Commission Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Decorate Bible Cakes Against Homosexuality

SilvaDENVER — Officials in Colorado have ruled in favor of a baker who refused to decorate two Bible-shaped cakes that featured messages and images against homosexuality, finding that she did not discriminate against the Christian who placed the order.

William Jack of Castle Rock visited Azucar Bakery in Denver last March, at which time he placed an order for two cakes, both of which were to be shaped like Bibles. The first was to have read, “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22” and the second was to have stated “God loves sinners” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.” Both cakes were to feature an image of two groomsmen with an “x” through them “to illustrate that such a union is unacceptable biblically.”

Marjorie Silva, the owner, told Jack that she would bake the cakes, but would not write the Bible verses on them nor place the images on the cakes. She instead offered to give Jack a pastry bag and icing so that he could decorate the cakes himself.

Silva, a Roman Catholic, told reporters that she declined to fulfill the order because she found the text and images requested to be “hateful and offensive.”

“It’s just horrible,” she said. “If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery.”

Following Silva’s refusal, Jack filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, alleging discrimination based on his Christian beliefs.

But on Friday, the Division ruled that there was “insufficient evidence” to support Jack’s claim that he was being treated unfairly. It said that Silva had a right to refuse the order because the decoration requested was deemed “derogatory” and that Silva would refuse all “derogatory” cakes to anyone.

  • Connect with Christian News

The division stated that “in the very same manner [Silva] would not accept [an order from] anybody wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays.”

Jack said that he plans to appeal the ruling.

“I find it offensive that the Colorado Civil Rights Division considers the baker’s claims that Bible verses were discriminatory as the reason for denying my claim,” he told KMGH-TV Saturday. “I find it offensive that the legal director of the Colorado division of the ACLU called the Bible verses on the cakes obscenities. Especially at this time on the church calendar, I find it offensive that the Bible is censored from the public arena.”

But Jack says that he placed the order and filed the complaint to make a point that business owners should have the right to operate in accordance with their conscience and convictions, and that if bakers have the right to refuse cakes against homosexuality, Christians should also have a right to decline cakes in favor of homosexuality.

“I believe the baker should have the right to deny me service if my request violates her conscience or creed,” he told the Christian Post in January. “[But] this statute is being applied inequitably; it so far is only being applied against Christians … If we do not have liberty for all, then we have liberty for none.”

Photo: KMGH-TV


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
  • MC

    The double standard is in full effect.

    • Jay the Prophet

      It is not a double standard. The Catholic baker refused to put what she considered hate speech on a cake. Her refusal to do so was not based upon the religion of the bigot, but based upon the message that they wanted. The could have refused to put the hate speech on the cake of anyone of any religion.

      The ruling was completely correct.

      • Mike

        I agree that the ruling is correct. But the double standard stands. The other bakery did not refuse service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, but upon the event she was requested to supply a cake for. Recall that she had already served these same customers for years otherwise, without issue.

        • RWH

          No, she refused to provide a product. A wedding cake is distinct from other cakes because it is tiered. She refused to make a particular type of cake. You may disagree, but this is the way that the justice system sees it.

          • MC

            The Christian bakers are forced to do a service they don’t provide for, whether you’re straight or gay. If a straight person ordered a cake for a gay ceremony they would also be rejected because the bakers don’t provide that service, if a gay person wanted a cake for a traditional marriage ceremony then they would gave gotten the cake because it’s a service they do provide for. You’re forcing a service that is not even offered by the businesses.

          • Mike

            But she didn’t refuse make a particular type of cake merely because the customer was gay. There’s more to it than that.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          The baker said she would provide the cake.

          In the case of the cake for the same-gender wedding, the baker refused to provide a cake.

          They are not the same.

      • magormissabib

        it is a double standard as the term ”hate is subhjective. I find it hateful to approve of a sin that God calls detestavble and celebrate it on a cake. see how that works -bigot.,

      • Thomas Weiss

        She refised to participate in her customers celebration.

    • OldArkie

      Yes, they claim they practice tolerance, yet there no tolerance with homosexuals, none at all. They have any and all rights yet let the Christians have none. There is only one way to change them, its not fighting in any manner, its carrying the Gospel to them.

      • Sarah

        There is no tolerance for the Christians bakers, they served the clients many times before(tolerance) so stop spreading lies

        • OldArkie

          No lies at all, sad, you don’t know the difference between lies and the truth.

      • magormissabib

        God hates [email protected]

        • OldArkie

          During this church age that’s untrue. God has shown love for all sinners, romans 5:8, and God wishes is that all would be saved, 2 Peter 3:9, God is long suffering wishing everyone would come to repentance. And if you’re a Christians you have been ordained, Ephesians 2:10, the moment you were saved to take the Gospel to all of the lost, showing them the love God and Jesus has for them. If you go around telling homosexuals God hates them, them your standing against God, and you are not denying self, bearing your cross and following Jesus.

          • Thomas Weiss

            They’re being told God hates their sin, don’t twist the truth to suit your own ends, thats a sin as well.

          • magormissabib

            God stilll hates [email protected]

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Again no, God does not hate. 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

            13This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

            God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

          • magormissabib

            wrong and wrong. The ”us” in Romans is the ELECT. Verse 5:1 shows who he is speaking to .

            Like wise 2 Peter is adressed to the elect, notice the word “usward” in the text. Go back to verse 3:1 and see he is writing to the beloved. not all men.

        • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

          No, and your pic is offensive. Obviously you’re not a Christian.

          • magormissabib

            God hates you

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            No, no he doesn’t. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who-so-ever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. You’re sadly mistaken

          • magormissabib

            er yeah , he does. Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
            Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
            Psa 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            How have I been wicked? Why are you quoting from the old covenant when Christ came to save the world and is the new covenant. Do you honestly believe that God hates his own creation?

            God’s Righteous Judgment

            1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

          • magormissabib

            blah blah blah. God hates you, thats all.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Ahhhh no. Are you a Christian? You don’t act like one. When you say these things does it give you some sort of ego lift?

  • vdomkr

    Let’s destroy this bakery the same way the perverts tried to destroy other bakers.

    • proudteacher

      Let’s not, since an eye for an eye not only makes us blind……but makes us hypocrites. This is exactly what some would want. Sadly, it’s what they’ll get….as you and the person who filed the suit has proven.

  • Terry Heron

    Love the people hate the sin. God is the only one that can and will judge. He loves us all. I would have refused the order as well.

    • Eleanor Beasley

      We cannot selectively decide which businesses enjoy the civil right ‘Freedom of Association’…if one business has the right to deny service, they ALL should have the RIGHT to deny service, or, as US laws state, ‘Freedom of Association’…businesses should all enjoy the right to serve/not serve as they see fit…this isn’t a sexuality question, but one of Civil Rights!!!

      • RWH

        But there is a very important distinction here. In one case, a baker refused to make a product for an individual that s/he would for other people. In the other case, the baker is asked to provide something that she doesn’t offer as a service. She will not write a derogatory message on any cake that anyone ordered; however, she offered to accommodate the man by making a cake in the shape of a Bible, and she offered the icing for the man to write whatever message she wanted. The court sided with her because she denies this to everyone, no matter what the cause. Writing derogatory message on any cake is not a service that she provides, but she was willing to provide him with everything but that. She didn’t refuse to bake a cake as what happened in the first case. Courts have ruled that someone cannot demand a service that a place of business does not provide, but if a business provides a product, it cannot discriminate because the store doesn’t agree with the way that the product will be used. It’s that simple.

        • MC

          And Christian bakers don’t provide cakes for gay ceremonies, because it’s a service that they don’t offer anyone, whether you’re straight or gay.

          • RWH

            The courts don’t agree with your interpretation. Once a baker sells a product, it is none of his business how that product is used. If he makes wedding cakes, he does not have the right to do a background check on the wedding parties.

          • MC

            That’s because the courts step all over our first admentment rights. They are dictating when we can and cannot be Chrstians.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh, give me a break.

            They provide cakes for weddings. The only distinction is who is getting married, and the answer to the question is “members of a protected class.”

      • Nadine Faber

        It is also, mainly one of declining to be a participant in like photo’s, reception with refreshments/cake and flower arrangements if one is required to be there at the wedding or set it up or whatever.

    • MC

      So you agree that Christians should be allowed to refuse orders for gay ceremonies?

  • Margaret Keith Day

    Wow….but, it’s ok for gays to bash Christians & sue them for what they say is discriminating! Yes, double standard! I’m so ready to leave this world!

    • Patricia Robertson

      Gays aren’t the one bashing Christians it is the other way around. Remember one sin is no greater than another and everyone sin though they will not admit to it. Those who holler the loudest is usually the closet gay person who is either to afraid to come out of the shadow or hoping their next door neighbor don’t find out. Remember when the old white republicans men was so against gays yet they were caught tapping their feet in the men bathroom for dates? So we no longer live in a country or society of what stays in the dark remains it now finds their ways to the daylight very quickly.

      • MC

        So according to your argument and lack of logic, critical thinking, and knowledge, a gay person who hollers the loudest, and they do, are really closet heterosexuals afraid to come out of the shadows, disgusted by their homosexual choices? Remember the fact that gay people walk away from the gay lifestyle and now are traditionally married with children and grandkids? And it has nothing to do with bisexuality.

        • Phipps Mike

          “And it has nothing to do with bisexuality.”
          maybe not, but it does have EVERYTHING to do with that they are not TRULY attracted to their new spouse. You can force yourself to do anything if you want to.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you actually suggesting that gay people are not attracted to the same gender?

          • Phipps Mike

            Paul, we are on the same side. I am saying that a gay that enters into a straight marriage is not attracted to their spouse. Its the same as jailhouse religion. Its a put on to act like they “went straight”. Attraction is something that is in our genes. It is not a learned behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah, ok, I see now….and yes, I concur. We don’t have any control over what turns us on.

            It always gets me when they claim it’s just a choice…but when asked if they have attraction to the same gender, they scream NO. They somehow can’t understand why that proves that sexual orientation is not a choice.

        • oa0079

          By the replies I’m reading it would seem then that even pedophiles don’t have a problem, their attraction and actions are just in their genes? People make plenty of choices including what attractions they act upon. I have seen far too many examples to agree with the assessment that such behaviors cannot be influenced, learned or have some other cause. It’s getting more and more obvious.

    • MC

      Don’t forget that the gay community and their supporters get to threaten to firebomb Christian businesses and send death threats to the owners without the liberal media outrage. A double standard indeed.

      • Peter Leh

        ha.. the liberal media.

        anyone can find any news source today that agrees with them . The days of “i don;t believe the liberal media” is over

        • MC

          You’ve never heard of the liberal media? LOL?

          • Peter Leh

            i grew up with it.

            Im saying they are no longer “the threat” or “the excuse” 🙂

        • MisterPine

          The conservative media is a lot more alarming. You’d be quite correct to not believe things like Faux News when they have been found to tell the truth so seldom. They get away with it by branding themselves “infotainment”.

          • Peter Leh

            “They get away with it by branding themselves “infotainment”.”

            very good point. Infotainment is a horrible way to get info when it si really a soap opera type presentation. you can get more “news” by watching entertainment tonights red carpet spectacular. 🙂

      • Paul Hiett

        Double standard, eh? So when Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors…

        Yeah, you wanna talk about double standards?

