, in order to support your views, that is certainly your option.

            Take care.

          • Richard

            Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
            Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
            Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

          • MGM46

            The more you talk, the more confused I see that you are – you use the same old party line that almost every atheist uses.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “the more confused I see that you are”

            What is it you believe I am confused about?

            “you use the same old party line that almost every atheist uses.”

            What party line is that?

          • MGM46

            Good morning troll. Read your post and you will see. Don’t have the time to waste with at troll. Good day.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Ahhh….you’re one of those people. Well, no surprise there.

          • MGM46

            Yes, all the Bible is the word of God – and really, the words of Jesus are the word of God, but not more so than the rest of Scripture – all Scripture means just that

            2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

          • MGM46

            Now you admit you do not believe the Bible – that is better – now people will know to ignore you.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Feel free to do so. Given the lack of substantive content in your posts, that would be preferred.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Still looking for a quote from Jesus that says: “marriage is a union of a man and a woman only”.

          • Rose

            There isn’t one, just as there isn’t one approving homosexuality. But the fact still stands that Romans 1:26 and 27 is an obvious warning about homosexuality.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There isn’t one”

            Thanks.

          • Rose

            … Seriously, like dude. We ended this argument with an agree to disagree and then a day later you go to one of the beginning comments just to bring that back up? Are you that conflicted with thinking that homosexuality is perfectly fine, or do you just love arguing?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Your response to me was posted 9 hours ago. YOU restarted the conversation.

            I’m not conflicted at all regarding homosexual behavior.

            “or do you just love arguing?”

            I wasn’t arguing in my post. I was agreeing with you.

          • Rose

            … I only replied to a comment that you posted, now a day ago. Our argument was two days ago and the post you commented on was posted three days ago. So no, I wasn’t the one restarting this conversation. And if you were just agreeing with me, and not starting back arguments, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Our argument was two days ago”

            “I only replied to a comment that you posted, now a day ago.”

            Pretty clear you restarted the conversation.

            “And if you were just agreeing with me, and not starting back arguments, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.”

            And I apologize if my comment wasn’t clear that I was agreeing. I modified it so that it is clearer.

          • MGM46

            You hadn’t read all the Bible have you?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, I have.

          • Josey

            Read John 1 chapter, talks about Jesus being in the beginning and being the Word of God which would mean the entire Word of God from Genesis through Revelation, follow the context and you will know what Jesus says about homosexuality. You cannot separate the old testament from the new, Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfil the law.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “talks about Jesus being in the beginning and being the Word of God”

            The authors of the gospels claiming that what they wrote was inspired by God is not proof that it was. It is simply their claim. You are certainly free to believe that their self-serving claim is true, but that does not make it so.

          • Richard

            Rom 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:
            Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

            Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’ll ask again:

            Please cite where Jesus said that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman only”.

          • Richard

            ev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
            Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
            Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
            Lev 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
            Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

            Mat_19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

            Once GOD speaks it becomes Law, man did not create man, man did not make the law. Man does have free will to choose, so choose well.

            “marriage is the union of a man and a woman only” this is by implication he never said those exact words.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Once GOD speaks it becomes Law”

            For those who believe in the Bible, perhaps.

            “man did not make the law.”

            Man made civil law.

            “he never said those exact words.”

            I know. Gary, unfortunately, thinks differently.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            He said they were born that way. Other than that, nothing.

          • Gary

            That is a lie. Jesus never said any such thing.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, he did, Gary. Please refer to Matthew 19:12

          • Gary

            A eunuch is a castrated man, not a homosexual.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I’m kinda with Gary on this one, and I have no plan on being a eunuch.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If you are gay, in biblical times, you would have been referred to as a eunuch. There is a variety of historical evidence showing that homosexual men were placed in valued positions of guarding women, because they would not sexually assault the women. Given the frequency of rape, and, of course, the lack of persecution for such action as women were viewed as property to be used, there services were valued.

          • Gary

            Wrong. The word eunuch did not mean homoe in Biblical times. Castration does not equal sodomite.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The word eunuch did not mean homoe in Biblical times.”

            Yes, it did. in addition to the substantial amount of historical evidence which supports that definition in biblical times, Jesus would not have made reference to three distinct types of eunuchs. Those who devoted their lives to the church were not castrated. Therefore, their designation as being a eunuch is clear evidence that the word “eunuch” did not apply to only those who were castrated.

            “Castration does not equal sodomite.”

            Agreed. “Sodomite” refers to a person who engages in acts of sodomy. Since castrated males do not engage in sexual acts, they cannot be sodomites.

          • Gary

            If I were you, I would be embarrassed to attempt to talk about subjects that I know nothing about. You are so grossly ignorant that you think God approves of homosexuals. You are clueless. And without morals.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If I were you, I would be embarrassed to attempt to talk about subjects that I know nothing about.”

            If you were me, I’d seek counseling.

            “you think God approves of homosexuals.”

            Yes, I do. What makes my beliefs any more true or less true than yours?

          • Gary

            The Bible proves your beliefs are false. There is not one word in the Bible that endorses homosexuals. Prove me wrong, if you can.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The Bible is not proof of anything. It contains the writings of various men regarding their views on religion. It is no more proof of God’s views than Harry Potter is proof that magic exists.

            I never said that there is anything in the Bible which endorses homosexuality, Gary.

          • Gary

            For Christians, the Bible is our proof. I understand that you unbelievers don’t agree believe the Bible.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I understand that you believe that the bible proof, but that does not mean that it does. Other religions believe their texts provide the word of God. It is a matter of faith.

          • MGM46

            You started out with Bible talk – are you now telling us you do not believe the Bible?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I do not believe that everything in the Bible is an accurate and singularly correct depiction of God and his will.

          • RN Nutrition

            Yours are not based on Scripture… the difference.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I am aware of that. The question still stands:

            What makes my beliefs any more true or less true than yours?

          • RN Nutrition

            No it did not… ignorance… Consider also that the word “eunuch” is used three times in the verse, which suggests three kinds of men who are given to not marry. The first two usages were already familiar to the disciples. Jesus mentions those who are eunuchs from birth; that is, they were either incapable of marriage (i.e., physical deformity which prohibited having children) or have no desire to marry. The second is speaking of physical castration. Such eunuchs were often used in guarding harems. The third is the new category: those who choose to be single “for the kingdom of God.” In both cases there is not even a suggestion that people are born with homosexual orientation. If anything, the implication is to not be involved in marriage and sexual activity – which would negate homosexuality as an option.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ” they were either incapable of marriage (i.e., physical deformity which prohibited having children) ”

            Where did you come up with that “in essence”? There is noting keeping a man who is incapable to bear children from getting married. In addition, being born in such a manner is so incredibly rare, that it would nonsensical for Jesus to single this out as a group worth mentioning.

            “or have no desire to marry”

            So, in a society where marriage was seen as being nearly essential, where Jesus said that non-eunuchs should take a spouse, where progeny were prized, where the needs of an agricultural existence that the majority relied upon required more than one person, and out of marriage sexual relations were strongly frowned upon, please tell me why a man would have “no desire to marry”. The only rational answer is: gay.

          • Oshtur

            Yes, men with undescended testes were considered ‘eunuchs of the sun’ by the Hebrews, referencing they had been so since their first breath and being in the light. The status of ‘eunuch’ in the ancient world didn’t mean free from sexual desire.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The status of ‘eunuch’ in the ancient world didn’t mean free from sexual desire.

            I didn’t say it did. I said it meant free from sexual desire for women.

          • Oshtur

            I never said you did. and only a certain kind of Christian is limited to the Old Testament. The Hebrew scholars and rabbis discussed the Torah for well over a millenium, eventually writing down these discussions in the Talmud. What was and wasn’t a genital deformity, who was and wasn’t obligated to wed their brothers widow, was much discussed. A eunuch of the sun was someone considered to have been so since birth, since they first saw the sun.

