Pizzeria Forced to Close Following Threats Over Biblical Marriage Beliefs Re-Opens to Full House

OConnorWALKERTON, Ind. — A pizzeria in Indiana that was forced to close after it faced arson and death threats by homosexual activists and advocates for expressing their biblical beliefs on marriage re-opened last week to a full house.

As previously reported, the matter began when reporter Alyssa Marino of ABC 57 News in South Bend set out to interview area business owners about their reaction to the controversy over the recently signed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Among the businesses that she visited was Memories Pizza in Walkerton, a place that is decorated with crosses and quotes from Scripture, and begins each morning with prayer.

The establishment had never turned anyone away, nor were there any complaints about the pizzeria, and owner Crystal O’Connor explained to Marino that if a homosexual couple or someone of another religion came to eat there, Memories Pizza would never deny them service.

“I just walked into their shop and asked how they feel,” Marino explained on Twitter. “They’ve never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

However, one sentence in O’Connor’s response was highlighted in Marino’s report, as she stated that because of her Christian beliefs, she would have to draw the line at same-sex weddings, which some Christians believe would be a form of participation (1 Timothy 5:22, Ephesians 5:7).

“If a gay couple was to come in—like say, they wanted us to provide them pizzas for a wedding, we would have to say ‘no,’” O’Connor replied in response to Marino’s question.

“We are a Christian establishment,” she said. “We’re not discriminating against anyone. That’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Marino soon published an online report with the angle of “RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding,” and the nighttime television report read “Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

The story quickly went viral, and homosexual activists and advocates lashed out at O’Connor and Memories Pizza. Yelp was flooded with hundreds of negative reviews and vulgar photographs, and those angry about O’Connor’s response left messages on Facebook wishing bodily harm and death to the business owner.

“I pray to God all of you get food poisoning!” one commenter named Alex Ollmedo wrote.

“I pray your store burns to the ground with your family in it,” another named Jeff Green lashed out.

Police were called in when Jessica Dooley, a coach at an Elkhart County high school, Tweeted, “Who’s going to Walkerton with me to burn down Memories Pizza?”

The pizzeria soon closed shop and the O’Connor family went into hiding, fearing for their lives.

“I don’t know if we will re-open, or if we can—if it’s safe to re-open,” she told reporters. “We’re in hiding basically, staying in the house.”

A GoFundMe campaign was soon launched by a Blaze news reporter to help “relieve the financial loss endured by the proprietors’ stand for faith.” While the original goal was $200,000, donations exceeded $800,000 within a few days.

On Thursday, Memories Pizza re-opened its doors to a full house. The Associated Press reports that “within an hour, all eight tables were filled and six people were waiting for carryout orders.” There were no protests.

O’Connor’s father, Kevin, says that he and Crystal will not keep the donated funds for themselves, but will use it to improve the pizzeria and to donate to others who are going through similar situations, such as the florist in Washington who is at risk of losing her business, life savings and/or home because she did not want to participate in a same-sex “wedding.”

“I don’t hate these people. They are just angry,” he told the Daily Mail, referring to those who made threats against the pizzeria. “So many things today are topsy-turvey. What used to be wrong is now right and what used to be right is now wrong. I don’t hold anything against them.”

O’Connor reiterated that Memories Pizza has no problems serving homosexuals.

“I don’t care who comes through that door. They are people,” he said. “I don’t care if they are gay. I don’t care if they walk in on their hands. I don’t care if their heads are attached to their knee. They are more than welcome to come in and eat. That is not what is about. We believe that it is not right for a man to marry a man and for a woman to marry a woman.”

Crystal O’Connor made similar remarks, stating that her answer that day when she was approached by the reporter wasn’t crafted to be popular, but to honor God.

“I was asked a hypothetical question and that was the answer I gave. But I didn’t hope to gain anything by saying what I said. I wasn’t trying to score points,” she said. “It is something I believe in from my heart and my faith about gay weddings. But I don’t regret what I said. I have been scared, but God is giving me strength. I think it is nothing compared to what Christ had to suffer.”


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
  • UmustBKiddinMe

    They were not “forced” to close. They chose to close in what I believe to be no more than a publicity stunt.

    No doubt they are donating $800,000 worth of pizza to the hungry and needy. That would, after all, be the Christian thing to do.