        • Eponymous1

          “So when Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors…” Examples? When was the last time that happened? Less than 10 in the last 40 years? Meanwhile, abortionists kill a little under 3,000 people per day in the U.S.

        • Griffonn

          I condemn Christians bombing abortion clinics. Please link to where they are doing this and I will absolutely type my condemnation where you and everyone else can see it.

          • Paul Hiett
          • Griffonn

            This link does not lead to an abortion clinic bombing.

            As far as I know, the last abortion clinic bombing was in 1987, and I have already condemned it quite loudly.

        • Nordog6561

          Double standards?

          You mean those Christian bombers of which you speak were immune from prosecution according to the law?

          Really?

          Which ones exactly were they?

          GFY.

        • MC

          What Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors? Murder and crime is against the Gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached. No one can do that and be a Christian, an atheist yes. Like atheist Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city bombing.

      • Griffonn

        The year that Prop 8 was overturned (2010) Mormon temples were vandalized and torched (arson) in at least six locations that I know of.

        The media did not think this was a big deal.

        Even when the Denver, CO temple found a burning Book of Mormon on their front steps.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Christians are free to bash gays….obviously…and sue them for discriminating.

    • Griffonn

      This is actually a good thing.

      Legally, they are winning – but it is a Pyrrhic victory; people are starting to wake up to who the real bullies are here.

      As painful as it is to be formally discriminated against (held to a different standard under the law), this is necessary.

  • FoJC_Forever

    We shouldn’t expect a legal system which condones murdering babies in the womb to be fair, care about God, or honor the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

    “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” John 15:19 NKJV

    • Nine

      Yet Acts would suggest there are times to use the state governance system, as demonstrated by Paul’s appeal to his Roman citizenship. The Roman Empire wasn’t at all in support of Christian’s at the time, yet Paul demanded to see a pagan emperor for absolution.

  • Mike

    This was the correct ruling. Nobody should have to take on a job they don’t want to do.
    Now, if only they would apply it consistently.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Do you know of an instance where it wasn’t applied consistently?

      • Mario Lawrence
        • thoughtsfromflorida

          That was refusing to provide the cake – not agreeing to provide the cake but refusing to put certain words on it. Not the same thing.

          • Mary Waterton

            Irrelevant. Refusing to supply the product in whole or in part (i.e., minus the message) is a failure to provide the product in the eyes of the courts. What we have is selective discrimination against Christians.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Apparently not.

          • Mario Lawrence

            So if a homosexual wants a cake baked, and also wants a pair of little male groom figurines on top, a person of opposing conscience can only refuse to place the figurines?
            Seems like the best way to settle these situations is for business owners to just straight up deny service period once they get even a sign of what bothers their conscience, without giving a reason.
            The Indiana law, was setup to deliberately prevent frivilous discrimination lawsuits like this. Not enable discrimination. When trouble-making groups and individuals are deliberately targeting establishments in this manner, this will only reinforce the biases and hatreds that they claim to be against. This is not enforcement of justice. This is systemic injustice. Individuals are using the governent to inflict harm on people they don’t like or agree with; essentially using the government to directly threaten and harrass the 1st Amendment rights of their fellow citizens.
            And in our day and age, this is happening NEEDLESSLY, as the free market provides plenty of options to prevent, eliminate, and circumvent such confrontations! Knowing that free market options exist, therefore, what justification is there to continue with these lawsuits, or to be opposed to religious protection laws?
            Are Christians (or anyone opposed to homosexuality) such superior bakers that homosexuals must seek out their services?
            Do homosexuals (or homosexual supporters) perform such exquisite culinary caligraphy, that Christians must seek their expertise in quoting scripture?
            This is absurd.
            I hope more religious protection laws are established. Small private businesses are the backbone of our economy, and it is absurd that they be damaged by the government via lawsuit, because self-appointed, loud-mouthed gremlins decide to be thin-skinned.
            These civil protection laws existed during a time when almost no free market options existed for certain minorities. Today, the economic climate simply is not the same.
            If a business will happily serve homosexuals, or any specific group, let them announce it: that will generate business for them, attracting customers away from businesses that don’t want to serve them anyway. A Win-Win situation. Just as Chick-Fil-A did with its conservative stance, and other companies have done in favor of the lgbt community. Everybody wins. This situation is moot. What we need to ask ourselves is why we are distracted with this, while our government is busy fighting another proxy war.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “So if a homosexual wants a cake baked, and also wants a pair of little male groom figurines on top, a person of opposing conscience can only refuse to place the figurines? ”

            In places where sexual orientation is included in anti-discrimination laws, that is correct. Just as they could refuse to place a figurine of a black male and a white woman on the cake, but not refuse to make the cake itself.

            “The Indiana law, was setup to deliberately prevent frivilous discrimination lawsuits like this.”

            So you believe that holding people accountable for violating anti-discrimination laws is a “frivolous” action?

            “Individuals are using the governent to inflict harm on people they don’t like or agree with”

            Oh, like those who want laws that ban same-gender marriage, thus inflicting harm on those couples they don’t like or agree with.

            “And in our day and age, this is happening NEEDLESSLY, as the free market provides plenty of options to prevent, eliminate, and circumvent such confrontations!”

            No doubt Woolworths was not the only restaurant in Greensboro, NC in 1960. Based upon your logic, the black students should have simply decided to eat elsewhere. I mean, were the cooks at Woolworths such superior cooks that blacks had to seek them out? Were blacks just being “thin-skinned”?

            “If a business will happily serve homosexuals, or any specific group, let them announce it”

            Or, how about this: Let’s have businesses that want to discriminate announce that, which will save the customers time in not visiting that business and will save the business time in not dealing with customers they are going to turn down. Maybe just a simple sign in the window: “No Coloreds”….opps, sorry, I mean: “No Homos”.

            “What we need to ask ourselves is why we are distracted with this, while our government is busy fighting another proxy war.”

            I agree.

          • Mario Lawrence

            Groups and individuals have 1st Amendment rights, that protect them from government assault. These rights were meant to protect everyone, including viewpoints of dissent. Be they Christian or otherwise.

            (Pardon me for missing the “o”. Big fingers you see.)
            Take a look at Indiana’s religious protection law, for yourself. It demands a more strenuous look at the case, before concluding that penalty for discrimination should be applied. We want to protect the innocent, not enable one side over another.
            It’s a very fine needle to thread, but it must be done fairly;
            Because the application of anti-discrimination law in a suit, is not as ‘black and white’ as you seem to think.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Groups and individuals have 1st Amendment rights, that protect them from government assault. These rights were meant to protect everyone, including viewpoints of dissent. Be they Christian or otherwise.”

            Agreed.

            ” It demands a more strenuous look at the case, before concluding that penalty for discrimination should be applied.”

            It does not. That was not what the original version did.

            “It’s a very fine needle to thread, but it must be done fairly;”

            Agreed. The courts have determined that “religious belief” is not an adequate defense for violating anti-discrimination laws. I find it amazing, as a person of color, that you would not understand what a slippery slope that is. Do you not realize that many people attempted to use religious belief as a defense in the decision not to serve blacks? Do you not realize that many people attempted to use religious beliefs a a rationale for not allowing interracial marriage?

            Or is it simply a matter of, now that you have protected status, you are less concerned about other minorities?

      • Eponymous1

        Other than every baker, hall owner, florist, photographer, printer, and dress shop that did the exact same thing, but in the other direction, no, can’t think of a one.

    • Peter Leh

      “Nobody should have to take on a job they don’t want to do.”

      not really. the business sell what it sells. and cannot discriminate against protected groups.

      • Eponymous1

        And some groups are obviously more protected than others.

        • Peter Leh

          naw, we all are.

      • Thomas Weiss

        Are there any unprotected groups left?

  • SFBruce

    I certainly don’t believe that Christians, or any believer, should be denied service because of their religious beliefs, but this isn’t comparable to the case involving the Masterpiece Cakeshop. That couple asked for something that bakery provides non-gay people: a wedding cake. They didn’t ask for it to say “Christianity is bad,” or “Straight people are bad.” They just wanted a wedding cake. No sane baker of florist would deny service to someone simply because they’re Christian, because that’s how the majority of people in this country identify. They’d be out of business.

    • Eleanor Beasley

      Wrong…this baker was allowed ‘refusal of service’ or, as the Civil Rights Amendments put it, ‘freedom of association’…every business owner USED to have the right to ‘Freedom of Association’, a civil right, guaranteed to every US Citizen…this is an blatant, glaring double standard…ANY business owner MUST retain the right to serve/not serve whomever they choose…

      • SFBruce

        Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, public accommodations can’t refuse service based on race or religion, among other categories. This means, of course, that businesses are not free to turn away anyone they like. Freedom of Association is an important right, but it’s not absolute and must be balanced with other basic rights.

        • EdWalton

          If we can’t decide for ourselves but are dependent on the whims of society to tell us what’s right and wrong, then no business has the right to refuse service and is compelled to participate in any despicable & deviant behaviors.

          • Psygn

            Did they ask you to take your clothes of or something?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, they’re not. We have defined protected classes of people who cannot be discriminated against, even by private businesses. I cannot fathom why you people persist in making arguments that amount to “that the English language is not precise enough to craft laws that distinguish between one type of discrimination and another.” We can and do discriminate as to discrimination. It’s not “all or nothing” because it doesn’t have to be.

        • Phipps Mike

          I wish that “act” actually DID make gays a protected class, but it doesnt. It will soon though, watch and see.

          • SFBruce

            You’re absolutely right, and most of the 50 states provide no protection against LGBT discrimination. I’m hopeful Indiana will prove to be a tipping point, but with this Congress it’s hard to image a federal version getting off the ground, even though polls show it has broad national support.

        • MC

          Not if they’re being forced to provide a service they don’t offer to ANYONE.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        There is no such Amendment known as as a “Civil Rights Amendment” (or “Amendments” as you put it). I don’t know what you’re trying to cite.

      • Paul Hiett

        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 removed “Freedom of association” from the world of commerce by ensuring that no business could discriminate based on certain factors, such as gender, religion, race. Some states are now adding sexual orientation to that list.

    • MC

      No, making a cake for a gay ceremony is not a service they provide for straight people either. If a gay person wanted a cake for a traditional marriage ceremony then they would be provided with one because it’s a service and product they do provide for.

  • uzza

    Psalm 45:7 doesn’t say “God hates sin, and ″ and Leviticus 18:2 doesn’t say “Homosexuality is a detestable sin″. What’s up with that?

    • Gary Almodovar

      “‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
      Leviticus 18:22

      Abomination meaning- Abomination is used exclusively to describe things that are disgusting, loathsome and absolutely intolerable—things that are unacceptable to God.

      Not to mention what is the normal family unit that we have for thousands of years been accustomed to you know one father and one mother without which it is impossible for any one gender to procreate within itself. Simple math! I love having my normal grandchildren the normal old fashion way.

      • uzza

        It doesn’t say 18:22. It says 18:2.
        What about the Psalm?

      • Phipps Mike

        right Gary, we are to ASSUME what it means, right? That’s why the NIV is GARBAGE and the KJV is way closer to the mark.