            Many moderns think the terms Jesus used were about just medieval types that were castrated, they encompassed much more than that to both biblical and Hellenistic cultures. For the most part if a man couldn’t or wouldn’t breed he was called a ‘eunuch’.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Many moderns think the terms Jesus used were about just medieval types that were castrated, they encompassed much more than that to both biblical and Hellenistic cultures.”

            Agreed. It also included gay men.

          • RN Nutrition

            The only rational answer is not gay… LOL… nice reach and not Biblical.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you can’t explain why a man would no “desire to marry”, other than being gay. Got it.

          • RN Nutrition

            A quick google of “why men don’t want to marry” shows that the majority of men who don’t want to get married are not gay… so I would assume that being gay is not a requirement for no desire to marry… but your psychological background on gay and non-marriage is astounding.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Historical context, which you seem to ignore, is important to consider.

          • Jean Adams

            If you were homosexual in biblical times you would have been stoned to death , not given a job.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You would benefit from a more thorough understanding of history. Homosexuals were prized in society as guardians of women. Study up, Jean. You’ll be amazed what you can learn when you open your eyes outside of the indoctrination of the church.

          • MGM46

            Studying is good – reading is good – but it appears you may be reading everything except the authority on the homosexual agenda. It is called the Bible and it clears up many of the misconceptions you seem to have.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is called the Bible”

            Your statement that the Bible is the authority on homosexuality is a matter of faith, which you are certainly entitled to believe. Your belief, however, does not make it true.

          • Gary

            Right. The only way to know whether someone is homosexual is if they engage in homosexual behavior, which in Jesus’ day would have resulted in their stoning. There is no Biblical evidence that God has ever approved of homosexuality.

          • MGM46

            Check your references and see what they did with gay people in biblical times. They were given something sure enough, but it wasn’t employment.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            In many cases that’s exactly what it was. You should check your history.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            That is the modern-day definition. In biblical times, the word “eunuch” referred to men who were not desirous of sexual relations with women. Jesus makes clear reference to three different ways in which a man becomes non-desirous of sexual relations with women.

            1. Made so by man (castrated)
            2. Decision to devote his life to the church (not castrated)
            3. Born that way (not castrated – just not desirous of sexual relations with women – in other words – homosexual)

            It is a passage that Fundies like to ignore. The last thing they want to admit is that Jesus said that gay men were born gay.

          • Gary

            No sodomite is right with God, or refuses to engage in s-x for the kingdom of God’s sake. Even if some men do refrain from s-x to serve God, it does not mean they are sodomites.

            Your theology is as perverted as your morality.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No sodomite is right with God,”

            While you are certainly free to believe that is true, you cannot know for certain who is right with God and who is not, unless you are God. Are you God, Gary?

            “Even if some men do refrain from s-x to serve God, it does not mean they are sodomites.”

            Correct. in order to be a sodomite, one would have to engage in acts of sodomy. if a person refrains from sexual relations they cannot be a sodomite.

          • Gary

            You are far too ignorant of the Bible to talk about it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I am well versed in the Bible, Gary. That my views do not agree with yours, is not a sign of ignorance. Your view that only your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one is a sign of arrogance.

          • Gary

            You are a Biblical ignoramous. The Bible contradicts what you say about homosexuality.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            i never suggested that Bible did otherwise, Gary. With the exception, of course, of Matthew 19:12.

          • Gary

            Matthew 19:12 does not support what you believe either.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Both it, and history, support my view regarding Jesus saying that homosexuals are born as homosexuals.

          • Gary

            You are lying again. A eunuch in the Bible is not a homosexual.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. All historical evidence and this passage say otherwise.

          • MGM46

            We know the reference you gave in Scripture is not what you say it is – – now give us the other references you have and let’s see how credible they are.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “We know the reference you gave in Scripture is not what you say it is”

            More accurately stated: “We BELIEVE the reference you gave in Scripture is not what you say it is.

            If you read through the comments below, you will find them. I gave them to Rose.

          • MGM46

            I think you are dealing with a troll –

          • KWT

            Seriously? please give us scripture where Jesus actually said that? Also how can they be born gay… who carries the gay gene?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Matthew 19:12

          • KWT

            Well since gays only have sexual contact with their own gender.. they can not pass on the so called imaginary GAY gene.. Again, please tell me what scripture said that Jesus actually said what you claim…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh, dear, you don’t know much about genetics, do you?

            I already gave you the passage: Matthew 19:12

          • KWT

            eunuch does not mean sodomite… which you seem to be claiming…

            Matthew 19:12 clearly states…

            For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “eunuch does not mean sodomite”

            in biblical times, the word “eunuch” referred in general to men who were not desirous of sexual relations with women. As the passage clearly shows, Jesus refers to the three different ways this can come about: being born that way (gay men – not castrated); made so by man (castrated); and those who have chosen to devote themselves to the church (not castrated).

            While I realize that some Christians prefer not to acknowledge this passage, it exists none-the-less and is clear in its meaning.

          • KWT

            It does not say GAY…. stop trying change the scripture… I will be praying for you… and on that note.. I am done with this debate… God bless you…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Of course it doesn’t say “gay”. That word was not in existence then. Geez. Do you think the Bible was written in English?

            I will pray for you as well. May God bless you and lift the weights from the eyes of your soul.

          • MGM46

            The Bible says Sodomite and I don’t see it there either.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Some English translations of the Bible use the word “sodomite”.

            You won’t see it there. The word “sodomite” was no where to be found in the Bible. No English words were.

          • MGM46

            He is a troll and knows what he is saying is not true.

          • Rose

            Sorry, but just because a man is not desirous of sexual relationships with a woman, doesn’t make him a homosexual. That’s just an assumption that ‘oh he doesn’t want sexual desires with a woman so he must want them with a man’. It’s jumping to conclusions.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Sorry, but just because a man is not desirous of sexual relationships with a woman, doesn’t make him a homosexual. ”

            I agree. Nor did I say that was the case.

          • MGM46

            I looked as hard as I can, and I can’t find a reference to a homosexual in that verse – please check again and post the verse you mentioned.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I already cited the verse. The word “homosexual” was not in use in Biblical times. Nor was the Bible written in English.

          • RN Nutrition

            Jesus said plenty… read the Bible… which is inspired by Jesus… OT and NT… everything in the Bible was Jesus saying it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Jesus said plenty”

            Yes, he did. Yet not a word about homosexuals other than to say they were born that way.

          • RN Nutrition

            We are all born that way… born in sin. But Jesus has plenty to say on the subject… you just need to read.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “But Jesus has plenty to say on the subject”

            Please provide me some words from the bible that are attributed to Jesus regarding homosexuality.

          • RN Nutrition

            Really? Some words? You don’t know any words in the Bible re: homosexuality? (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22;20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27

            And you do know that Jesus is the Word… and that His words are Scripture… so every word in Scripture is attributed to Jesus… you know that right? In all your Scriptural knowledge….

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And you do know that Jesus is the Word… and that His words are Scripture… so every word in Scripture is attributed to Jesus… you know that right?”

            I know you believe that to be true.

          • MGM46

            I missed that verse – please give us that reference.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Mathew 19:12

          • The Last Trump

            “Thou shalt NOT!”

          • MGM46

            I don’t know a verse that says thou shalt not be a homosexual – but then I don’t know one that says thou shalt be either – but Jesus was clear to all that really wants to know, exactly the way things should be.

            Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

            Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

            Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

            Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

          • RN Nutrition

            There are verses that say you should not practice homosexuality…

      • Jean Adams

        Idols are not real Jesus was and is!

        • Paul Hiett

          Your ignorance of the word “Idol” is astounding. And sad.

          • RN Nutrition

            Your ignorance of every word you said is astounding… and sad.

    • SFBruce

      I’d say you’ve succeeded mightily when it comes to not being nice to LGBT people. Although I don’t consider myself a Christian, I don’t think you’ll find much support for that approach, including all the name-calling, in the teachings of Jesus.

      • Gary

        Thanks for the compliment.