    • Mary Waterton

      You’re a horrible person. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that you’re one of those who made the death threats and vandalized Memories Pizza:

      https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1906/6927/original.jpg

      • MisterPine

        But of course when Christian pastors call for the execution of homosexuals that’s just fine with you? You KNOW I can provide MANY examples.

        • Richard

          Execution of homosexuals? Really? I’ve been in the church for many years and I’ve not heard that once or from any of my Christian friends.

          I’ve also listened to a bajillion messages and not once did I hear that Christians should execute homosexuals.

          I know of many atheist regimes who have actually executed millions of Christians. Are you saying your claim is on the same scale?

          • MisterPine

            We’re not talking about Christians vs. atheists, Richard. We are talking about Christians vs. homosexuals.

            Pastor Donnie Romero, founder of Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas
            Texas pastor brags about harassing lesbians as he calls for death of ‘dirty f*ggots’
            “I love that part of the Bible, and I’m going to preach that part of the Bible until the day I die, and if I ever stop preaching that part of the Bible, I hope my kids tell me, ‘Dad, you’re going soft on sin. You need to get up there and rip on these queers because it’s only getting worse and worse’”
            “Romero said gays should be marked for death, unlike other sinners, because he said God views them as an abomination.”
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/texas-pastor-brags-about-harassing-lesbians-as-he-calls-for-death-of-dirty-fggots/

            Patsor Stephen L. Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona
            ‘Kill All Homos’ Pastor: ‘It’s the Government’s Job’ to Execute Gay People (VIDEO)
            http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/06/kill-all-homos-pastor-its-the-governments-job-to-execute-gay-people-video/
            http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/arizona-pastor-the-government-should-use-the-death-penalty-on-homosexuals/
            “It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there,” he told his congregation after quoting from Leviticus. “Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”
            “Rather than the government’s job is to punish criminals and to execute those who commit capital crimes and, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a capital crime, and I didn’t write the Bible.”
            “Well, that’s just a fallacy that it just turns out that certain people are gay. That’s just a lie. Because it’s not random — it’s not something that’s just gonna accidentally happen to one of my children…”

            AZ Pastor’s ‘Biblical’ FINAL SOLUTION to ‘Homo’ ‘Pedophiles’: Mass Extermination (VIDEO)
            http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/this-arizona-pastor-wants-to-cure-aids-by-exterminating-all-the-homos-video/
            “And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.
            Because just think — what would be your attitude toward pedophiles? That should be your attitude toward homos. Would you have pedophiles over for a family gathering? Would you invite pedophiles into the church? No — that’s what they are.”

            Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church
            “I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.”
            http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/north-carolina-pastor-calls-death-gays-lesbians-trapping-electric-fence-article-1.1082160

            Pastor Robby Gallaty, Brainerd Baptist Church
            “They must be put to death. And their blood is on their own hands”
            http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/04/christian-pastor-at-mega-chruch-calls-on-gays-to-be-put-to-death/

            Pastor Curtis Knapp, of the New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas
            “They should be put to death. Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”
            http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/audio-pastor-curtis-knapp-calls-us-government-kill-gays

            Pastor Robert Anderson, Colonial Baptist Church
            “Those who practice such things are deserving of death”
            http://www.theindychannel.com/news/pastor-says-same-sex-couples-worthy-of-death

            Pastor Michael V. Williams, PreachingPolitics
            “practice of homosexuality in the United States of America and in all its territories and possessions, and in all its States, Counties and Cities shall be a felony punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor.”
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/pastor-calls-to-imprison-gays-for-ten-years-hard-labor-with-new-constitutional-amendment/

            Reverend Michael Crook
            “I really, truly wish that atheism and homosexuality could both be criminalized with the death penalty as end result”
            http://aattp.org/christian-pastor-calls-for-atheists-and-gays-to-be-put-to-death/

          • Richard

            We are talking about similar issues. You don’t want to compare them because of how poorly it reflects on your argument.

            But a few people? A few radicals?

            Have you seen them go to a homosexual’s home and smash windows? Threaten to kill them personally? Go to their work place and force them to quit? How about force them to close their businesses? Have you seen that?

            Idle threats is one thing. Following through is quite another.