  • TheBBP

    Take it to the courts. A precedent has already been set. This woman is not allowed to choose not to fulfill an order simply because she does not think that it is right.

    http://www.washingtonweeklynews.com/unintended-consequences-black-bakery-owner-loses-lawsuit-forced-to-bake-racist-kkk-cake/

    • RWH

      You cannot demand that anyone produce a service that they don’t ordinarily provide. This bakery does not write derogatory messages on cakes, This refusal goes for all customers, no matter who they are. This is different than offering a product for everyone but denying that same product to a particular customer. You cannot, for example demand that a clothing store sell you a toaster if they don’t sell toasters. However, you can sue the store for refusing to sell you a suit if it is a product offered up for sale. It’s not that difficult to understand, is it?

      • MC

        Correct, the Chistian bakers are being forced to provide a service they don’t even offer. If a straight person wanted a cake for a gay ceremony they would be told no because it’s not a service they provide, if a gay person wanted a cake for a traditional marriage ceremony then they would get it because that is a service they do provide. You can’t force a bussiness to make you a product they don’t provide for to anyone.

        • RWH

          So, if you buy a product, the retailer has the right to ask you for all sorts of personal information before he sells you a product? In other words, a retailer can refuse to sell you a dress shirt until he finds out where you will be wearing that shirt?

          • MC

            I’ll let you answer your question yourself. Tell me, how did those Christian bakers know those cakes were going to be used in a gay ceremony, were those bakers clairvoyant? If the bakers didn’t know, then why did they get sued? How did the florist know? Why did she get sued? Same for the photographer?

        • Paul Hiett

          A wedding is a wedding.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          The baker doesn’t offer wedding cakes? Yes, they do. They make lots of wedding cakes. The only difference between this cake and another wedding cake is that the cake is for a same-sex wedding. Which is a distinction you are not allowed to make.

          A cake with hate speech on it vs. one without hate speech is a distinction a baker is allowed to make.

          • MC

            No, they don’t offer cakes for gay ceremonies to straight or gay customers. It’s just not a service they offer. I’m sure another baker would be happy to offer that service.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            First of all, the problem is that no, there is no reason to think that the customer could simply go somewhere else. This is why we have protected classes; it’s not always a simple matter of just walking down the street. If there are no bakeries available, what is the gay couple supposed to do?

            And secondly, protected classes don’t begin and end with the orientation a person belongs to. You can’t seriously argue that it’s okay to refuse Bar Mitzvah cakes but bake Christmas brownies because no one, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise, is allowed to get a Bar Mitzvah cake. That would be ludicrous, and circumvent the entire purpose of anti-discrimination laws.

          • MC

            It doesn’t matter if the customer goes somewhere else or not, the baker doesn’t offer services to gay ceremonies for straight or gay people. But they do offer services to traditional marriage ceremonies to gay and straight customers. Bar Mitzvah’s is not considered a sin to Christians. Although I’m not sure if those have to be made in Kosher bakeries or not. Anyway, you can’t tell what to believe in or not and you can’t tell us when we can and cannot be Christans.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What the…that went off the rails fast.

            No one is telling you that you can’t be Christians. We ARE telling you that you have to serve people who are members of protected classes, whether you want to or not. Just like you have to pay taxes and keep a disabled-accessible facility.

            The law is that no business can discriminate based on sexual orientation. You can’t then say “I’m not refusing to serve him because he’s gay, it’s just that I don’t do same-sex weddings for anybody.” That’s nonsense, and it’s not in compliance with the law. It’s basically the same thing as refusing to do Bar Mitzvah cakes and then pretending you’re not committing religious discrimination. You are, regardless of what you call it.

          • MC

            If you’re forcing someone that doesn’t provide a certain service, no matter if their straight or gay, to do a service that goes against their religious belief then yes, you are dictating what they can and cannot believe. You’re dictating to them that from 9-5 you have to put away your religious beliefs, and forget about your first amendment rights.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            We’ve been over this. The business DOES provide that “certain service.” The only point of contention is who they provide it for. They don’t provide it for same-sex couples, which is exactly what anti-discrimination laws don’t allow. Therefore, the business is breaking the law.

            We are not dictating what they believe. They can be Christians. They can believe that gays all go to Hell for all I care. In fact, they can believe that gays should be stoned to death. I DON’T CARE. They just have to provide the service. Then they’re free to go back to being bigoted, hateful fundies. I simply don’t have any interest in what the business owner BELIEVES because it’s not relevant. You don’t have to like gays or gay weddings, but you do have to serve them.

            And don’t bring up First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled that anti-discrimination laws do not run afoul of the First Amendment. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States,
            379 U.S. 241 (1964).

          • MC

            No, the business does not offer cakes for gay ceremonies to heterosexuals or homosexualists. They only provide services for traditional marriage ceremonies to homosexualists and heterosexuals.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Which is an illegal distinction.

          • MC

            No it’s not. You can’t force a company to do something or make a product that they don’t produce.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Dude. Listen to yourself. The only distinction is who they’re making it for. Gays. A protected class.

            The cake is nothing they don’t make. the materials are not unavailable, the oven is in the shop.

            It’s not a “product they don’t produce.” The only difference between this cake and every other cake is who it is being made for.

          • MC

            No, they don’t make that product for anyone, straight or gay. It doesn’t matter if the “ingredients” and “oven” is there, it’s not a product that the artist produces. You don’t expect Kosher food at a non Kosher deli or bakery, the ingredients are there, the oven is there, but it’s not Kosher.. And they serve gay people all day everyday so there is no discrimination. You keep trying to force them to make something they don’t offer the public, straight or gay. You might as well go to the bakery and force them to fix your wristwatch.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They don’t bake cakes at this bakery?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          ” the Chistian bakers are being forced to provide a service they don’t even offer.”

          Please cite one instance where a bakery was forced to provide a cake for a same-gender wedding.

          • Mike

            What do you think this whole controversy is about?

            http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

            Ok, they weren’t “forced to provide a cake,” but they suffered the legal consequences for not doing so.

          • Paul Hiett

            Imagine that…fined for discriminating. What a tragedy!

          • Mike

            But the gay baker wasn’t fined for discriminating. Where’s the equal protection under the law?

          • Paul Hiett

            Here’s the difference…one couple simply wants a cake for their wedding.

            This guy is trying to get hateful messages put on a cake for no other purpose than to be a jerk.

            Do you really not see the difference?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Ok, they weren’t “forced to provide a cake,”

            I’m glad we agree.

            ” but they suffered the legal consequences for not doing so.”

            Yeah. That tends to happen when you break the law – you suffer the consequences. Are you against people being held accountable for breaking the law?

          • Mike

            I’m against the law being applied inconsistently.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            As am I.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            As am I

          • MC

            What rock have you been hiding under?

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you not aware that no one put a gun to the bakers head and forced them to open their business?

          • MC

            But now they put a gun to their head and force them to provide a service they don’t offer to anyone. They put a gun to their head and tell them when they can and cannot be Cristians.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            None. Why do you ask?

  • Phipps Mike

    ” because the decoration requested was deemed “derogatory””
    that is correct.
    ““I find it offensive that the Colorado Civil Rights Division considers
    the baker’s claims that Bible verses were discriminatory as the reason
    for denying my claim,” ie:
    ” “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22″

    sorry, the REAL bible known as the King James bible does NOT say that. Only the NIV version also known as the “conservative, man remanipulated” bible, says that.

  • Lexical Cannibal

    This seems a bit stilted, yeah? Like anyone who is trying to equate these two cases is literally trying to equate a cake meant to celebrate a wedding (regardless of your opinion on its validity) versus a cake with a direct political and religious animus. One client is stirring the pot and one client just wants a cake at their wedding and if you can’t tell the difference then maybe your problem isn’t just the gays.

    A HUGE distinction in this is that Silva did not outright refuse the Christian Man Service. She said she’d bake the cake and he could put whatever bible verses he wanted on it himself, even offering her own supplies to do so. The man was there, not to celebrate a wedding, but to try and essentially trick her into looking bigoted and she was still willing to work with him.

    Another big thing that seems to be ignored by a lot of people is context. If I wanted the full text of Ezekiel 23:20, someone might take offense to that; it’s a pretty explicit verse. It’s not just that this was a Christian order or that it was a verse from the bible, it’s that it was a verse chosen because it was politically charged and sure to upset people. I couldn’t see very many people at all denying John 3:16, Genesis 1:1 or Psalm 23, because it’d be pretty hard to find a way to make them inflammatory and if a baker DID turn down those verses just because they were Christian then yeah; the clients would absolutely have grounds for a discrimination case, and I’d back them up 100%. But this isn’t just because they were Christian cakes or even just because they were pro-family or pro-traditional marriage cakes–even those would have had more of a leg to stand on–these cakes were explicitly anti-gay and that very important contextual difference is where the distinction gets made.

  • Beach Actor

    Next time find a baker who will do all of his requests. Just like the gay couple should keep looking for a baker who will catering to their wedding.

  • Beach Actor

    Copying Bible scriptures to a cake is not hate speech

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I don’t know if it is or not, but that’s not the issue. The baker has a right to refuse to put certain things on cakes. “People who want to bash homosexuality” is not a protected class.

  • Beach Actor

    So gays can threaten to tear down churches in the US and we still don’t think there’s a double standard

  • Reason2012

    Should ask for a cake that says “Marriage is only one man and one woman”.

    • Paul Hiett

      So you can support the Roman version of marriage? How pagan of you!!!! I think that’s great that you’re finally opening up your view points.

      • Reason2012

        No, God’s version of marriage. One man and one woman: was around long before Rome.

        • Paul Hiett

          i hate to break it to you, but the Romans were the reason that Christians adopted the “one man, one woman” version of marriage.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage was written about long before Rome existed.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, it was. Polygamy though, not what you think is “Christian”. Judaism, certainly not a part of Roman ideology, was rife with polygamy. It was the Romans who had long since established the ‘one man, one woman’ idea. Christianity wasn’t even a blip on the Roman radar til 313 AD.

          • Reason2012

            Now that you’ve learned something new, you can give up your claim that it was Romans who defined marriage as one man and one woman.
            Sin was in the Bible to show the consequences of it, not to condone it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not sure what Bible you’re reading, but polygamy was very much a part of the Jewish religion and way of life.

            Why are you upset about history?

          • KenS

            Polygamy was not a part of the Jewish Religion. Every time a Jewish man was married to more than one wife, he suffered terrible consequences because of that sin. God had it recorded in the Bible to show us as an example of what not to do.

            David, lost an infant son, had one son rape his half sister and then murdered by that sisters broher, his half brother, then an estranged relationship with the son that did the raping, and then one of his sons tried to steal the kingdom from the other son that it was promised to on David’s deathbed.

            Solomons many wives steered him away from God,

            I could go on, but this clearly shows that God did not approve of polygamy and gave us these examples to show us why it is not good.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s all fine and good…but the fact remains polygamy was accepted in the Jewish faith. The Romans were the ones to bring about “one man, one woman” into the new Christian religion.

            You can argue the facts til you’re blue in the face, but it won’t ever change them.

          • KenS

            It was not accepted in the Jewish faith, the Jewish people knew that these sufferings came from God’s displeasure of this practice of polygamy. why do you think that from the time after Solomon up to Jesus’s time, you do not see much if any mention of polygamist relationships anymore, they learned from the suffering of their ancestor’s that this was not God’s plan.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can feel free to argue all you want, but the facts remain the facts. Polygamy amongst the Hebrews was common.during this time, while in Rome, it was illegal.