    • LeftleaningTx

      Well you gotta give bigots credit for figuring another way to use their bigotry as the laws rule against them

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    I hope she enjoys spending more time with her grandchildren.

  • dark477

    aw are the bigots packing it in? too bad so sad

    • The Last Trump

      Oh, are you leaving us?

      • dark477

        what have I done that was bigoted? I never discriminate.

        • colt721

          Calling people bigots with no foundation in fact As you did IS the act of a bigot. Picking on people for their religious orientation is bigoted and discriminatory. In fact it has been against the law to discriminate against someone for religious reasons a lot longer than for sexual orientation. SO your comment above qualifies you.

          • dark477

            She discriminated against a gay couple that makes her a bigot and no one was picking on her they were exercising their right to boycott. and how long something has bee deemed a protected class is irrelevant.

          • colt721

            They did not discriminate. The article makes that clear. YOU are the one making into an issue of discrimination. As for the rest of this I was responding to YOU not the article.You asked “what have I done that was bigoted?” and “I Never discriminate.”

            You discriminated by denying them their religious freedom.

            You were bigoted in calling them bigots when even the customer they had did not say it.
            You are picking on them with your statement/s.

            You cannot claim that you are supporting people’s freedoms when you are denying those same freedoms to people who have been legally in that position for all this time. the point for the time issue is if you want these protections for a new class of people NOW then you ought to abide by the protections that ALREADY exist on the books.

          • dark477

            religious freedom means you have the right to worship not discriminates that’s the interpretation of the SCOTUS

          • Paul Hiett

            So tell me…for how long after the slaves were freed were people still allowed to own them? After all, it’s not like the law had been around very long, and those persecuted slave owners had been in that position legally for a very long time.

          • colt721

            Just like a liberal. You are losing the argument so you switch topics and create a straw man argument.

            This issue you are bringing up has NOTHING to do with any of the comments here. Slavery was OUTLAWED, Religious freedom and laws against religious discrimination has/have NOT been outlawed.

            As for how long did it go on? It is still going on today.

            Again the point I was making is, The law for religious freedom has been around for a long time BUT YOU ARE IGNORING THAT meantime you want US to fawn all over your Brand New spanking laws about discriminating against the people you support. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO YOU AND ABIDE BY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THE SAME FOR THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Please start to pay attention to the real argument and stop trying to make up issues that do not exist.

          • Paul Hiett

            You ignore the point presented quite obviously. It was not “slavery” in general I was referring to, but the changing of a law and when it is upheld.

            In a state that does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of how long the law has been in place, that law is just as valid had been in place for 1 year or 100 years.

            I see reading comprehension might not be your strong suit.

          • colt721

            I think My reading comprehension is fine. You still miss my point. SO to make it as easy as I can…

            Please Stop telling me to obey YOUR new law when you refuse to obey all the laws already in existence.

          • Jean Adams

            And gave up working because she couldn’t keep up with the greater workload Christians gave her. Not because of some gay boycott.

          • dark477

            and your point? personally I think she’s just say that to save face.

  • The Last Trump

    It’s astounding the number of homosexuals who suddenly find themselves in Christian bakeries!
    Must just be a coincidence.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      A Christian bakery would be a bakery that bakes Christians. No such thing, thank goodness.

      What is this “astounding” number you speak of?

      • BarkingDawg

        there must be a lot of bad bakers out there, since so many Christians appear to be half baked.

        • The Last Trump

          And yet homosexuals can’t seem to get enough Christian EVERYTHING, never mind just baked goods eh Dog!

          • ScooterLiberal

            (Let’s try this again, as conservatives have difficulties hearing anything outside of the right-wing echo chamber)

            Please get informed. Their bakery was located in the heart of a vibrant gay community. I guess they needed the thirty pieces of silver from “sinful patrons” in order to prosper. Looks like the market has spoken.

          • jmichael39

            The market apparently did them very well.

          • ScooterLiberal

            Oh, do tell?

            The building in which the owners of the 111 Cakery operated (the Penn Arts Building) was owned by Reverie Estates, a development company that was a supporter of Freedom Indiana‘s fight to halt marriage bill HJR-3 at the Statehouse earlier this year.

            HJR-3 was also know as he so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) would give individuals and businesses a license to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers under the guise of religious beliefs. Stand with the majority of Hoosiers who believe discrimination is wrong by adding your name now.

            One cannot sit here and claim with smugness that gay people couldn’t seem to stop patronizing a homophobic business that was located in a predominantly gay side of town, and further, have it’s owners paying rent money to a development company that supports gay right. You cannot have it both ways.

          • ScooterLiberal

            ADD ON:
            They are situated between Greg’s and The Varsity Lounge, two of the
            oldest gay bars in the state, not to mention they are next to the
            Harrison Center for the Arts and across the street from Herron High
            [School]. It seems rather obvious that they were establishing their
            business in a liberal and LGBT-friendly neighborhood. To think that
            their discrimination would go unnoticed just seems particularly tone
            deaf.” —Nicholas Murphy, president, Indy Pride

          • jmichael39

            I was referring to your insinuation that they didn’t do well financially as a result of this event. Thus my comment about the “market”…sheesh.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Really, the bakery was in the middle of gayville ?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          LOL

        • SandraJ

          Careful! You are bashing God’s people!

      • SandraJ

        Don’t give homosexuals any ideas. Many of them would love to bake Christians for no other reason than the fact they don’t agree on theology.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Oh I doubt that. The stench is horrible.

          “for no other reason than the fact they don’t agree on theology.”

          Oh, you mean like some Christians who want to financially and legally harm certain citizens for no other reasons than the fact they don’t agree with how they want to live their lives.

    • Paul Hiett

      Ever been in a “Christian” bakery? Tell me, what sets it apart from the other ones?

      • The Last Trump

        Apparently, all of the homosexual clientele!
        And of course, all the lawsuits by such.

        Strange how that keeps happening, eh Paul!
        I never seem to find myself shopping at “gay” anything!
        So weird….

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          You brought your A-game tonight, The Last Trump! And very nice sense of humor to boot. That will confuse the “tolerant” ones for sure. They are thinking “How can these Christians have a sense of humor when we are attacking them and denying that we are attacking them?!? It must be a trap.” 🙂

        • ScooterLiberal

          The now-defunct bakery was situated between Greg’s and The Varsity Lounge, two of the
          oldest gay bars in the state, not to mention they are next to the
          Harrison Center for the Arts and across the street from Herron High
          [School].

          I mean, what clientele did you expect to patronize their establishment in that part of town, the Young Republicans? lol

          • RN Nutrition

            Ignorance… by ScooterLiberal… if a gay bar was situated between 2 fundamental Churches, should I expect the gay bar to be patronized by Christian men and women? Likewise… good logic.

          • Mr. G.

            Should you expect a gay bar to be patronized by Christian men and women? Why not? There are gay Christians – and an unknown number of not-entirely-closeted Christians acting out their self-loathing.

          • RN Nutrition

            There are gay Christians? Really? Wow… you sure know what Christianity is… thanks for the enlightenment. Profession of faith does not necessarily mean possession of faith.

          • Mr. G.

            Yes, I’m quite sure there are gay Christians. When we talk about “what Christianity is”, I hope you appreciate that there’s a great deal of diversity of opinion across it – at least that’s what they taught me in seminary. And, yes, I’m well aware that profession of faith does not necessarily mean possession of it.

          • ScooterLiberal

            Um, try scrolling up and READ the context of my rebuttal. Earlier in the thread, an individual was being smug and implied that it was quite a coincidence that gay people should find themselves patronizing a Christian bakery. I simply stated that the establishment was located in the HEART of a gay neighborhood, so it wouldn’t be uncommon for gay people to shop there — unless discriminatory practices precluded them from doing so.