            I don’t agree with those radicals, else all sinners should be killed. But 8 out of millions is hardly many. You have radicals in all walks of life.

          • MisterPine

            So you say you’ve never heard of such a thing and I present several to you, and now you try to trivialize those people. Really?

            Did it escape you that these people are PASTORS?

            Did it escape you that they’re using Bible passages to justify killing homosexuals? How is that acceptable on ANY level, and do you not FINALLY see who the bullies and the bigots are in this situation?

          • Richard

            8 out of millions of pastors is fairly insignificant. As I said, I don’t agree with their comments. But, like you, they are entitled to their opinions.

            > Did it escape you that they’re using Bible passages to justify killing homosexuals?

            Many people use Bible passages inappropriately. It’s not right. But people will be people.

            > How is that acceptable on ANY level,

            In my opinion, it isn’t.

            > How is that acceptable on ANY level,

            Do you support breaking windows, issuing death threats, and forcing a business to close because the owners don’t want to participate in something that goes against their beliefs?

          • MisterPine

            No I don’t, but that doesn’t make it RIGHT.

            The owners have two options. They can provide their service to all, or they can close. They don’t get to pick and choose.

          • Richard

            > but that doesn’t make it RIGHT.

            Why not? I thought you said everyone has the right to live by their beliefs and convictions? Are you now saying they shouldn’t?

            If a gay baker didn’t want to make me (a Christian) pastries, fair enough. There are lots of other bakeries around. But to turn around and force them out of business (or make an example of them) is wrong, in my opinion.

            > They don’t get to pick and choose.

            Does that mean we should force all Jewish and Muslim restaurants owners to serve pork? What about vegan restaurants to serve meat?

          • MisterPine

            > Why not? I thought you said everyone has the right to live by their beliefs and convictions? Are you now saying they shouldn’t?

            You just don’t get it, do you? You have a right to live by your beliefs and convictions but you can’t deny service to people just because you don’t like what they do in their private lives. Why is it so hard for you to practice your Christianity without being a discriminatory jerk?

            >Does that mean we should force all Jewish and Muslim restaurants owners to serve pork? What about vegan restaurants to serve meat?

            What are you talking about? This is a pizzeria. They serve pizza. They aren’t being told what to serve. They can’t deny serving THE VERY PRODUCT THEY MAKE just because of what they imagine is going on in the bedroom of the person requesting service.

          • Richard

            > You have a right to live by your beliefs and convictions but you can’t deny service to people just because you don’t like what they do in their private lives.

            Why should your rights trump mine? I don’t force you to go to church, why should gays force Christians to participate in their weddings?

            > Why is it so hard for you to practice your Christianity without being a discriminatory jerk?

            Aren’t you discriminating against my beliefs? Does that make you a jerk?

            > What are you talking about?

            By your same rationale, I should be able to force vegetarian restaurants to go against their beliefs and serve meat. That’s what gays are asking Christians to do…to serve events against their beliefs. There’s no difference. In both cases, someone wants to force them to do things that are against their beliefs. It appears you don’t get it.

          • MisterPine

            > Why should your rights trump mine? I don’t force you to go to church, why should gays force Christians to participate in their weddings?

            My rights aren’t trumping yours. It’s a pizzeria. Pizza is food. People eat food. People eat food at weddings. SS weddings are legal, therefore there is no reason to deny service. It isn’t “participating in their wedding”. Making pizza is what they do.

            > Aren’t you discriminating against my beliefs? Does that make you a jerk?
            I am not denying you the right to your beliefs. When when you exercise beliefs that break the law and hurt people, however, you’re crossing the line.

            > By your same rationale, I should be able to force vegetarian restaurants to go against their beliefs and serve meat.

            No, I am not telling the pizzeria owners what food they can or can’t or should or should not prepare. Your argument is silly. They are being asked to provide the exact thing they make. This isn’t about the product being sold. It’s about a refusal to deliver it based on a discomfort over what is imagined about what’s taking place in someone’s bedroom.

          • Richard

            > My rights aren’t trumping yours.

            Yes, they are. Forcing a Christian to participate in a gay wedding is trumping a Christian’s right to say no.

            It is participating in a wedding event. What do you think catering is?