            It’s simple history when I say that it was the Romans who introduced monogamous marriages to Christianity, and not the other way around.

            You can cling to your opinion, or you can research it for yourself. It’s up to you whether or not you want to learn something new today.

          • MC

            It doesn’t matter if they accepted it, Jesus spoke against polygamy and so did Paul. The Jews who accepted Jesus didn’t practice polygamy, nor did the Gentiles. The Jews who didn’t accept Jesus are not Christians because they deny Christ.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can argue with history all you want, but the fact remains that monogamous marriages were a Roman invention first.

          • Reason2012

            Sin is in the Bible to show the consequences of it, not condone it.

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

            Doesn’t say man shall leave his father and 2 or more mothers.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, all fine and good…but it doesn’t change the fact that the Romans were the reason why Christianity and Christians follow the “one man, one woman” example of marriage.

          • Reason2012

            No, God’s the reason since the beginning. Just because not everyone did so does not mean it was invented by Romans or the Romans are the reason they started obeying God on the matter.

          • Paul Hiett

            Judaism wasn’t exactly a prominent religion at the time, and certainly not for the Roman empire. In fact, polytheistic religions were the norm until 313 AD.

            This is simple history. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t change it.

          • Reason2012

            Talking about the beginning – God created marriage and it existed, one man and one woman, long before Rome did.

          • Paul Hiett

            So all of those societies around the world that existed long before Judaism and Christianity, that also had marriage…societies such as in Australia and Asia that had never heard of your deity that also had marriage…what of them?

            You are aware that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, right?

          • Reason2012

            Feel free to show any writings older than 3,500 years that defined marriage, let alone as something besides one man and one woman.

          • Paul Hiett

            Here’s a good read…please ignore that it’s a comment on a chat board, it’s just a cut and paste from an actual article.

            http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/

          • Reason2012

            So you can’t show writing older than 3500 years that defines marriage as it’s not in there either. Take care.

          • Paul Hiett

            Neither can you, by the way. I see you didn’t bother reading it either. Typical.

          • Reason2012

            The Bible – the OT written 3,500 years ago. Don’t see in there anything about marriage being written down and defined over 3500 years ago. Feel free to quote the exact line since you claim it’s in there, and cite sources to back up the claim.

          • MC

            Oh boy, if you actually read the Bible you would see that every person that practiced polygamy bad things happened to them, because they were sinning against God by going against his perfect marriage plan of one man and one woman.

  • Reason2012
  • Reason2012

    Muslim bakers won’t bake same-gender wedding cake – where’s the media? Where’s ACLU? Proves this is nothing but an attack on Christianity and ‘same-gender wedding’ is just the false claims they use to attack it from behind.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

    • Paul Hiett

      In all fairness, there aren’t that many “Muslim” bakers, while living here in the US, the predominant religion is Christianity, so it makes sense that if you throw a dart at the map, you’re going to hit a Christian owned business.

      • Reason2012

        Notice how you try to defend muslims not baking “same gender wedding” cakes. Thank you for proving the hypocrisy.

        • Paul Hiett

          You’re missing the point entirely. The majority of bakers will probably be Christian. Furthermore, since very few businesses I know advertise which religion the owner is, claiming that anyone is targeting them is extremely naive on your part.

          • Reason2012

            You’re missing the point: you claim refusing to bake a same-gender cake is “discrimination” yet here you are bending over backwards to defend it when it’s muslims doing it.
            I appreciate you doing this as it just makes it more obvious to everyone else how it has nothing to do with discrimination and instead of hatefully attacking Christianity.
            So keep defending muslims refusing to bake cakes for same-gender weddings while condemning Christians as bigots – helps others to see the dishonest motive of homosexual activists.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, I’m not defending it. You’re simply ignoring the point that this guy had to seek out such a bakery, which probably wasn’t easy. Bakery’s owned by Christians are, obviously, much more plentiful in this country, and there’s no way to tell what religion they are up front. How many stores do you see that advertise their religion?

          • Reason2012

            And homosexual activists clearly seek out Christian bakers – just like the news anchor who out of the blue interviews a tiny pizza place knowing they were Christian.

            You are also just completely ignoring how you are aware of muslim bakers who refuse to bake a same-gender wedding cake and you don’t seem to care at all, which again shows the hypocrisy of the homosexual activists and their claim of “HATER!” or “DISCRIMINATION” when they find out a Christian won’t bake such a cake.

            So the real issue is the place in question advertises their beliefs? What happened to “bigot! He won’t bake a same-gender wedding cake”? Seems you change your story when it’s muslims and different story when it’s Christians.

            But keep it up – it shows others how dishonest the whole movement is and the false claims of “discrimination” when the truth is they ignore muslims that refuse to perform the same act, proving this is nothing but a bigoted movement against Christians. You help with every post.

          • SFBruce

            I’m afraid you’re the one missing several important points. In addition to the excellent arguments presented by Paul Hiett, neither Michigan nor the town of Dearborn have laws which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So all bakeries, whether the owners are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or atheist are within the law to turn away paying customers who happen to be gay. Not the perfect place for Crowder to pull his stunt.

          • Reason2012

            (1) They happily serve customers that claim to be gay, so no one was EVER turned away for being “gay” in these cases – false claim.

            (2) They were being turned away for the product they were asking: a same-gender wedding cake, which they will not offer no matter who the customer is

            (3) There are muslim bakers that will not make a same-gender wedding cake, and you ignore it (along with activists), which only shows how disingenuous you and activists are being

            The whole movement is nothing but bigotry against Christians and the muslim bakers being completely ignored when they do not make same-gender wedding cakes proves it.

          • SFBruce

            I guess you didn’t read my comment before you responded to it. Again, it’s not against the law in Dearborn, Michigan to discriminate against gay people. There is no basis for a lawsuit in this instance, although I wish there were a federal law forbidding such discrimination.

          • Reason2012

            You didn’t read my response. Read it again it already addressed everything you said.

          • MC

            Since the projection for 2050 is Islam will be the dominating religion, the LGBTP community is going to have real fun with that. Too bad they forced us out of business. We won’t be able to help. We’ll just have to stand by and watch the two go at it, the minority vs the majority.

  • Peter Leh

    “But on Friday, the Division ruled that there was “insufficient evidence”
    to support Jack’s claim that he was being treated unfairly. It said
    that Silva had a right to refuse the order because the decoration
    requested was deemed “derogatory” and that Silva would refuse all
    “derogatory” cakes to anyone.”

    if the customer provided “insufficient evidence” of being treated unfairly. what then would quality?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      The customer would have to provide evidence that s/he was a member of a protected class. “People who want to insult homosexuals” are not a protected class.

      • Peter Leh

        Right.

        however if the baker has created cakes with bible verses in the past then would she not indeed be discriminating against a “protected class”?

        so what would “qualify”? unless she can prove she creates no religious cakes?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It’s not just any Bible verse, and you know it. Don’t play dumb.

          She’s not refusing to bake Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, she’s refusing to bake a cake specifically designed to insult an oppressed minority. The fact that the customer wants to use Bible quotes to do it is irrelevant.

          • Mike

            An “oppressed minority.”
            LOL.

          • Peter Leh

            i dunno.

            any bible verse is just are protected as the next, dont; you think?

      • Griffonn

        Thank you for admitting that gay rights is really about being granted special treatment under the law.

        • Paul Hiett

          Shouldn’t they have it?

          • Griffonn

            Not clear why they need the right to troll Christians.

            I thought they wanted equality under the law. But it turns out they want protected status so that they can do to the people they hate exactly what they don’t want to have done to them.

            So the equality was a lie.
            And the tolerance was a lie.
            And all that is left is you want to dominate the rest of us, and you used lies to achieve what you wanted, instead of actually using correct due process, persuasion, etc.

            You are very good at Newspeak. Congratulations on being the thing you claim to hate.

          • Griffonn

            BTW, you have persuaded me that I was wrong to think we should be “tolerant” of each other. Logically, you have created a strong argument in favor of criminalizing homosexuality. You imply homosexuals cannot be appeased because they are incapable of coexisting. Anything less than affirmation and participation must be seen as discrimination.

            But I would like to point out – to anyone else who is following this logic – that it is not the gays who are truly waging war on integrity and honesty. It is the Left, and the gays are just puppets, just as blacks were puppets the last time the Left used very similar identity politics to “help” blacks (by moving them into government housing and giving them government cheese to eat, see how much that helped?)

            Identity politics works by identifying a target population’s vulnerability. We all have vulnerabilities. Gays are vulnerable because they have this problem that they can’t fix by simply wishing it away. Naturally they want to be accepted by society – nobody likes being loathed. So the lefty says, “I will create for you a world where everyone approves of homosexuality and you are welcomed and accepted. There is only one problem: those evil people over there will OBSTRUCT the Utopia. So as soon as they are destroyed….” and the gay person is expected to hear something about “who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”

            And the blacks got Utopian Ferguson, MO for their reward.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No more special than Christianity. “Religion” is a protected class also.

          • Griffonn

            Not protected enough that a Christian can go into a Colorado bakery and make the baker make a cake the baker doesn’t want to make.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            As long as the one and sole reason the baker isn’t making the cake is the buyer’s religion, yes, he would be protected. Being a Christian is a protected class. Being a person who wants hate speech on a cake is not.

          • Griffonn

            So the motives of the Christian matter, but it’s okay if gays want to fly in from out of state to troll Christians because double standard because when it’s gays doing the trolling, motives are irrelevant.

            Gotcha.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I can’t respond to that because it makes no sense.

          • Griffonn

            Of course it makes no sense; you reject the concept of equality under the law in favor of “gays are special and of course it’s okay for a gay person to do to a Christian what he howls about as ‘hateful’ if someone did it to him”.

            Because gay rights are the worst of the sexual revolution married to the worst of identity politics.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What would the gays like Christians to be forced to do that they themselves don’t want done?

          • Griffonn

            Deliberate stupidity is not an argument. But of course trollery is all you guys have, isn’t it? You haven’t got truth, you haven’t got logic – you’ve got “I want” and a host of dirty tricks to bully, intimidate, deceive, distract, and otherwise manipulate anyone who questions the almighty “I want”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Right now, all I want I’d for you to answer the question.

          • Griffonn

            There should not be protected classes.

            The idea of protected classes is the antithesis of equality under the law.

          • Paul Hiett

            I think you should read up on the Civil Rights Act of 64, and why we have it in place.

          • Griffonn

            I think you should stop relying on false analogies, because this debate is not about someone who is refusing to serve someone an off-the-shelf menu item.

            It’s about trolls trying to force people into accepting contracts for custom jobs where the jobs themselves are what is objectionable.

            Real civil rights don’t require lies.

          • Paul Hiett

            If a baker offers wedding cakes, they are obligated to provide those cakes under the laws governing commerce and may not discriminate based on the laws of A) this country and B) their state and local county laws.

            This is the law.

          • Griffonn

            Gay wedding cakes aren’t wedding cakes. They’re gay wedding cakes.

            But thanks for admitting that everything the gay rights group has been saying is all lies. You never meant to live and let live; you never meant it when you swore up and down that you didn’t intend to strip us of our religious rights.