            And to answer your question: Yes, you shouldn’t be at all surprised to find fundamentalists and conservatives like Ted Haggard or former Senator Larry Craig frequenting gay bars. lol

          • RN Nutrition

            Thanks for enlightening us with your understanding of what it means to be a Christian…

    • ScooterLiberal

      Please get informed. Their bakery was located in the heart of a vibrant gay community. I guess they needed the thirty pieces of silver from “sinful patrons” in order to prosper. Looks like the market has spoken.

      • jmichael39

        wow, didn’t I just read this post. Such creativity

        • ScooterLiberal

          Yeah, you did. It needed to be posted again, because others chose to conveniently ignore it the first time around.

          • RN Nutrition

            What is it that we are ignoring? Which post?

    • LeftleaningTx

      How can you say such a stupid thing and say such a disingenuous thing ?
      The “coincidence” is that gay marriage has just become legal!!!
      or were you not watching that or has Fox neglected to inform you’ll that has happened.
      Gay marriage has just become legal, hence, wedding cakes are being requested.
      Apparently you’ll will say Anything to defend your obvious bigotry
      And oh by the way, (no that it would matter) but did the bakery have a sign posted that said “Christian Bakery”

      • gene4791

        Lesson to be learned. ONLY Christian businesses are targeted,
        threatened, boycotted. Muslim businesses, who also say “no”?. They are
        being left alone. Can anyone say “Why”?

        Anyone?……….. Anyone?……..

        • LeftleaningTx

          Lesson learned
          It’s christian business’s because the christians are the ones that have been pushing anti gay rhetoric for decades. You’ll’s problem are self inflicted and the big bully of christianity has now turned victim now that they have disgusted society for the last time.
          All of you’ll’s problems are SELF INFLICTED
          Be stupid and claim victim all you want but this resounding defeat of bigotry in Indiana is the result of christian bullying.
          This has been an historic moment when the publics has said ENOUGH with religion in the public square.
          Shut your christian mouths when you are in the public square around decent people
          THAT’S WHY,,,,.
          THAT’S WHY,,,,,
          THAT’S WHY,,,,,
          THAT’S WHY,,,,,

  • TheBBP

    May God continue to bless them for standing their ground. I hope that retirement finds them well.

  • MEP1101

    “THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUY OR SELL WITHOUT THE MARK OF THE WILD BEAST” – REVELATION 13: 17

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Religious persecutions against the Christians in America. Where did liberty go?

    • Jean Adams

      Why do you think America is the West and why did you capitalize west. There is a lot more to the west than America.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        I mean by “the West”: The nations that have the bloodlines and legacy of the Western Civilization and their hard-core mimickers. All ex-christian secular nations and their followers.

    • dark477

      aw poor baby

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        USA needs religious freedom to reject participation of celebration of immorality. Your condition resembles that of the WW2 era of Japan where everyone was made bow down before the Japanese emperor’s shrine. The case of USA is worse, because the American shrine is dedicated to the despicable sinful immorality.

        • dark477

          you have religious freedom it’s just that that freedom doesn’t include right to discriminate.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Being forced to bake for gay “marriage” is a violation against human conscience. America has no religious freedom. Pagan nations are better than USA in this. No false pretence, please. You guys have become too bored out of being too well-fed and having no sense of threats other than in the cartoon movies and started persecuting the Christians.

          • dark477

            what pagan nations? and conscience is irrelevant, if you open a busness you serve all the public not just the one’s you approve of.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            All the non-Western nations. Everyone has rights to live out the truth by not-treating “gay marriage” as marriage because it is not marriage.

          • dark477

            if the government considers it valid then it’s a real marriage. and it doesn’t matter what you consider real or not.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Your government is ethically wrong on this. Today’s godless West is wasting everything noble in the Western Civilization by defending sexual immorality like some mentally ill people.

          • dark477

            it’s not considered a mental illness and what we are doing is moving civilization forward into a era of equality.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, you are moving backwards to religious oppression in a Sodomic style. Please go down by yourself; don’t drag other nations with you. The world has rights to life.

          • dark477

            we need secular values. all christianity has given the world is oppression.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christianity alone has provided mankind the life-saving vital truth, literacy, and unconditional charity. Secularism cannot stay neutral but it oppresses religious people and corrupts everyone especially the children into immorality; today’s USA and its mimickers proved it.

          • dark477

            seems secular nations are better overall than any religious one. better healthcare, better education

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            All betterr-off secular nations were created by Christians for Christians to live happily and have Christian traditions. Now you guys will go down or the land will go to foreigners. Poor your hard-working Christian ancestors for having godless descendants. Everyone wants to run away from the nations which the atheists created. Secularists are only good at ruining and polluting what Christians have created with excellence.

          • dark477

            I don’t give a damn that my ancestors think. and they were never christian, nation like America were founded on secular principles and how christian are trying to rewrite history. if you don’t like the way the world work you can away buy a gun and end your life otherwise shut up and live with it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Your ancestors were Christian if you are a white American. America was founded upon the Biblical principles and the Christian British tradition. You Americans have nothing worthy or intelligent apart from Christianity and you did not adopt illiteracy from the Natives. Suicide is of atheism, never of Christianity. Don’t hurt yourself.

          • dark477

            America adopted the secular principles of the enlightenment. and what my race and nationality are are irrelevant. also nothing is of atheism all atheism is is the lack of belief in gods.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, America adopted Christianity from the Puritans and the Christian British and the Christian Europeans. Those who supported Enlightenment were theist and were never secular. Godless secularism became prominent in the West only for the last 30-40 years. You are a shame to your ancestors and your forefathers. America had no ideology other than the Judeo-Christian values; the reason America became only immoral, meaningless, and mentally ill with self-worship after it lost Christianity. Now you have nothing desirable other than the mere wealth and mere military strength but anyone could have those any time.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “Your ancestors were Christian if you are a white American.”

            False. Many were Jews, atheists, deists, pagans, etc.

            “America was founded upon the Biblical principles and the Christian British tradition.”

            False. It’s founded upon the SECULAR rule of law.

            “Suicide is of atheism, never of Christianity.”

            Oh, you aren’t that bright are you? Sorry.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s right! We are headed the way of North Korea.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            North Korea is not sexually perv. But yes, American atheists should immigrate to North Korea their utopia if they hate Christianity so.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Good point, Grace. Even North Korea knows there is no such thing as gay “marriage.” It’s like how even Hitler knew abortion was wrong – for the Aryans anyway. God bless you, Grace!

          • Gary

            Why are “secular values” better? Who decides what secular values are?

          • dark477

            because they ensue true equality without appealing to any religion

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          You got that right, Grace! I just read Unbroken, and the Japanese were savages in WWII.

    • Gary

      This is an attempt to legitimize and protect perverted behavior, which is the choice of those who participate in it. You have no choice what color your skin is.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        They always bring out the history on how the whites discriminated against the blacks. What does that have to do with opposing abnormal immorality, unless the Westerners are putting the colored people and sexual offenders together? Being colored is nothing to do with immorality. As a colored person, I’m hoping the Westerners won’t put us together with pedophiles in the future by saying “born that way.” It’s the worst kind of racism.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Amen!

    • Paul Hiett

      Christians have forever been the persecutors…and you really don’t know what it’s like to be on the other end.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        No, you are wrong. Christians have been liberators and educators everywhere forever. You grew up in the West and do not know the Christless darkness of barbarism. You whine and say stupid stuff against Christians because you want to uphold abhorrent immorality which even the pagans despise. I feel sorry for your hard-working Christian ancestors.

        • dark477

          whoever taught you history needs to be bared from education forever.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You’ve been brainwashed by the liberals. Stop killing the babies.

          • dark477

            No

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Way to go, Grace! Yep, God is not gonna let any baby-killers into heaven, that’s for sure. Unless they turn from their wicked baby sacrifice and ask forgiveness of Jesus and place their trust in Him.

          • dark477

            why would anyone want to go to heaven? from what christian say about it it sounds horrible.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God will wipe out your world because you are killing the babies.

          • dark477

            I’m not killing anything. and your kind have made that threat before and it never comes to pass.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It did. Supporting abortion or being silent about it is same as killing the babies.