            > No, I am not telling the pizzeria owners

            Your spin is missing the point. Forcing someone to participate in an event that goes against their beliefs is still FORCING. No matter what role they are playing in it.

          • Paul Hiett

            They are not participating, Richard, they are providing a service that they advertise to the general public…catering.

          • MisterPine

            > It is participating in a wedding event. What do you think catering is?
            It’s part of a restaurant’s job is what it is. Catering is not participating in a wedding, and even the law is on my side on this one.

            > Your spin is missing the point. Forcing someone to participate in an event that goes against their beliefs is still FORCING. No matter what role they are playing in it.

            There is no spin, sonny. If you are a restaurant, and you cater, you don’t get to choose who you cater to. If SS marriage is legal in that state, the restaurant hasn’t got a single legal reason to object to providing the service.

          • Paul Hiett

            Once sexual orientation becomes a protected status in this country, this argument dies out completely, fortunately.

          • MisterPine

            Can’t happen soon enough.

          • Richard

            You do realize that no matter how many laws get passed, none of them have any bearing on the final judgement.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you realize that your proposed “final judgement” has no bearing on the laws of this nation?

            Yeah yeah, I know you won’t respond…you are liar and refuse to communicate on a mature level.

          • MisterPine

            I elect not to live my life ruled by Bronze Age superstition.

          • Richard

            Call it what you like. Until you can definitively prove God doesn’t exist, yours is just an opinion. But you are entitled to it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Until you can definitively prove God does exist, yours is just an opinion, which you are certainly entitled to.

          • Richard

            God is already established as historical fact. If you think not, grab a ten dollar bill and look and see what it says.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            How would that be relevant? Because it’s in print?

          • Richard

            It’s relevant because a department of the US government recognizes God as real, not fiction. God is also recognized as real in the legal system.

            If you don’t believe in God, which has already been established as real, you would need to disprove the facts and not just make a dogmatic assertion.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Believing that God is real does not mean that the God of the Bible is the true God. God means different things to different people. Because you have chosen to hold to a particular belief does not result in that belief being definitively true.

            That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            An individual or a government “recognizing” that something is real does not make it real. If that were true, then the governments of ancient societies that recognized Zeus, etc., means that those gods were real as well.

          • Richard

            > Believing that God is real does not mean that the God of the Bible is the true God.

            The God the US is referring to is the Christian God. Not some other god.

            > That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            Faith has nothing to do with fact. Faith is defined as: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Atheists have great faith in their beliefs even though there isn’t any evidence to support the belief that God doesn’t exist.

            With Christianity, there is an abundance of evidence to support a belief in God. With atheism, there’s none.

            > An individual or a government “recognizing” that something is real does not make it real

            That’s true. But they made that claim because they knew God was real. Until you can prove God doesn’t exist, believing God doesn’t exist is just an opinion, but not fact.

            How many currencies do you see today that say “In Zeus We Trust?”

            Here again is another straw man: equating a fictional character with a real one.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “to support a belief in God”

            Agreed. Belief.

            “But they made that claim because they knew God was real.”

            Actually, they added that to the currency because of the cold war.

            “Until you can prove God doesn’t exist,”

            It’s impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.

            Believing God does exist is just an opinion, but not fact. Please understand that I have a strong faith in God.

            “How many currencies do you see today that say “In Zeus We Trust?”

            None. Nor is that relevant. You presenting the argument that a governing body recognizing something therefore means that thing is real. My analogy is apt.

            “equating a fictional character”

            Prove he is fictional.

          • Richard

            Beliefs can be based on things that are real and true, and those that aren’t. In the Christian’s case, God is real. It’s a sound belief because of the abundance of evidence to support the reality of God. In an atheist’s case, it’s blind faith based on nothing but personal preference.

            > Actually, they added that to the currency because of the cold war.

            That’s the reason they did it, but that doesn’t negate who they put their trust in…a real God…not some imaginary fabrication.

            > Believing God does exist is just an opinion, but not fact

            That’s your opinion. But that doesn’t mean your opinion is true. God is fact, as already established. If you disagree with this fact, you would have to disprove it. Can you?

            > None. Nor is that relevant.

            It became relevant when you brought it up. And it proves my point.

            > My analogy is apt.

            Not at all since you don’t have one instance of “In Zeus We Trust’ confirming that Zeus is real.