            You just took advantage of the fact that we’re more ethical than you and nicer than you and respond to appeals to tolerance to move yourself into a position where you could be everything you accuse us of being – hateful and intolerant and out to dominate everyone and push your beliefs on everyone – and there will be no end to the lies you demand, because no amount of lying can ever make a gay marriage equal to an authentic one, just as no amount of lying will ever make a fatherless child into a child “with two mommies”, or will make government able to rearrange family trees at the whim of rich buyers (let alone making such rearrangements equal to kinship).

            A generation from now, we will look back on the entire Sexual Revolution with shame and self-loathing.

          • Paul Hiett

            A wedding is a wedding regardless if it’s two men, two women, or one man and a woman.

            I’m sorry if they offend you so much by doing something that has no affect on you at all.

            Out of curiosity, what’s the difference between a “gay” wedding cake and a regular one?

          • Griffonn

            You are welcome to believe that, but you are not welcome to demand that I believe it, any more than I have the right to argue that a sandwich is a sandwich therefore I have the right to force a kosher Jew to make me a ham sandwich.

            Refusing to make a ham sandwich is NOT discrimination against Gentiles. That is your error.

          • Paul Hiett

            If they advertise that they make ham sandwiches and then refuse because of a religious reason, then they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

            Have you at least glanced at the CRA?

          • Griffonn

            A gay wedding is not a wedding. It is an obscene parody of a wedding.

            If I decided to call conversion therapy “gay pride” would that give me the right under the law to make YOU pretend as if conversion therapy was the same thing as gay pride? NO. It would be a hateful, wicked thing for me to do, and I would be ashamed to do it.

            You know, that you have to employ these LIES really shows that you KNOW what you are doing is wrong. This is EXACTLY why Christians complained about you trying to redefine marriage. Because they KNEW – they could see – that you were setting up to do exactly this, by using a semantic fallacy you would use deceit to accomplish what you couldn’t win honestly.

          • Mike

            A wedding is a wedding regardless if it’s two men, two women, or one man and a woman

            … or two identical twin sisters, or a man and his mother, or 3 men and a dog, or …? A wedding is a wedding, after all.

            Out of curiosity, what’s the difference between a “gay” wedding cake and a regular one?

            What’s the difference between a rope used for torturing kittens and a regular one?

          • Paul Hiett

            None, Mike, which is my point.

          • Mike

            You would sell a rope to someone if you knew he was going to use it torture kittens?

          • Griffonn

            Also, that law was about correcting INSTITUTIONAL injustice, not about taking away peoples’ right to do business as they see fit – which is the essence of fascism (when the government demands the right to micromanage businesses as a condition of permitting businesses to enter a government-dominated marketplace).

            If Klansmen or Nazis ever try demanding that gay business owners service them – in a way that makes it deliberately, provocatively clear that they are doing this for the purpose of trolling – I would be all in favor of that gay business owner having the right to toss them out on their backside.

            So why do you demand that I just accept gays’ right to do that to Christian business owners? You cross the line into bullying there.

    • Griffonn

      This is how the government is establishing an official belief system – a state religion.

      It is deciding that some free speech is protected while other free speech is not.

      The government usurps the right of the individual to determine what qualifies as “derogatory”.

      • Peter Leh

        all speech is protected. this is to determine whether the baker has illegally discriminated against a protected group “ie religion” 🙂

        • Griffonn

          If you can force a business owner to make an artifact that proclaims something that is contrary to his beliefs, then that business owner does not have freedom of speech.

          Being compelled to say “Heil Hitler!” is not freedom of speech.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If you can force a business owner to make an artifact that proclaims something that is contrary to his beliefs, then that business owner does not have freedom of speech.”

            A business owner cannot be forced to do so.

          • Griffonn

            Apparently whether a business owner can be forced to do something or not depends on who he is.

            If he is gay, then he can do whatever he likes – and refuse to do whatever he likes.

            But if he is Christian, he is expected to obey.

            “Equality under the law” is now a euphemism for “some pigs are more piggish than all the other barnyard animals”.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If he is gay, then he can do whatever he likes – and refuse to do whatever he likes.

            But if he is Christian, he is expected to obey.”

            Oh, please. Spare me the hyperbole. Everyone plays under the same rules. Please cite one instance where a gay business owner was not held to the same standard as other business owners.

          • Peter Leh

            not really. Business owners have rules that they themselves agreed to prior to certification to “do business” in a certain state. No one can “force” a business to perform a service they do not do nor can one be forced to make a product they do not make.

            any citation from the state is a violation of something the business themselves agreed to and set up prior.

  • jmichael39

    Reading what these hypocrites are writing on is just downright sickening. The absolute lame excuses anyone would fabricate to think this case is ANY different than the ones where Christian business owners refuse to provide a service for another. If anything, this one is worse simply because there IS no religious basis for her refusing to perform the service for these people. At least the other cases there was a sincerely held religious belief that those people stood upon. This baker just refused because she didn’t like the message. While I still agree she should ALSO have the right to refuse service for a justifiable reason.

    • Paul Hiett

      So you think ones religious choice is grounds for discrimination?

      • Eponymous1

        “[But] this statute is being applied inequitably; it so far is only being applied against Christians … If we do not have liberty for all, then we have liberty for none.”

        It should go both ways, or neither. Businesses can choose what events they want to serve, and what messages they want to send, or not. But it cannot be that people can refuse one message, but cannot refuse another.

        • Paul Hiett

          So what happens when doctors start using religion as an excuse not to treat gays and lesbians, or their children?

          • Eponymous1

            Get back to me when that happens. This is NOTHING like that. These involve events and celebrations which endorse a behavior.

          • Paul Hiett
          • MC

            The doctor didn’t do anything illegal, and the couple got another pediatrician from the same hospital. Private doctors can choose their clients. Private Attorneys can choose their own clients. Gay and straight private doctors and attorneys do it all the time everyday for whatever their reason is as its their right. You not liking it is irrelevant. Now, if it was an emergency of life and death of the baby and the doctor refused to help then yes, it would be illegal and immoral.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…nice attempt at a deflection. This case proves exactly what my point was, that doctors are now going to refuse service to gays and lesbians, and their children.

            At first, you folks scream “that’ll never happen”, then when I prove it already has, you then claim it’s ok.

            Guess it doesn’t matter when the discrimination isn’t against you or your family.

          • MC

            Are you purposely being obtuse? How is it deflection? Do private doctors and attorneys get to choose their clients, yes or no? The doctors and attorneys don’t have to state why they reject certain clients, I’m surprised that doctor did. Again, the doctor didn’t do anything illegal so stop crying about it, it’s their right. If a gay doctor didn’t want me as a client because I’m straight then no big deal, I’ll find another doctor.

          • Paul Hiett

            If that’s what you think, you might want to discuss it with the AMA.

            http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/health-care-antidiscrimination-laws-protecting-32296.html

          • MC

            And again, she didn’t do anything illegal. If you think you have a case against the doctor then sue her. But I would think you’d be too busy boycotting Apple, and making an outrage against Obama and his deals with Iran? Have you LGBTP community started the Apple boycott yet? What about Obama? Have you LGBTP community started a impeachment campaign?

          • magormissabib

            I do not care what outsiders say about my religion. I absolutely refuse to condone and support and participate in their sin. So what, one doctor refused to see them. there are thousands of others who will. This is NOT about sodomites being refused services. There is no evidence of a history them being denied any educational, employment or any vital services. This is about them craving , seeking to have everyone tell them that their sin is acceptable in the sight of GOD.

          • MC

            Um, you’re preaching to the choir here. Maybe you meant your post for someone else?

      • Griffonn

        Under the precedent they are setting here, if a Satanist demanded a priest give him the Host for a black mass, it would be discriminatory for the priest to refuse, on the grounds that it would be discrimination against the Satanist to recognize a distinction between a black mass vs. the Eucharist.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No. Churches aren’t public accommodations.

          • Griffonn

            if you can get homosexuality turned from a mental illness into a fundamental right, that is no obstacle.

            and the gays have already begun trolling the priests. i have seen 3 articles about gays trying to force priests to give them the Eucharist while they are unrepentantly in sin and one about a gay trying to make a priest give him last rites after gloating about not being repentant.

            besides, you guys lie about everything, and you made a big deal out of saying you wouldn’t go after churches. You guys always make a point of doing whatever it is you insisted you wouldn’t do. you’re pathological that way.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I haven’t gone after any churches, so I hardly think I’m lying. Liberals aren’t the Borg, you know. We don’t have a Grand Meeting of All Liberals where we decide everything we’re going to do, universally.

            I don’t know if the gays who demanded Eucharist said they wouldn’t “go after” churches, or what “go after” even means. But I can certainly say I won’t take part in any internal church politics. I neither know nor care who is allowed to receive communion. It has nothing to do with me and I can’t be bothered to worry about it.

            So no, I didn’t “lie.” I didn’t care before and I don’t care now what relationship gays have with any particular church.

          • Griffonn

            No, you don’t all have a grand liberal meeting. You don’t need to.

            You guys are more serious about your groupthink and obeying your clique than anyone I ever met in middle school, or anywhere else for that matter.

            The hilarious ones, of course, are the atheists, who think that obeying the groupthink makes them above average in not only intelligence but critical thinking skills. Because your handlers use the same newspeak on you that they teach you to try to use on us. (Likewise, the gay rights crowds are taught that it is right and just to impose their morality on people, because other people want to impose their morality on America and that makes them evil & they therefore must be constrained…)

          • Griffonn

            besides, you guys should coordinate your arguments: i have been arguing with a guy who has assured me that ‘might makes right’ and the law makes reality.

            laws are easily changed, and anti-catholic sentiment is strong; you guys have been whipping it up ever since it started becoming obvious that left wing policies don’t actually work.

      • Nordog6561

        I think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate as they choose, even when doing so is wrong, without the force of government slamming down on them.

        But we don’t live in a country like that…

        …so in place of that I think the force of government should slam down equally.

        But we don’t live in a country like that either.

        Instead of liberty in a country ruled by law, we have servitude ruled by the whims of whomever happens to have the power.

        THAT is the country we live in…

        …and it sucks.

        • Paul Hiett

          You folks seem to be thinking of this situation in such a narrow minded perspective. You really need to look at the larger picture.

          http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/doctor-refuses-to-care-for-gay-couples-baby-is/202580

          • Nordog6561

            “You folks..”

            LOL

            Media Matters!

            ROFLMAO

            I’ll just note that you are fine with using the crushing power of government to force people into servitude (unless they are people you like).

          • Paul Hiett
          • Nordog6561

            You’re great at shifting attention away from the point.

            You’re a piece of work.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one that mocked the source. Are you going to mock these sources too?

          • Nordog6561

            If you weren’t such an fatuous fool you would realize that I was not mocking sources, I was mocking you.

            Besides, if you weren’t so stupid you would realize that I addressed the issue raised by the particulars of your appeal to emotion.

            Again, the bottom line is that you are a Leftist LGBTSTFU fascist and love the use of government as a cudgel to beat those you disagree with.

            Ironically, you are no different than the Democrats who gave us Jim Crow, another government program used to bludgeon an disfavored group of people.

            You are, among other things, equal parts pathetic and repugnant.