          • dark477

            no it hasn’t. and I don’t give a damn what you believe.

          • MamaBear

            Don’t be so sure. Even the Bible speaks of God waiting. Remember, Go does not see time as we who live a mere 70 or 80 years, He is eternal.

            “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

          • dark477

            that doesn’t literally every generation from saying they’re in the end times.

          • MamaBear

            We are to always be ready. And God does not always wait until end times to act on particular individuals or nations.

          • dark477

            your god never acts

          • MamaBear

            Really? Unless He sent an angel to personally announce it to you, I am quite sure you would call anything He does a coincidence.

          • dark477

            of course.

          • MamaBear

            Even in the Bible, very few people got visits from angels. What makes you think you are in the company of Abraham, Joshua, Isaiah, and the Virgin Mary? Peter had to be in jail to get an angelic visit. Sodom and Gomorrah never recognized they had angel visitors.

          • dark477

            it doesn’t have to be an angel but it does need to be something a that cannot be explained scientifically because all i see are people attributing natural events to a god.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Heaven WOULD be Hell for you, Dark: you would be in the presence of the God Who spoke 100 billion galaxies into existence and the One Who made your existence possible and Who sustains it daily. Since you want nothing to do with your Creator, He will respect your wishes and not force you into Heaven against your will. You will be left to your own in a place that is defined as the “absence of God,” hot, dark, and lonely, just as your soul likes.

            “why would anyone want to go to heaven?”

            Christians want to go be with their Creator. We literally want to love and serve the One Who created us. We know we owe it to Him for creating the universe and us in it. We are not narcissists. They get Hell, where they can be lonely and only think of themselves.

            “from what christian say about it it sounds horrible.”

            You are in no position to judge, Dark: as an a-theist, you are incapable of grounding objective moral values and duties without stealing from God. If you don’t like it, take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals”: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

          • dark477

            sounds more like you want to be a slave. and god didn’t create me my parent did and he doesn’t sustain me I do that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey, Dark, I’m enjoying our exchange! Yes, I DO want to be a slave to Christ Jesus – the Bible even talks about that several places. Now, I just know what you are thinking, so bear with me, OK?

            A slave in NT times was more or less a bond-servant or indentured servant. Basically, people sold themselves into financial slavery due to their debts. It was generally a free will thing, unlike anything that might be coming to your mind regarding the horrible atrocities of forced racial slavery.

            Along the same lines, I REALLY do want to be an indentured servant of Christ, because He has done so much for me, none of which I could do for myself or work my way to. What has He done? Well, He created me in my mother’s womb (Psalm 139). He created the universe around me to give me life. Look at the fine-tuning of the universe (teleology) and cosmic habitability criteria. Mind-boggling! He sustains the universe every second – if He did not, it would all come apart – with horrible effects.

            Jesus also went to the Cross for my sins (No, we do not have time to enumerate all of them, as this website would crash), and He saved me from my former life as an a-theist. Then, there are a ton of little things. Don’t you ever feel a sense of gratitude to Someone bigger, Dark? That’s not a false feeling.

          • dark477

            it is false. it’s the result of your mental illness

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – nice “intellectual” reply. 🙂

            As I have said before, Dark, God will not force you into His Home (Heaven) against your will. As CS Lewis put it:

            “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”

          • dark477

            Lewis was an idiots even the other religious philosophers acknowledge that

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “he doesn’t sustain me I do that”

            Dark, with all due respect, you can’t plan even your bowel movements and have little to no control over when or if they occur. Tell me how you make your heart beat and your lungs breathe, if you sustain yourself. If you think carefully about this, you will understand that you are a lot less autonomous than you think.

            I’m enjoying it, Dark – God bless!

          • dark477

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medulla_oblongata

            my body which is a result of evolution is what sustains me not god.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sorry, no wikipedia. Only peer-reviewed research. No appeals to Star Trek either, even though I do like the original series. 🙂

          • dark477

            medulla oblongotta. look it up.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You edited out the “pig” part?!? I do have quite the appetite, but I also swim 4 miles a day. 🙂

            It’s nice to see that you have seen The Waterboy and learned some big words. 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu7A8LIzL1o

            God bless you, Dark – I AM loving it!

          • Gary

            You need never worry about going to Heaven.

          • dark477

            i don’t want to go

          • Gary

            God does not want you to go either.

          • Kara Connor

            God killed many babies in the bible, and he commanded the slaughter of everyone including babies on occasion. But that’s fine and dandy, eh? By the way, a fetus is not a baby.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God erased the irreversible evil humans collectively in Noah’s days, in Sodom and Gomorrah, and in Canaan using water, fire, and wars. He took care of all the innocent babies. Human life starts at conception; you were once before a fetus. You are alive today because your mother kept you, a fetus in her womb before. His judgment will come again upon the earth by fire because you keep killing the babies.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            A fetus is an unborn baby, Kara. Are you feeling guilty about your abortions? If you tell me what state you live in, I can get you post-abortive counseling for free. God bless you, Child.

          • Kara Connor

            I have never had an abortion and nor has my wife. Words have meaning. A fetus is not a baby, and nor is a zygote or embryo.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s murder to destroy a human life in a womb.

          • dark477

            no according to any legal definition of the word

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Villains have no legality. The rule of the laws is a Christian concept with the Word of God as the standard.

          • dark477

            no it’s the laws and courts of America, they decide what is legal not your god. and the rule of law is defiantly not a christian concept there have been civilizations the predate Judaism and Christianity

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Germans of the WW2 era were like you. They did evils with legality. Magna Carta was possible only in the Christendom. People used to submit to the human kings. Only the Holy Bible holds what is right and wrong for mankind; both Germany of WW2 and the Sodomic America are ethically wrong.

          • dark477

            have you ever considered seeing a shrink?

          • Kara Connor

            You seem to have difficulty with the concept that words have meanings. A fetus is not a baby, and nor is abortion murder. All quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. It is quote apparent that you have no valid arguments on that topic, since you’ve deflected and derailed.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Whatever; stop killing the babies.

          • Gary

            A woman cannot have a wife. Words have meaning. A wife is a woman who has a husband. A husband is always a man.

          • Kara Connor

            And civil law definitions have meaning plus legal weight. Ask my wife if you don’t believe me. And do try to think up your own posts instead of trying to parrot mine back in your erroneous reply.

          • Gary

            We are not going to allow you perverts to change the definition of words.

          • Kara Connor

            What are you going to do, Gary? You’ve lost. You are living in denial in your fantasy world.

          • Gary

            We are not going to cooperate. We won’t accept ssm as being valid. Or even as legal. We refuse to accept the redefinition of marriage, husband, wife, spouse, or parent. We will work to defeat any government official who takes your side. That is the minimum we will do.

          • Paul Hiett

            Come June, there won’t be anything left for you do to about it. It’ll be declared legal across the nation, and anything protest you hold from then on will be laughed at the same way KKK members are laughed at today.

          • Gary

            Then we will go beyond protest.

          • Badkey

            And do what?

          • Gary

            Oh, there are many possibilities. Let the imagination run wild!

          • Badkey

            What makes you think we’d believe you if you don’t even have the balls to point to what you and other bigots will do?

          • Gary

            Whether you believe me is not important. And I’m not going to reveal much in the way of strategy on the internet.

          • Badkey

            Uh-huh…

            I see you doing absolutely nothing.

            You’ve lost 37 states… and have done nothing.

            You will lose the remainder… and will do nothing.

          • Gary

            We’ll see.

          • Badkey

            Yup… just like we’ve seen thus far.

            You change nothing.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh look, the internet tough guy persona comes out again.

            Sure Gary, we’re all in awe of how effective you are at stopping SSM. 37 states and counting…how’s it coming out for you?

          • Gary

            The legality of ssm is temporary. But there are other ways to oppose it than just by changing the laws.

          • Badkey

            And what are those?