            > Prove he is fictional.

            Beyond a reasonable doubt, or beyond all possibility?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I certainly respect that you have chosen to believe that the God of the Bible is real.

            “That’s your opinion. But that doesn’t mean your opinion is true.”

            Unless you can provide irrefutable proof that the Christian God, as described in the Bible, and his beliefs, as described in the Bible are true, then, no, it is not merely my opinion. It is fact.

            “Beyond a reasonable doubt, or beyond all possibility?”

            Doesn’t means doesn’t. That requires “beyond all possibility”.

          • Richard

            > I certainly respect that you have chosen to believe that the God of the Bible is real.

            Thank you. I chose God initially, but over time, God revealed himself to me. God is as real as (of course, more so) than my parents and personal family. Faith is no longer a bridge between not being sure and trusting. It’s now both knowing for sure and trusting. This didn’t come through my own effort, but from God himself. The Bible says he chooses who he reveals himself to, and that is true. He did that for me and others. To say God isn’t real is a complete untruth.

            There were many others throughout history that personally knew God. Abraham. Moses. Joshua. Job. David. John the Baptist. John. Peter. James. Paul, and so on. All of these people personally attested to the reality of God. I have my own personal testimony of the reality of God.

            When people say God doesn’t exist, it makes me shake my head because I know God is real. Saying God isn’t real is as foolish as saying the sun, universe, life itself isn’t real.

            > Unless you can provide irrefutable proof

            But your expectations are unrealistic. This is like asking me to prove irrefutably that love is real? Creativity is real? The mind is real? Reality itself is real?

            Isn’t it illogical to demand such unrealistic proof yet have none at all to disprove God, yet you still believe that?

            The best anyone can do is provide evidence so that you can make a reasonable decision. If you choose God, he is the one the makes up the difference.

            But Jesus answered a similar question. “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” – Matthew 12:38-40

            This was ironic since the very sign they were asking for was standing right in front of them.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “But your expectations are unrealistic.”

            Agreed. Just as yours are when you ask someone to prove that God is not real. There is no way to prove that something doesn’t exist. Therefore, failing to do the impossible, does not mean that something is true.

            The simple fact is this: None of us will know with 100% certainty the true nature of God until we die. Until then, it is a matter of faith. Perhaps your beliefs are 100% right. Perhaps not. Again, none of us will know for certain until we die. I have a very strong belief in God and I hope that I will have that faith confirmed when I pass.

            The stories in Christianity – and the premise behind Christianity – is found in other religions that predate Christianity. The premise of a savior, born of a virgin, son of God, died, risen, and then ascended, is not unique to Christianity – it is simply the most popular.

            I am pleased that you find comfort in your faith. There has been much good done in this world by people who were motivated to act based upon their faith. There has also been much pain caused – not just by Christians, by those of many faiths – in the name of God. Faith, like most anything, can be used for good or for evil. That decision lies with man.

            In our country, we, as a people, have decided that above all else – even a particular religious belief – we value freedom, liberty, and equality. It is what binds us – despite differences in culture, faith, background, etc., – to each other as citizens of this great nation.

            As such, there will, at times, be things that are legally allowed which you, or I, or another, may not personally agree with or be consistent with our sense of right and wrong. But if the action does not harm others nor unduly infringe upon the rights of others, then it must be legally allowed. For the minute I attempt to restrict the actions of others based upon nothing more than my personal belief system, is the minute I put my own freedoms at risk.

          • Richard

            > There is no way to prove that something doesn’t exist. Therefore, failing to do the impossible, does not mean that something is true.

            That’s another straw man: equating the reality of God with nonexistence.

            > None of us will know with 100% certainty the true nature of God until we die…Perhaps not. Again, none of us will know for certain until we die.

            This is an error in assumption. The Biblical writers knew for certain God is real. I know for certain God is real. That’s because he is real, and has already proven it to the world…over 2000 years and in Jesus Christ. Jesus came specifically to prove himself to the world (and more importantly, to save those who put their trust in him).

            > the premise behind Christianity – is found in other religions that predate Christianity.

            There are similar stories to most of mankind. But there are major differences that separate the Christian God from all others. This is where a person can see the difference…in the details and evidence.

            > That decision lies with man.