          • Paul Hiett

            See, this is the narrow minded point of view that you, and many others obviously, hold fast to. You don’t want to think about the bigger picture…you don’t want to think about the ramifications that allowing such discrimination will have on a bigger scale.

            You can claim I’m pathetic and repugnant, but I’m not wrong.

          • Griffonn

            The bigger picture is that you are hoping to use the laws that applied to one situation (black civil rights) to destroy the boundaries between categories – such as the difference between “to be” and “to do” – so that you can ultimately destroy the boundaries between other categories – such as the difference between kinship vs. buying a baby off the internet.

          • Paul Hiett

            I really have no idea what you just said. Nothing of what you posted is either true or relevant. But by all means, assume anything you want. It’s a free world.

          • Griffonn

            That’s okay, you’re really not the person I hope to persuade of anything anyway.

          • Paul Hiett

            Based upon your propensity to insult others rather than discuss something, I’m quite happy about that.

          • Griffonn

            I actually try to focus on actions, not individuals.

            I neither know nor care whether you’re a nice person. I do care whether your argument is honest or not, because my primary interest is in trying to understand the manipulative rhetorical tricks the Left keeps trying to deploy.

            Because I believed you at first, when you said you just wanted to live and let live. And you guys repaid my trust by shoving a jackboot in my face and gloating about how live and let live doesn’t apply to Christians, because they’re dirty and because they’re not fully human and because they’re Other, and because “tolerance does not apply to the intolerant” – where “tolerance” has now become about domination and submission, in complete Newspeak perversion to the term’s actual meaning.

          • Paul Hiett

            My apologies, btw…that was Nordog6561 that insulted, not you.

            First, I do believe in a “live and let live” society, except when it comes to discriminating against others for reasons such as race, sexual orientation, gender, and religious choices. That’s where we MUST draw the line in our society.

            We’ve been there before, and one would have thought we had learned our lesson, but apparently not.

            Imagine if these bakers and florists had simply provided the services and/or goods they advertised. The gay couples would have their weddings, and the shops would flourish. Nothing would be on the news.

            Is that really not a better scenario?

          • Griffonn

            No, it is not a better scenario. My religion forbids me from participating in a gay wedding – even as an accomplice – and you have no right to ask me to (let alone demand me to).

            If tolerance is not to be reciprocated, you can shove your tolerance where the sun don’t shine. You have no more right to ask a Christian to make a gay cake than to insist that a kosher Jew make a bacon double cheeseburger (“a sandwich is a sandwich”, right?)

            You will not win this one. Greed will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

          • Paul Hiett

            Why is your choice a protected status, but something that is not a choice for some people not a protected status?

            Further, does the Jew advertise the hamburger? I’m guessing not.

            If you think about it, you’ll understand why your example does not apply.

          • Griffonn

            Because you don’t have the right to tell me what contracts I will and will not enter into?

            How about that?

            The New York Times feels perfectly free to refuse to accept certain types of advertising – what makes you think I’m less entitled than the New York Times to choose which contracts I enter into?

          • Paul Hiett

            Maybe I don’t, but the government and our constitution does. You need to read up on the Civil Rights Act and understand what changed and WHY it changed.

          • Paul Hiett

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

          • Griffonn

            Public accommodation does not include wedding cakes, flowers for your wedding, etc.

            More dishonesty.

          • Paul Hiett

            *sigh*

            Who sells those things?

          • Griffonn

            Slaves, apparently, since they had to give up their freedom as a precondition of doing business in America.

            I didn’t realize we lived in a fascist state, where the government owns the marketplace and all its participants….you do realize that fascism and communism traditionally have not worked out well for gays, right?

          • Bobbybestcat

            a kosher deli will have sliced beef available, and cheese. why not combine them?

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s fine. Again, if the store advertises something, they can’t refuse to sell that item based on the protected statuses outline in the Civil Rights Act, as well as any local/state laws.

          • Bobbybestcat

            OK, so you’re saying that since a kosher deli will have sliced beef available, and cheese in another section, I can insist upon them making me a beef and cheese sandwich because, heck, I don’t keep kosher? Frankly, I would never force that on them.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m pretty sure they would make it for you just fine. You really might want to use a different example.

            A more apt example would be like getting upset at Long John Silvers for not selling sushi to a Japanese man.

          • Bobbybestcat

            why do you think they would be fine selling me a non-kosher sandwich? That is very presumptuous, and not likely at a truly kosher establishment.

          • MC

            I went to a Kosher deli, I ordered a turkey sandwich with Swiss cheese, the guy at the counter said he couldn’t put the cheese on the sandwich and it would be wrapped up in a separate bag. I went to a Mexican restaurant and ordered a chicken burrito with egg, my waitress refused to combine the two because she said it was wrong to put the mother and the baby together. I politely told her to forget the egg. What I didn’t do was whine and cry and threaten to firebomb those businesses, I didn’t send them death threats. What I did was accept their beliefs and how they conducted business in their establishment. But I guess I’m just a nice guy who was brought up well and to respect others. I never force anyone to do something they’re uncomfortable with, to me that’s a form of mental illness, that’s bullying and a form of mental rape.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t even know where to begin to address your straw man.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You just made that all up.

          • MC

            Sorry no, it’s all true. Whether you belive it or not is irrelevant. If you want to test what I said then go to a KOSHER deli and order a turkey sandwich with Swiss cheese.
            But in the meantime because you’re ignorant and obtuse:

            “On three separate occasions, the Torah tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. ***The rabbis extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together.*** In addition, the Talmud prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common (lox and cream cheese, for example). It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together.

            ***This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils, pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are cleaned, the sponges with which they are cleaned and the towels with which they are dried. A kosher household will have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for dairy. See Utensils below for more details.***

            One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy. Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours after meat. This is because fatty residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat, however, one need only rinse one’s mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in the mouth.”

          • MC

            Sorry no, it’s all true. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to the truth. If you want to test this, go to a KOSHER deli, who practice Jewish Dietary Laws, and ask for a Turkey sandwich with Swiss cheese. In the meantime, because you’re ignorant and obtuse, here’s some of the Laws:

            “Separation of Meat and Dairy 

            On three separate occasions, the Torah tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). ***The oral Torah explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together.*** In addition, the Talmud prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common (lox and cream cheese, for example). It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together. 

            This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils, pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are cleaned, the sponges with which they are cleaned and the towels with which they are dried. A kosher household will have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for dairy. See utensils below for more details. 

            One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy. Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours after meat. This is because fatty residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat, however, one need only rinse one’s mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in the mouth.”

            “Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals. 
            Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. 
            All blood must be drained from meat and poultry or broiled out of it before it is eaten. 
            Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten. 
            Fruits and vegetables are permitted, but must be inspected for bugs (which cannot be eaten) 
            ***Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy.*** Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. (According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat). 
            Utensils (including pots and pans and other cooking surfaces) that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot. 
            Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. 
            There are a few other rules that are not universal.

            Separation of meat and milk
            “Meat and milk (or derivatives) cannot be mixed 

             (Deuteronomy 14:21) in the sense that meat and dairy products are not served at the same meal, served or cooked in the same utensils, or stored together. Observant Jews have separate sets of dishes, and sometimes different kitchens, for meat and milk, and wait anywhere between one and six hours after eating meat before consuming milk products. The milchig and fleishig utensils and dishes are the commonly referred to Yiddish delineations between dairy and meat (lit. milky and meaty) utensils and dishes respectively.”

            “The laws of Kosher require that in addition to not eating them together, we wait a specified period of time between eating meat and eating dairy.
            After eating dairy and before eating meat, eat something pareve, which does not stick to the palate. Then rinse your mouth, or take a drink, and wash your hands. In addition, many have the custom of waiting a certain period of time — a half-hour or an hour. After eating certain hard cheeses, a six-hour waiting period is required. 

            After eating meat foods, we wait six full hours before eating any dairy. The six-hour waiting period is standard for all Jews, except those groups which have halachically established other customs.

            If a small piece of meat is discovered between the teeth, remove it and rinse the mouth, but an additional waiting period is not required (even if six hours have elapsed since eating meat). If even the smallest amount of food is chewed or swallowed, the full waiting period becomes necessary.

            If food is tasted but immediately eliminated from the mouth before chewing or swallowing, then no waiting period is required. One should rinse the mouth well.

            Meat and dairy foods may not be eaten at the same meal, even if they are in separate dishes and even if the waiting time elapses.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, they really wouldn’t have cheese if they were strictly kosher. And anyway, there is no protected class at issue in your example.

            When will you people understand that anti-discrimination laws only apply to a few, select groups of people? Your wild hypotheticals are all irrelevant because they don’t involve members of protected classes.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think so. But you already knew that.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, we’re the ones who gave you the Civil Rights Act, which does exactly the same thing as modern anti-discrimination laws.

          • Nordog6561

            Actually, the GOP gave us the Civil Rights Act. The Dems were against it.

            Thanks for playing.

            Now, GFY.

          • Griffonn

            Well, he’s got to be. The gay rights movement is built entirely out of lies; they have to practice sophistry, distraction, and argumentum-ad-homicordipopulum daily.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you going to claim that the article is a lie?

          • Griffonn

            If it’s important, you can summarize the argument for me. I don’t see why I should figure out what argument you’re trying to make.

          • Paul Hiett

            Allowing the kind of discrimination Christians are asking for opens up the door to much worse scenarios, such as when a doctor refuses to treat people based on sexual orientation.

            This isn’t that hard to figure out folks.

          • Griffonn

            It doesn’t open the door to anything. People have the right to refuse to enter into contracts if they like, and always had, and yet the gay rights movement is stronger than it used to be, so apparently people having that power has not had a detrimental effect on anyone.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you open a business and advertise to the general public, you no longer fall under the “freedom of association” act.

            Do you understand this?

          • Griffonn

            Fortunately, I have a funny feeling that is going to change soon.

            Keep up the good work. Last I heard, even my kids’ left wing teacher thought you were behaving like bullies!

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh yes, gays wanting to be married and have equal rights are such bullies.

          • Griffonn

            Well, I’d be cool with it if they really believed that, for them, marriage “is not procreative”.

            but alas: this too is a lie. They want to argue that because they’re married, we have to recognize the child they just bought as a child “with two mommies”. And of course why do they care so much about having a child together (as opposed to acting the way they would act as if they really believed marriage is not necessarily procreative*)? Because that child is what makes them “married” – “you have to recognize us as married, because we have kids together”.

            Lies, lies, and then some lies on top.

            *If gays really believed marriage was not procreative, then there would be no need for any child to ever be deliberately deprived of a mother or a father – let alone being pressured into pretending that having a “second mommy” is just as good as having a father-relationship. But of course then gays would have no claim on the expressly procreative benefits of nature – and covetousness is the whole point….

            …that and the fun of depriving Christians of their right to recognize the bonds of family and kinship – and even of real adoption (the kind that is based on the needs of the child, rather than buying a child to satisfy the whims of adults) – are sacred bonds, gifts from God. Almost as much fun as forcing a Christian to pay for your abortion! Because what is more fun than hating? Depriving the person you hate of his freedom to abstain from what he holds to be dirty…when you are afraid that he is right, and what you are doing IS in fact dirty….

          • Mike

            What “Freedom of Association” act?

            Freedom of association derives from the First Amendment, not some act of law.