          • Kara Connor

            I’m sure you’ll rant impotently as you fail to impose your religion on everyone. It’ll distract you from actually doing anything to increase the sum total of happiness in the world.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I have never had an abortion and nor has my wife. ”
            You seem defensive. Is there something wrong with abortion?

            “Words have meaning.”
            Lives have meaning too. Stop supporting those who desire to end the lives of innocent defenseless human beings in the womb. It’s not nice, but it IS cruel.

            “A fetus is not a baby, and nor is a zygote or embryo.”
            A fetus IS a baby, just an early stage development of one. Ask your Mom if the doctor called you a “baby” or not during all of her pregnancy with you. Of course he did! Here are a few quotes from FamilyDoctor.org on the subject:

            “From the moment of conception to the time of delivery, your growing baby goes through several stages of development before he or she is ready to be born. Here’s what happens during the first trimester of pregnancy.”

            “After conception, your baby begins a period of dramatic change known as the embryonic stage. This stage runs from the 5th through the 10th week of the first trimester of pregnancy. During this stage, the baby is called an embryo.”

            “During this stage, all of your baby’s major organs and body parts begin to develop. The cells of the embryo (called embryonic stem cells) multiply and change into the hundreds of different types of cells needed to make a whole human body.”

            Is it possible, Kara, that the reason you use the term “fetus” as a sort of de-humanization is because you are uncomfortable with the fact that 57 million innocent defenseless human beings have had their lives snuffed out in the name of “women’s rights?!?” God bless!

          • Kara Connor

            You seemed intent on referring me to abortion counseling so I clarified that there was no need, and am curious why you would assume that only women who have had abortions would support women having agency over their bodies. A fetus is not a baby. I am well aware of the developmental stages, and whilst you can argue that they represent potential people, they are not babies until they are born. It is also reasonable to debate, based on the best scientific and medical evidence, what limits there might be on access to termination. But simply making factually incorrect statements and effectively accusing women of murder is not a supportable position. Nor does your religious belief play into what you can impose on women.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see you did not answer the “baby” question nor the evidence I supplied. Why do all OB’s call the fetus a “baby” if they are not babies? Do you know more than they do or is this just a way for you to avoid the harsh reality that you might be on the wrong side of the world’s worst holocaust? The reason that I ask this is because I see so many pro-aborts use the term “fetus” in the same way that Nazis used the word “rats” for Jews and slavers used the word “n&%%@$” for black people. It’s a case of the more powerful de-humanizing the weak. You might not be doing it, but lots of folks are, sadly. So much for “progress.”

            While the term “fetus” is technically correct, so is the term “baby.” And a baby does not stop developing outside of the womb any more than she does inside of the womb. That fact refutes your argument.

            baby
            [bey-bee]
            noun, plural babies.
            1. an infant or very young child.
            2. a newborn or very young animal.
            3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
            4. an immature or childish person.
            5. a human fetus.

            2 Questions, Kara:

            1. Do human beings have intrinsic moral value? That is, are humans valuable in and of themselves, and not as a means to an end?
            2. Is what is located in the human womb, following conception, a human being?

            God bless you, Kara!

          • Kara Connor

            A colloquial use of the word baby does nit make it technically correct. The AAP are quite consistent in their publications with the use of “fetus” and not baby for prenatal development. A fertilized egg is not a person, it is a potential human being. All your deflection is quite beside the point of your not getting special religious rights to ignore laws everyone else must follow.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Weird how OB’s always use the term “baby” with the Mom, huh? I guess they haven’t checked out the AAP. 🙂 I will stop saying “baby” and switch to “the human being in the womb,” if you stop saying “fetus” and switch to “the human being in the womb.” Deal?

            It’s also interesting to see you divert from using the term “fetus” back to “fertilized egg.” It’s almost like you are running from the human being in the womb.

            I see that you didn’t answer the first question. Moreover, your answer to the second question is scientifically invalid. The science is settled. This isn’t 1955, Kara. Here is Human Biology 101, available in any embryology textbook:

            “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
            [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]”

            Additionally, here is Gerard Nadal, Ph.D., a molecular scientist, who puts the development in layman’s terms.

            “The simple biological truth of the matter is that the Cell Theory states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. There is no blackout period between sperm and egg uniting, and then the emergence of ‘life’ at some point distant.”

            http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/23/narals-pro-abortion-science-fail-a-zygote-is-not-a-baby/

            Why do you keep bringing up religion, Kara?!? (I haven’t given you any Bible verses.) Did you want to get into a discussion of blind-faith a-theism? I will be happy to go in that direction – that was my former religion for 42 years. God bless you, Kara!

          • Kara Connor

            Human beings of course have intrinsic value. What you attempting to do is obfuscate the difference between a baby, and prenatal stages of development. If I hold a test tube with a ball of 32 embryonic cells over a cliff, or a woman, which one would you save? Which is a person?
            What is clear is that once someone is actually born,and if they are LGBT, you regard them as less worthy because you are fighting to allow legal discrimination against them. And yes, it is all based on your religion. You are a liar if claim otherwise.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If I hold a test tube with a ball of 32 embryonic cells over a cliff, or a woman, which one would you save?”

            I would attempt to save the whole test tube of 32 embryos, of course. (Why do you want to pour innocent human beings over a cliff? Doesn’t that belie some sort of sick hatred for the weak and innocent?) You know full well that a human embryo is a human being (in ANY textbook) and you just stated that human beings have intrinsic moral value. Yet, you are for the “choice” to kill intrinsically valuable human beings in the womb. (Or out of the womb, apparently, by pouring them over a cliff!) Why? Just because you are bigger than them?

            “What is clear is that once someone is actually born,and if they are LGBT, you regard them as less worthy because you are fighting to allow legal discrimination against them.”

            Untrue. I LOVE LGBT’s. I just don’t want them to enter into a destructive lifestyle that they will regret – one with all of the sad physical and psychological consequences that the CDC enumerates. I love them that much. Love means wanting the best for the other person. It does NOT mean telling them what they want to hear.

            Regardless, it is one thing to say that gay “marriage” is not marriage. It is quite another thing entirely to say it’s OK to kill innocent, defenseless, intrinsically valuable, human beings in the womb. That is cruel hatred. You are too nice for that. God bless you, Kara!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          You tell ’em, Grace! You know what it’s like being under the barbarism of state-sponsored a-theism. Excellent point! God bless you, Grace!

        • hapy_thoughts

          I really hope you revisit the history of the christian church post-biblical times. I would start with the Crusades and the Inquisition.

    • BarkingDawg

      “colored people?” did I just fall through a rip in the space time continuum and wind up in 1955?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        How do you call them? “Minorities”? “Non-whites”? As a yellow person(Far-east Asian) myself, I like the term “the colored” the best. If any Asians don’t like the term “yellow” or “red” or “brown,” they should abolish using the terms “whites” and “blacks,” too. Mankind needs fairness.

    • Kara Connor

      Can you list the states where Christians are prevented from marrying? And then the states where you can be fired if your boss finds out you are a Christian? And the ones where there are bills being passed or proposed to allow businesses to refuse to serve Christians? I’ll wait.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s a good and right and wonderful thing for a Christian couple( one man and one woman) to marry. Christians NEVER ask any gay business to do anything for them. Why are you unbelieving Americans so stupid?

        • Kara Connor

          So that would be “No, I can’t list a single state where those things happen to Christians but want to pretend they are are a persecuted majority anyway.”

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s not a matter of being majority or minority. Being Christian is the good and moral and civil thing while being gay is an immoral and sinful thing. Christians must stay as Christian forever but gays need to repent and give up the sinful lifestyle by repentance.

          • Kara Connor

            Yet again you avoid answering mu questions. That would be, I suggest, that none of the things I mention actually happen to Christians in amy state. They do, however, happen to LGBT people every day in many states. Yet here you are, focusing your energy in trying to get special rights to broaden discrimination, and lying about being a persecuted 75% majority. You’re evasive, a hypocrite, and a liar. Oh, and a coward, hiding your bigotry behind your bible instead of having the guts to admit you are a bigot.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            LGBT are not being persecuted in USA. They have so much power they try to make their sinful lifestyle norm in the society and force other nations become morally corrupt like USA. They try to silence Christians and religious people. You guys should be ashamed of the sin and try to get rid of it instead of boasting of doing evil.