            That’s true.

            > But if the action does not harm others nor unduly infringe upon the rights of others, then it must be legally allowed.

            I’m okay with that…until it harms my rights to live my life according to my beliefs. Having someone force me to cater to a gay wedding is against my beliefs. Wouldn’t it be better for gay people to choose another caterer rather than impose their beliefs on mine? Would you like it if you were forced into church?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “That’s another straw man”

            It would benefit you to have a better understanding of what “straw man” means. You use it incorrectly on a regular basis.

            The simple fact is that the non-existence of something cannot be proved. Therefore, you frequent request for people to prove that God does not exist is without merit.

            “The Biblical writers knew for certain God is real. I know for certain God is real.”

            You are certainly free to believe that if you like.

            “Having someone force me to cater to a gay wedding is against my beliefs.”

            You are not forced. Opening a business is a choice. Choosing to cater weddings is a choice. There is no forcing. Do you also think it is wrong that a caterer would not be legally allowed to turn away an interracial couple, even if the caterer’s religious beliefs were that the races should not mix?

            “Wouldn’t it be better for gay people to choose another caterer rather than impose their beliefs on mine?”

            Catering a same-gender wedding would not require you to change your beliefs.

            “Would you like it if you were forced into church?”

            Now THAT’S an excellent example of a straw man argument.

          • Richard

            > It would benefit you to have a better understanding of what “straw man” means. You use it incorrectly on a regular basis.

            Straw man: an argument that creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition.

            Saying you can no more prove God than Zeus is a straw man argument: equating a real entity with a fictional fabrication.

            > The simple fact is that the non-existence of something cannot be proved.

            Equating God to something non existent is the straw man. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the ‘straw man’ so you’ll know when you are creating it.

            >The Biblical writers knew for certain God is real. I know for certain God is real.” You are certainly free to believe that if you like.

            This is a fact. If you disagree with it, you will need to prove the historical record wrong, not just dismiss it off-handedly.

            > Catering a same-gender wedding would not require you to change your beliefs.

            Yes, it would. I don’t believe in gay marriage.

            > Now THAT’S an excellent example of a straw man argument.

            Hopefully by now, you should know that what a real straw man is and that it doesn’t apply to your assertion.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Saying you can no more prove God than Zeus is a straw man argument: equating a real entity with a fictional fabrication.”

            Except I didn’t say that. So, please, Richard, do not lie about what I said in order to try to make a point. If you can’t make a point honestly, then admit it.

            What I asked you was to prove that Zeus does NOT exist as a means to show you that it is impossible to prove that something DOESN’T exist – which is what you have asked others to do.

            That was not a refutation of your argument that God exists. I believe God exists. Therefore it was not a straw man argument as you have clearly shown above by the definition you provided.

            “Equating God to something non existent is the straw man.”

            But I didn’t do that. Another lie by you Richard. I didn’t equate the two. I equated the ability to disprove the existence of either one.

            “not just dismiss it off-handedly”

            I did not “dismiss it off-handedly”. I said nothing about it. They are stories and many of them contain great teachings. Are they proof that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? Are they proof of what God actually believes and how God views things? No. They are stories that purport these things are true. They may well be true – but they also may not.

            “Yes, it would. I don’t believe in gay marriage.”

            Why would that belief change because you catered a same-gender wedding reception? If you did cater such an event are you saying that afterward you have no choice but to believe that same-gender marriage OK?

            “”Would you like it if you were forced into church?””

            Here is why that is a straw man. No one is forced to open a business. No one is forced to offer certain products. A church is not a business of public accommodation. To put forth that question as being related to a business violating anti-discrimination laws, is a straw man argument.

          • Richard

            > Except I didn’t say that.

            What you said was, “If that were true, then the governments of ancient societies that recognized Zeus, etc., means that those gods were real as well.”

            This equates the real God to a fictional character (Zeus) (which is a straw man AND based on hypotheticals – another straw man tactic). This was the implied intention of your comment. If you didn’t mean that intention, please clarify.

            > I believe God exists.

            Good to hear. Which God?

            > But I didn’t do that… I equated the ability to disprove the existence of either one

            Which is the straw man comparison, as indicated by:

            Your comment, “Until you can definitively prove God does exist”

            Paul’s comment, “$10 says he tells you to prove God isn’t real.”