          • Paul Hiett

            Freudian slip, nothing more. Please address the point though, not my error.

          • Mike

            So you’re saying that when you go into business and advertise to the public you give up 1st amendment rights?

            Really?

            I wonder what the New York Times would say about that if there was a law being considered to censor their editorials… Hey, they’re in business, so the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to them!

          • Paul Hiett

            A business that offers goods/services to the general public are not protected entirely by the first amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 64 is what changed this. It prevents a business from discriminating based on gender, race, religion, etc.

            Your newspaper example would only be valid if the Times refused to sell to blacks, or women, etc. I hope you get the point.

            Read up on your history.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes they are. You’re not waiving First Amendment rights by opening a business. It’s just that the First Amendment doesn’t allow you to deny service to people in a protected class because they’re in that class.

          • MC

            And then he uses CNN and HuffPo as sources. HAHAHAHA!

          • Paul Hiett

            Out of curiosity, are you claiming that this incident didn’t happen? I’ve posted 4 sources regarding the story. Rather than try to claim the story is invalid because of which news site is reporting it, why not actually address the story itself? Would you like some more sources?

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/19/pediatrician-refuses-to-treat-baby-with-lesbian-parents-and-theres-nothing-illegal-about-it/
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/18/doctor-discrimination-baby/23642091/

            There’s two more….want to try and discredit these sources too?

          • MC

            I never denied the story, but your sources makes me laugh.

          • Paul Hiett

            CNN? Washington Post? USA Today? Detroit News?

            Really?

          • Peter Leh

            it is a distraction. somehow we can never get the “real story” due to liberal sources yet will regurgitate rush, the pulpit, or fox news without blinking.

            time for christians to grow up there are plenty of source of the left and right for you to “ballpark” it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What is so difficult about this for you people to understand? There are valid reasons to deny service and invalid ones. Race, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation are invalid ones, so much so that we have codified it into law.

            It’s not hard but it’s more nuanced than “I get to deny service to EVERYBODY!!!”

          • Nordog6561

            I love it when bigots use phrases like “you people”.

            Thank you for not disappointing.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How about you actually respond to what I’m saying?

          • Nordog6561

            Because I’m not inclined to do what you want or expect.

            You could say I’m discriminating against you.

            Now, GFY.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That is completely withing the rights of that physician, Mr. Hiett.
            Don’t like it? Find another doctor, okay?

      • jmichael39

        I think there are many justifiable reasons for not being forced to do something that violates your conscience…religion being one of them. Don’t you? I don’t think a gynecologist should be forced to perform abortions if that violates their conscience. I don’t think a black business owner should be compelled to perform a service for a white supremacists gala if it violates their conscience. I don’t think a woman should be compelled to make a cake that endorses a belief that violates their conscience either. And I think a gay business owner should not be forced, for example, to print t-shirts for an anti-gay rally if they believe it violates their sincerely held beliefs.

        Or would you prefer to take the low road and just force everyone to believe the same things in life and think the same way? or face being labeled and converted into a second class citizen if they don’t? I know some people from your side of this debate who actually believe a gynecologist SHOULD be forced to perform abortions or lose federal funding for other patients and/or be stripped of their license to practice medicine. Do you?

        • Dream Theater Rocks

          You have made a very valid point. Excellent comment.

          • jmichael39

            Notice Paul has nothing pithy to say in response.

        • magormissabib

          I think Mitt Romney expsoe the hypocricy of those who would say all discrimination is wrong when he gave the example of the gay printer being forced to print Godhatesfags signs for the Westboro Baptist Church.

          • jmichael39

            there are nearly an endless supply of such examples…i.e. – a jewish baker before forced to decorate a cake for neo-nazis, etc. Like I said, there are PLENTY of legitimate reasons why a business owner should be afforded the liberty to refuse to perform a service.

      • Bobbybestcat

        yes

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        On what basis does this baker have the right to discriminate against that Christian customer? Discrimination based on religion is prohibited under the law, remember?
        Can you say, “Hypocrite,” Mr. Hiett?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          The baker didn’t refuse to serve him because he’s Christian. She (partially) refused service because he wanted derogatory things written on his cake.

          Bakers can’t refuse to serve customers because the customer is Christian. Christians are a protracted class. They can refuse to serve customers because the customer wants gay bashing on a cake because gay bashers are NOT a protected class.

          Is this getting through to you yet? It’s not that difficult.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The baker discriminated against him because he wanted Christian quotations written on his cake. She clearly violated the law. Those who defend her illegal discrimination while, at the same time, totally freak out because a baker, florist, photographer, etc., will not provide services/products for a SS counterfeit “wedding” ceremonies, are complete hypocrites.

          • Asemodeus

            The baker refused service because derogatory messages are not a protected class. End of story.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            And the Christian baker, florist, photographer, etc., refused service because mockery of Holy Matrimony is not a protected class. End of story.

          • Asemodeus

            They refused service because they discriminated against a protected class.

            Not that hard to understand.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            They refused service because SS counterfeit “marriage” ceremonies are not a protected class. Not that hard to understand.
            (This is called being hoisted on one’s own petard, Asemodeus.)

            Either, Miss Silva discriminated against Mr. Jack’s religion, or, these other bakers, etc., have not discriminated.
            You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.

  • Angelo S

    America: From Freedom To Fascism.

  • Chrissy Vee

    Egads! :{

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    UPDATE: Memories Pizza’s, the Indiana pizza place that has been mercilessly attacked by homo-fascists, GoFundMe account was shut-down on Friday, as planned. But, not before it received OVER $840,000!!!! Thanks, homo-fascists!
    Even though anti-freedom loving leftwingers did everything they could to bully GoFundMe into shutting down the account. Losers!

    Meanwhile…
    The homo-fascists set up their own GoFundMe account in a lame attempt to show those pizza-making bigots what’s for! They set a goal of reaching One Million Dollars. They raised a grand total of….less than 600 bucks!

    Here’s the link to the florist being sued by homo-fascists, and she might lose her store and home:
    http://www.gofundme.com/mz6zm4

  • Charlie Baldridge

    I bet if the person ordering the cakes had left off the images of two men with “X”s on them and only had the verses the baker would have been more likely to do the cakes. I would have refused to do it either, just as quick a I would have refused it had it been gays bashing Christans. Hate is hate and I don’t condone it from anyone.

  • magormissabib

    God still hates [email protected]

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      God loves everyone, because He is Love, Magormissabib.
      So, you’re wrong.

      Love your neighbor as yourself.
      “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you […].'”

      • magormissabib

        BE QUIET. God hates all workers of iniquity Psalm 5:5

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          No, I won’t be quiet. You be quiet, Magormissabib.
          Christ IS God, remember?

          • magormissabib

            you blood is on your own hands. I warned you the word of God contradicts that lie that you love. God hates [email protected]

          • Paul Hiett

            WBC member, eh?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            God loves homosexuals. He even loves you, Magormissabib.
            Christ commands that we love our neighbors and enemies. If you don’t, you’re disobeying God.

          • magormissabib

            er yeah , because frying them alive with fire and brimstone is love. I told you shut up /

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Twisting God’s Word is an even worse sin, Magormissabib. See what happened to the Temple authorities in A.D. 70.
            Now, please, be quiet, okay?

          • magormissabib

            yes twisting God destroying billions in the flood and milions in Sodom to mean that God loves everyone is a sin. shut up and stop it.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, you stop twisting God’s Word, okay, Magormissabib?

          • magormissabib

            Nick the Bible ignorant fool: ”God loves everyone.”
            GODS word: Lev_20:23 … I abhorred them.
            Gods word:Deu_32:19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them,

        • MO

          So he is hating you right now cause your causing iniquity by spreading more HATE

          • magormissabib

            not my problem you hate the truth of god.

          • MO

            thats a cop out to owning up to YOUR BS and hate mongering

          • magormissabib

            GOD hates f#gs. pay attention.

          • MO

            what is an f#gs?

          • MO

            what is a f#gs?

          • MO

            Almighty Creator hates evil!

            fags; a tiring or unwelcome task.

            informal derogatory and offensive to a male homosexual

            in Britain a junior person at a private prep school who runs errands for senior person < i.e. US gopher, < informal

            used as a verb, works hard, especially at a tedious task. In the 1920's short for faggot, British spelling fagot, which is a bundle of sticks or twigs.

            faggot … (food), British meatball commonly made of pork offal (ewe)
            Science … faggot cell …
            surname jacob faggot 1699-1777

            so mag or miss abib, you may be really uninformed, misread biblical text or do not fully comprehend what you are reading, and make it what YOU want for it to say, speaking of biblical text.

            have a good day.

          • MO

            yah, right

      • magormissabib

        did you flunk out of grade school? Dont be so careless with the word of God. If God commands men to love thier neighbors , first of all that does not say that HE does not abhor thewicked , especially when the word expressly says he does. Second loving your neighbor doe snot mean accepting to tolerating trheir sin. it means to rebuke them for it.

        • Paul Hiett

          Never mind that whole golden rule thing, or live and let live, right? Can’t have people out there with differing opinions!

          • magormissabib

            God commanded death for s0domites. This is not about opinions but about filthy practices.

          • Paul Hiett

            So why aren’t you out there killing them?

          • magormissabib

            Im not the law ,moron.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Pot calling kettle, Mr. Hiett. You’re as intolerant as Magormissabib. You don’t believe in live and let live.
            You, and your ilk, want to force others to violate their consciences and deeply held beliefs. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

            Even lesbians & homosexuals are denouncing your side, Mr. Hiett:
            “My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” Hoffman said in a radio interview. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”

            Hoffman said the “horrible, hate-filled attacks” against the pizzeria and its Christian owners did not reflect the gay community that she has come to know and love.

            “The gay community that we know knows full well what it’s like to be condemned for doing nothing but living your life according to your beliefs,” she added. “We know so many gay individuals that fully support the freedom of living your life according to your beliefs and feel that freedom extends to everyone, even the people that we don’t agree with.”

            Hoffman’s donation with her accompanying message brought Memories co-owner Crystal O’Connor to tears.

            Another gay man, Buz Smith, sent in a $250 donation to the Memories campaign as well, accusing the Democratic leadership of hijacking the gay community and promoting religious intolerance. Other members of the gay community wrote in applauding Hoffman’s gesture and backing up her stance.

            Are these people also “christofascists”? Why can they see the truth and you can’t, Mr. Hiett?
            Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/gay-woman-apologizes-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-sends-donation/

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          You wouldn’t know the Word of God if it hit you in the head, Magormissabib. You mother should have smacked you upside your head with a Bible when you were young, it would have done you more good.
          You have repeated what Saint Augustine said long ago:
          Love the sinner, hate the sin.

          • magormissabib

            No stupid augustine did not say that. Ghandi did..