          • Kara Connor

            Evasive, liar and a bigot, as I say. Here’s a clue: having to obey the same business laws as everyone else is not being persecuted.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Evil laws must be disobeyed. Obey God rather than men. Immoral America must not be a standard on Planet Earth.

          • Kara Connor

            That’s why the bans on marriage equality are being struck down. If you want a theocracy, try ISIS or Iran.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No thanks to Sodomic America, either. Gay “marriage” is NOT marriage and is a violation against conscience. Americans need religious liberty. There will be theocracy when Jesus returns. Meanwhile, America needs religious liberty and Christians will battle for it.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’d have us ruled by Christian law?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You’re not advocating religious liberty — what you’re talking about is the exact opposite. You want to force people to follow Christianity because you THINK it is the right answer, but you can’t negate someone else’s religious liberty.

          • Gary

            Laws concerning moral issues have to be based on some view of morality. If not Christian morality, then another kind. However, Christians will view any other kind as immoral and invalid.

          • Badkey

            And what change will that bring, exactly?

          • Paul Hiett

            Which is why you want a theocracy, and it will never happen…not here in America.

          • Gary

            Yes, it will. There will be a theocracy in America.

          • Badkey

            You’re SO cute, Gary!

  • BarkingDawg

    I’m willing to bet that by the time her grandkids are old enough to go out in the world on their own, they won’t care about gay marriage.

    Times change.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Only if the West re-establish and protect the religious freedom in their land and stop doing this evil done against the Christian businesses.

      • BarkingDawg

        There is no such thing as a “Christian buisness.” They are two separate things.

        When you operate a buisness. You must do so in accordance with the laws of the state.

        “Give to Ceasar what is due Ceasar, give to God what is due God.”

        By the time the woman’s grand kids grow up, they will wonder what all the fuss was about.

        Just like people today wonder why there was so much fuss about inter-racial marriage 50 years ago.

  • Badkey

    As long as those who choose to follow a given mythology receive special public accommodations protections, there is no reason to exclude other citizens from such laws.

    The hypocrisy of the religious over this issue is stunning.

    • Gary

      Why is sexual perversion worthy of protection?

      • Paul Hiett

        Sexual orientation is not a choice, Gary. I accept that you’re too ignorant to understand this, but facts are facts.

        • Gary

          Sexual orientation is a meaningless term. It is sexual behavior that is the issue. No one would ever know that someone else was homosexual without the homosexual behaving as a homoe. And behavior is always voluntary.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Gary, it’s not the issue. You’re too blinded by your hate to actually understand it though.

            Sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of one’s skin or one’s gender.

            It’s certainly LESS of a choice than religion is, and that’s a protected status. You just don’t like sharing that protected status with anyone else, but those laws work to protect everyone, even you.

          • Gary

            Sexual orientation DOES NOT MATTER. The question is, does homosexual behavior deserve protection from discrimination. And I say NO!

          • Badkey

            It ain’t up to you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sexual behavior has nothing to do with this.

          • Gary

            It has everything to do with this. Without behavior, there is no way to know if someone is homosexual.

          • Badkey

            It doesn’t matter. The “behavior” is perfectly legal, but is not what makes someone gay.

            All one needs… is sole attraction to the same gender.

            That’s what it means to be homosexual.

          • Gary

            Homosexual behavior might be legal for now, but it is not acceptable.

          • Badkey

            Again… it is not up to you.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one cares what your personal feelings are about sexual orientation. No one. You have no affect on SSM.

          • Gary

            Sexual orientation is irrelevant. And I will affect ssm for at least a few people.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so you’d go out of your way to deny the rights of other human beings for no better reason than you think your Bible commands it.

            You’re no better than ISIS.

          • Gary

            There exists no right to ssm.

          • Badkey

            According to your logic, there exists no right to marriage, period.

          • Gary

            Not true.

          • Badkey

            Very true… you keep screaming “it’s not in the constitution!!!”…

            But no marriage is.

          • NCOriolesFan

            ONLY BETWEEN ONE WOMAN AND ONE MAN!

          • Paul Hiett

            In 38 states there is.

          • NCOriolesFan

            ONLY by judicial decree over the electoral process.

          • Badkey

            How?

          • NCOriolesFan

            No one cares about your PERSONAL sexual orientation. KEEP IT THIS WAY!

          • NCOriolesFan

            “Sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of one’s skin or one’s gender.”

            That is a bunch of HOGWASH to people born of color. No one is born gay. Gayness is a CHOICE of behavior.

      • Badkey

        Why is mythology worthy of protection?

        • Gary

          Do you mean that perversion and mythology are equal? On what basis do you make such a claim?

          • Badkey

            Because they’re equal citizens under law.

            It’s not complicated.

          • Gary

            Do you believe that means that all behaviors are equal?

          • Badkey

            Did I say that?

          • Gary

            You seem to be. That is why I asked.

        • NCOriolesFan

          Did you mean gay mythology since you equate religion with mythology?

  • Badkey

    Hey Gary!!!

    A federal judge has struck down Nebraska’s ban on same-sex marriage. Marriages begin March 9th!!! Woo hoo!

    Life just KEEPS getting better and better!!!

    http://www.ketv.com/politics/judge-rules-on-nebraskas-samesex-marriage-ban/31519918

    • Paul Hiett

      “We’ll see…”

    • Gary

      That judge had no authority to do that.

      • Badkey

        Awwww… is him upset?

      • Paul Hiett

        Apparently he did.

        • Gary

          Heterosexual-only marriage laws do not violate the US Constitution, or the Nebraska Constitution. Therefore, the judge has no legal reason to overturn that law.

          • Badkey

            Gay marriage laws do not violate the US constitution (to which the Nebraska constitution defers as it is the supreme law of the land).

            He had reason… he did overturn it…

            And Gary loses another one.

            Oh, whatever will he do!?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry Gary, but obviously he did. No amount of kicking and screaming and thumping your Bible will change the result.

            I hope you have a good support system in place come June.

          • Gary

            The judge cannot prove that heterosexual-only marriage laws violate the US Cons. or the Nebraska Cons.. The judge is not permitted to overturn a law unless there is a constitutional violation, which means the judge abused his authority and should be removed from his position. We cannot function as a country if we allow rogue judges to change laws just because they don’t like them.

          • hapy_thoughts

            “The judge is not permitted to overturn a law unless there is a constitutional violation”

            The judge feels that the couple’s constitutional rights were being violated. I agree.

          • Gary

            But there is no proof. The only way constitutional rights can be violated concerning marriage is for the government to require different rules for different people, and that did not happen.

  • SandraJ

    They are in my prayers. Honoring God in this way will surely bring many blessings their way. God honors those who honor Him.

    • LeftleaningTx

      Is the God the same Jesus God that said “Love thy neighbor as thyself ”
      Or is it some other God ?

      • Gary

        Loving your neighbor does not mean accepting his perversion.

        • LeftleaningTx

          Then lets move to the “judge not lest yes be judged”
          That should how you to be the bigoted hypocrite that you are LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

          • Gary

            I’m not the one who decided homosexuality is immoral. God did that. I have not made a judgment about that. I have not made a judgment about ssm being wrong either. God defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. See, your real problem is that God has already judged you to be evil. But I do agree with God about that.

          • LeftleaningTx

            I am fully aware that the judgments against people are derived from your charlatan stone age cult text book that was written and constructed to control men by men.
            Again you are wrong because your stone age cult text refers to polygamy more often that any to union between men and women.
            See you real problem is that you don’t even know your own cult text and are selective about the laws in it you want to support and ignore the ones you don’t want to follow. Like “judge not lest ye be judged:

          • Gary

            If you will notice, all of the polygamy practiced by the Jews was where one man had multiple wives. There was no homosexuality involved. Then in the New Testament, we find no polygamy among Christians. And still not homosexuality. God has always condemned any expression of homosexuality. And there is no indication that will ever change.