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Wrong, Magormissabib, it was Saint Augustine. And, it shouldn’t be twisted to mean that sinners should NOT be admonished. They should. Again, we are ALL SINNERS. Even you, Magormissabib.
            Here’s a quote from a Catholic writer that explains this better:
            “Hate the sin but love the sinner” is a paraphrase taken from a letter written by St. Augustine giving instruction to a religious order of nuns on certain means of discipline to be observed in the correction of unlawful practices by their members: “When convicted of the fault, it is her duty to submit to the corrective discipline which may be appointed by the prioress or the prior. If she refuse to submit to this, and does not go away from you of her own accord, let her be expelled from your society. For this is not done cruelly but mercifully, to protect very many from perishing through infection of the plague with which one has been stricken. Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other faults” ([bold] added).
            A careful reading of St. Augustine’s letter makes it clear that the paraphrase “hate the sin but love the sinner” was not meant as a panacea to serve in the place of either condemnation or punishment of a wrongdoer. Its purpose, rather, was to inform that righteous condemnation and punishment, in the proper Christian sense, was not from malice but for the greater good of the offender as well as the community. Sin is definitely not a zero-sum game as justice and rectification for every sin must be realized, whether in this life or beyond.

            http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=1184952.0

          • magormissabib

            blah blah;to hell with all your pseudo religious garble: Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
            Psa 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
            God HATES.ABHORS, and detests them.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?
            – Ezekiel 33:11

            For the Lord will not cast off for ever, 32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; 33 for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men.
            – Lamentations 3:31-32

            Who is a God like thee, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger for ever because he delights in steadfast love. 19 He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our* sins into the depths of the sea. 20* Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old.

            – Micah 7:18-20

            You’re twisting the Word of God, Magormissabib.

          • magormissabib

            What you bible ignorant dummies all fail to recognize is that from the beginning there are TWO demographics,TWO distinct categories of people: the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, the workers of iniquity and the people of God, the children of God and the children of the Devil ,the elect and the non elect. Paul describes these two classes of people in Romans 9 represented by Jacob and Esau. Jacob is the standing symbol for the elect whom God loves and Esau the symbol for all of the non elect whom God hates.

            The one twisting the word of God here is you. I showed you plain words telling who it is whom God hates and you still are trying to tell me the lie that God loves and wants to save everyone.

            Rom_9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Christ came to save both Jews and Gentiles. If you don’t know this, Magormissabib, I suggest you start with Saint Matthew 1:1 and read straight through to Saint John’s Apocalypse 22:21.
            So, stop violently wrenching Scripture out of context, okay?
            Romans 10:12-21 :
            12* For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. 13* For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15* And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” 16* But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. 18* But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” 19* Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” 20* Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21* But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

          • magormissabib

            He came to save his people OUT of the Jews and Gentiles but not all Jews and Gentiles. Mt 1:21 He came for his SHEEP. not the dogs, hogs or goats. You are WAY behind on this topic.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The Gentiles were the “hogs,” Magormissabib. They were unclean, remember? Christ came for both the sheep and the swine.

          • magormissabib

            Gods word NEVER refers to gentiles as swine.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Haven’t you ever read Acts 10 & 11, Magormissabib? The unclean animals represent the Gentiles. Pigs were unclean.
            Get it now?

          • magormissabib

            I will reiterate my point. Christ came for his sheep , Not the dogs nor hogs nor goats. The terms dogs, hogs and goats in Christs teaching do not refer to gentiles. He came and died and he loves his ELECT ONLY Joh_10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. The sheep may be gentiles or jews. THAT is the meaning of Acts/ and Jn 3:16 etc.

            Rev_22:15 For without are dogs,(sodomite-fags) and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

            Mat_7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.

            Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand (goats), Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

            Dogs and swine are unclean. [email protected] are unclean. got it.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!! Wrong!

            Yes, dogs and swine are unclean. So was the Gentile Caananite woman Christ was talking to in Matthew 15:
            21* And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24* He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25* But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. 28* Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.”

          • magormissabib

            Jesus already cleared it up in Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, meaning Gentiles as well as Jews. He did not come for Jews only. The dogs refered to in Rev are ”such persons who are comparable to dogs for their filthiness, impudence, and voraciousness, as are persecutors, heretics, and apostates, Mat_7:6. Some think Sodomites are intended, as in Deu_23:18. So Abarbinel and others interpret the law; and who abound in the Roman jurisdiction, called therefore Sodom, Rev_11:8 and indeed all wicked men, who will be cast out into outer darkness, may be signified hereby. ” (John Gilll)

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I didn’t say Christ came for the Jews only. Try to keep up, Magormissabib. He came for everybody.

          • magormissabib

            No he did NOT come for everybody, he came for his elect. ONLY.. what kind of a dope do you have to be to say he came for the people in hell and those who got to hell. Get a clue.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Straw man. I never claimed Christ came for those in Hell.
            He came for those souls on earth and in Sheol.

          • magormissabib

            You just said he came for everyone. Which is stupid , Jesus said that the path to hell is wide and many find it. Youre gonna tell me he came to deliver them,, What , did he fail? You gotta check your brain at the door when you go to church.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            My claim that Christ came for everybody does NOT include those in Hell. Hell is forever. Are we clear, now?
            I’m sure there are many souls in Hell.

          • magormissabib

            And since Christ came many billions of souls have also enterd hell. To say Christ died to save them is to say Christ failed.This is getting boring. Here: Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
            Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I just told you that those in Hell cannot be saved. The notion of a predestined “elect” is Calvinist error. How do you know that you’re elect? Calvin said that God may trick some into thinking that they’re elect, when, they’re really condemned. It’s called evanescent grace. Do you believe in that claptrap?

          • magormissabib

            Im showing you what the word says and you call it claptrap. Typical heretic. You said Christ loves everyone and died for everyone not just the elect . The only conclusion then is that he died for and loved the billions that have died and gone to hell since he came. This is not only hersy but just plain stupid. If Christ died for everyone then took thier place and their sins are coverd then everyoone of them would be saved .

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, I called evanescent grace claptrap. And, the Calvinist heresy of a “predestined elect.” Or, are you a Jehovah’s Witness?
            I never claimed that Christ came for those in Hell. He makes this quite clear in the parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man.
            The fact that you couldn’t figure that out, says more about you, I’m afraid.

          • magormissabib

            see. you are a waste of time you reject the plain word of God. predestination and election are all thru the bible. I already posted a few and Im not gonna keep repeating myself. Good bye.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, I reject your fanciful notions, Magormissabib. Calvin was wrong.

          • magormissabib

            How many time do you have to read it before it sinks in. Christ came for his sheep. Not the hogs dogs or goats. Joh_10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Just because you twist it out of context doesn’t make it true.

          • magormissabib

            whats twisted. tho only one twisted here is you asserting that God loves the people in hell.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Straw man. I never made any such claim. Quit twisting what I wrote, along with God’s Word, okay?

          • magormissabib

            Of couorse you did .

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Show me where.

          • magormissabib

            Ok then shut up about the Jews and Gentiles. Did God send his son to die and to save Judas on one hand while on the other he ordained that Judas would betray Christ and be damned(Acts 2:23). What about those that he fashioned vessels of wrath and fitted them for destruction.(Romans 9:22) What about those who he ordained to condmenation in Jude, verse 4 .

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Where in the Sacred Scriptures does it say that Judas was condemned to Hell? Saint Paul, in Romans 9, is explaining that God knows every man’s heart, so, He knows that His actions will cause those “vessels of destruction” (i.e., the Jewish authorities) to kill His Anointed. Jude 4 doesn’t say “[H]e ordained” them. The Greek means “to enter from outside,” as in preachers of heresy warned of by Saint Peter (2Pet.2:1ff).
            Did God make homosexuals to be attracted to others of the same s-x? Did He make them so that they couldn’t repent of their sins? If so, what other sinful acts can’t be forgiven? We are all sinners, are we not? Are you, Magormissabib, claiming that you no longer commit sins?

          • magormissabib

            Judas did according to the predestination and prophecy decreed him to do: Joh_17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. You wanna make the case for God loving him now?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Son of destruction (Greek apóleia) doesn’t mean Judas was condemned to Hell. He was destined to betray Christ, what he did after that, we don’t know. He might have repented while he hung on that tree.

          • magormissabib

            lol yup the son of perdition is in heaven. Yikes the lengths you kooks will go to to defend your heresy. perdition
            a state of final spiritual ruin; loss of the soul; damnation.

            2.

            the future state of the wicked.

            3.

            hell (def 1).

            4.

            utter destruction or ruin.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, that’s just a bad translation. I gave you the Greek.

          • magormissabib

            i read the greek and it says ruin or loss, and the base word is appolumi which is to destroy fully damned eternal etc. You not only got a theology problem you got a plain englisn problem. He was damned yet he might be in heaven, Yikes.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, you should try Strong’s:

            684 /apṓleia (“perdition”) does not imply “annihilation” (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, “cut off”) but instead “loss ofwell-being” rather than being (Vine’s Expository Dictionary, 165; cf. Jn 11:50; Ac 5:37; 1 Cor 10:9-10; Jude 11).

            So….yeah.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What about all of my questions?

          • magormissabib

            I have been responding to you for days and you obviously do not read what I take the time to present to you. I have better things to do with my time. Do your own research on the topic of predestination and election in the word of god. Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
            Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
            Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I’ve read everything you’ve addressed to me, Magormissabib.
            Try this link, maybe you’ll learn something:
            http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/search/label/predestination?&max-results=8

          • magormissabib

            Jud_1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
            Yes, they were ordained , decreed, predestined by God do condemnation.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Oh, I thought you meant like an ordained priest. Again, God knows all men’s hearts, so, He knew these men would pervert the Good News.

          • magormissabib

            God ordained it. not looked into a crystal ball and saw what man whom wasnt even created would do. ordained. to decree; give orders for: God decreed it as it said in Act_2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Now what is determinate counsel? God not only foreknew that it would be, but determined that it should be, who does all things after the counsel of his own will; and this for the salvation of his people, and for the glorifying of his divine perfections: though this fixed resolution, settled purpose, and wise determination of God, did not in the least excuse the sin of Judas in betraying him, or of Pilate in condemning him, or of the Jews in crucifying him; nor did it at all infringe the liberty of their wills in acting, who did what they did, not by force, but voluntarily:

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Again, show me in God’s Word where it says that Judas, Pilate, or the Jewish authorities were condemned to burn in Hell?

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

          Ah, so God is a hypocrite, right?

  • socrates2k1

    Persecution of Christians, will only get worse, this is only the beginning!

    • MO

      And stupid Christians don’t help their demise with misquoting and mis-representing Jesus….

  • Parque_Hundido

    This is awesome news!

  • Truthseeker4Christ

    God can save anybody from sexual sin.

    Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

  • MO

    The verses were used incorrectly Mr. Jack just may get a curse from God Almighty.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    good for her!

  • adobong_paksiw

    The ruling is fair. I am a commited Christian but fair is fair. The man deliberately provoked somebody whom he knew to be gay and with whom he has not done business with peviously. He had malice aforethought.

  • Jim Deferio

    Marjorie Silva, like most Roman Catholics, is a BIG hypocrite. I bet she wears a crucifix but has never read the Bible. She is a hater of truth.

  • BrendtWayneWaters

    By his own admission, Jack prostituted God’s Word (which He prizes even above His name — Ps 138:2) to make a political point.

    A note for any unbelievers out there: Not all Christians see Jesus as their b****.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

    Great going Marjorie Silva! You are very good example of inclusiveness. You are following the Golden Rule in refusing to write hurtful words on the cakes. You are doing unto others as you would have them do unto you–something too many Christians reject. I solute you!

  • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

    Double Standard HOMO FASCISTS. God damn them all. GodHatesFags.com!