          • LeftleaningTx

            What I notice is how selective you are about the way you interpret your stone age text.
            But even according to you God was ok, at least at one time with polygamy which shows that he changes his mind,
            The indication that HE has changed his mind about gay people is in how quickly HE has allowed us to defeat you.
            HE has spoken and said that he loves ALL of His children, especially the gay ones.

          • Gary

            LOL. You think you have defeated us? You have as much chance of defeating us as you do of going to Heaven. God hates you. And He is going to take eternity to show you how much He hates you.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Yes defeated, vanquished and destroyed you’ll !! LOL
            and at the FEDERAL level !! LOL
            Take the rest of your hocus pocus cult beliefs and shove it up your a@@ I could care less.

          • Gary

            Go to Hell you filthy, disgusting, pervert.

          • LeftleaningTx

            And you’ll be sitting right next to me you UN Christian, hateful , bigoted, judgmental PIG

            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

          • Gary

            Wrong. God has reserved Hell for people like you. You have a reservation, and you will be there on time.

  • lamerican

    “And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

  • NCOriolesFan

    The closing is a matter of coincidental timing which would lead people to think they capitulated to the gays.

  • Peter Leh

    well, i wish them the best.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Sodomic oppression never allows peaceful co-existence among the people. The United States of Sodom lost religious liberty and persecutes its Christians, putting the colored people in the same category with sexually immoral people. What a shame.

    • BarkingDawg

      Sodomic oppression never allows peaceful co-existence among the people.

      What in the world is that supposed to mean? Seriously. I know English is not your native tongue, but I’m willing to bet that that makes no sense in any language.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Today’s secular America has wrong interpretations regarding equality, and it is concerned that USA may persecute people for rejecting to acknowledge “gay marriage” as marriage. Loss of liberty will lead into conflicts.

  • LeftleaningTx

    GOOD !
    If she can’t serve the fuc^in public because of her selective stone age cult beliefs then she has no business owning a business license, sales tax number or any other governmental regulation that allows you to do business with the PUBLIC (newsflash, gay people are PART of the public). And she must follow public accommodation rules just like everyone else.
    The day of the Christian religious Reich bigot is OVER (in June when the Supreme Court will rule that denying gay people the right to marry is against civil rights / equal rights protections in our Constitution) and now that our Constitutional civil/equal rights have pushed up to and vanquished religious Reich attempts to discriminate it’s time for the cult worshiper to be banished to where they belong, behind cult wall and OUT of the public square where from now on they will be ridiculed.
    Can you even imagine how loud the Christian would be screaming if they were told that there were places that refused to serve them because they are cult worshipers ?
    and now the bullies become the victims ,,,puke, I’m going to throw up, preferable in her cake shop.

    • Gary

      We Christians are not going to stop discriminating against queers. We are never going to accept ssm in any way. And we will never accept YOU in any way.

      • Badkey

        Your acceptance is meaningless.

        • Gary

          Then why do you keep insisting we accept it?

      • LeftleaningTx

        We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about it IN JUNE.

        • Gary

          If the SC decides in favor of ssm, it will do nothing to keep us from discriminating. And it will not cause Christians to accept ssm.

          • LeftleaningTx

            We could not care if you accept it or not, however, we do care that you follow the laws of Constitution.
            SC has NO choice in the matter.
            Apparently you are not keeping up with the news, so let me help you out so that you are not continuing to speak out of ignorance.
            There has been a disagreement among the circuit courts.
            When that happens the Supreme Court of the United States hears the case to decide from a Constitutional basis what is right and what is wrong.
            They will hear this case in JUNE and because they have refused stays of gay marriages where gay marriage bans were ruled against they most certainly will rule against all of the remaining gay marriage ban in all of the remaining states where bans still exist making gay marriage legal in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES. SC included
            So It will indeed stop you

          • Gary

            There is no constitutional reason to legalize ssm. If the SC does legalize ssm, it won’t be for any constitutional reason.

          • LeftleaningTx

            The Supreme Court is going to disagree with you IN JUNE.
            SC has NO say over it,,,it will be a NATIONAL ruling and there isn’t a damn thing you can do bout it

          • Gary

            If the SC disagrees with me, they will be wrong. There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires ssm to be legal anywhere.

          • Gary

            Stop us from what? From rejecting the validity of ssm? No, we won’t stop doing that. Stop us from discriminating against perverts? We won’t stop that either.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Stop you from open practicing discrimination against gay people.
            We will shove it down your throats and run you out of business if you do LOL

          • Gary

            LOL. In your dreams. By the way, you might not be aware of this, but whether you are discriminated against openly, or in other ways, you are still discriminated against.

          • LeftleaningTx

            we’re already shoving down your throats now and forcing business to close, like this one.
            Honestly, do you really think we care what you think about us in private, we care as much you care about what we think of you in private.
            Regardless we’re going to FORCE you’ll to serve us or FORCE you out of business. LOL LOL LOL LOL

          • Gary

            What you are likely to do is get business owners to express their discrimination in more subtil ways. Ways that are harder to prove. But I don’t think you are going to be successful in getting Christians to stop discriminating against you.

          • LeftleaningTx

            The word is “subtle” and I’ll excuse you of course because of your lack of education.
            Bigoted Christian business owners will be FORCED to serve us or we will put them out of business, we don’t care what you do otherwise.

          • Gary

            Discrimination against queers is still legal in several states. And even in the states where it is now illegal, there are ways around the laws. Just a little imagination is needed.

          • LeftleaningTx

            Yes you are most certainly right !!
            There are several states where disgusting bigots like yourself all still allowed to openly practice discrimination.
            HOWEVER, in JUNE the Supreme Court of the United States is going to rule that ALL bans against gay marriages are ILLEGAL

          • Gary

            Maybe. But that will not affect discrimination against sodomites.

          • LeftleaningTx

            And let me add this.

            After that ruling in June by the Supreme Court that gay marriage is an equal/civil right it will usher in all f the rest of the righs for gay people ie accommodation, housing, employment, hate crimes on a federal level l
            And there’s no stopping it and NO turning back !!

          • Gary

            You had better hope that does not happen.

          • LeftleaningTx

            That’s what’s gong to happen Blance and there’s nothing you can do about it

          • Gary

            But there is something we can do about it. And you won’t like what it is.

      • LeftleaningTx

        I see that the blog moderator will allow this Christian to call us “queers” but will not allow me to respond to his vitriol.

      • LeftleaningTx

        Your acceptance is irrelevant and we WILL force bigoted and discriminating businesses out of business when they occurs.
        It is good that this bakery will close because if you are going to have a business you must also follow the civil/equal/accommodation laws and you are not allowed to discriminate based on you bigotry, regardless if is religious in nature or not .

        • Gary

          Well, there is more than one way to do things.

  • LeftleaningTx

    I get a rather perverse pleasure watching the Christian Reich squirm as they are proving to be not only bigots but law breakers as well.(as we will see in JUNE when it will be determined by the Supreme Court they have all along been illegally denying us our civil / equal rights)
    I hope this issue causes you’ll pain and discomfort for many years to come and love knowing how much I am in control of your minds.

    • Gary

      You aren’t in control of anything. You can’t even control yourself. You’re just a little pervert who hates moral people.

  • LeftleaningTx

    Clearly the courts and now business, individuals, and society in general have show that this is a settled issue and the Christians lost and have lost badly.
    To see them screaming victim and asking where’s the tolerance now is rather rich.
    The Christians have bullied gay for so long that no one is buying the shifty story.
    Discrimination is discriminate and this law was perfectly time with the fall of the gay marriage ban in an effort to all Christians do discriminate.
    Gov Pence was pending to them and he as well as religion as a whole just got embarrassingly slapped back, never to recover.