            To which you replied, “Nor more than I can prove Unicorns are not real.”

            As stated above, you did imply that by your comments. The intent was clear – equating a real God with a fictional animal – that is a straw man.

            > I did not “dismiss it off-handedly”…I said nothing about it.

            Your comment, “You are certainly free to believe that if you like.” clearly shows your intent. Then you confirmed your intent with, “Are they proof that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? Are they proof of what God actually believes and how God views things? No.”

            Where’s your evidence to disprove the historical account?? Without supporting evidence, saying ‘no’ is dismissing it off-handedly, which I earlier observed.

            > Why would that belief change because you catered a same-gender wedding reception?

            It wouldn’t change. But that would still mean I was forced to participate in something I don’t believe in…no matter how many times I was forced.

            > Here is why that is a straw man.

            I wasn’t equating doing something against my will with a business violating anti-discrimination laws. I was merely talking about my beliefs and why I believe it is wrong to be forced to violate them…by anyone.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “This equates the real God to a fictional character”

            No, it provides the argument that if government stating a belief that something exists (by your example of “in God We Trust” being on currency) that then Zeus would be real because ancient governments stated he was real. I made no comparison to the

            “Which God?”

            The true one.

            “As stated above, you did imply that by your comments. The intent was clear – equating a real God with a fictional animal -”

            My comments are my comments. You are free to create any madeup view about them you would like to. I did not, however, equate God to a unicorn. I put forth the argument that one cannot disprove the existence of something – nothing more.

            “Your comment, “You are certainly free to believe that if you like.” clearly shows your intent.”

            My intent was nothing more than to say that you are free to believe as you like.

            ““Are they proof that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? Are they proof of what God actually believes and how God views things? No.””

            Stating that something written does not mean that it is definitively true is not dismissing it off-handedly. It is simply stating a fact.

            “Where’s your evidence to disprove the historical account??”

            I’m unclear on how many times you need to be told that there is no way to prove a negative. There is no way to disprove that Jesus was the son of God, nor that he rose from dead, nor that the Bible does not contain the word of God. A lack of disproof, however, does not mean that something is true. If that were the case, then until the world was proven to be round, it was indeed flat. And, no, that is not a straw man. It is an example of using the rationale that unless something is proven false, then it is not false.

            “It wouldn’t change.”

            But you said earlier: “Yes, it would.” So which is it?

            “I wasn’t equating doing something against my will with a business violating anti-discrimination laws.”

            You were quite clear. “Having someone force me to cater to a gay wedding is against my beliefs.” That would only come into play if you were a business owner and would only be an issue if anti-discrimination laws included sexual orientation. So, yes, you were indeed speaking of a business violating anti-discrimination laws.

            “I believe it is wrong to be forced”

            Agreed. Nor is anyone.

          • Richard

            > No, it provides the argument that if government stating a belief that something exists (by your example of “in God We Trust” being on currency) that then Zeus would be real because ancient governments stated he was real.

            The intent of your straw man argument is obvious. The fact that you had to hypothesize to refute the reality of God confirms it. You just don’t realize the straw man in this instance.

            > The true one.

            Which is that? How would you know your God is true?

            > I put forth the argument that one cannot disprove the existence of something – nothing more.

            In reference to the conversation about the reality of God. This is a straw man.

            > Stating that something written does not mean that it is definitively true is not dismissing it off-handedly. It is simply stating a fact.

            Your reference was targeted at the Bible. Your definitive, no, is clear that you off-handedly dismiss the Biblical text, as I pointed out. Yet, you didn’t provide any evidence to support your, ‘no.’

            > I’m unclear on how many times you need to be told that there is no way to prove a negative.

            That is a straw man again. You assume God isn’t real (without actually proving it), then equate God to a negative. You may also not know that the ‘can’t prove a negative’ is self-refuting. But that’s for another discussion.

            > But you said earlier: “Yes, it would.” So which is it?

            I never said it would. No matter how many interactions with gays, my opinion won’t change…because that is what I choose to believe and how to behave.

            > “Having someone force me to cater to a gay wedding is against my beliefs.

            I wasn’t referring to the discrimination laws. I was talking only about my beliefs.

            > Nor is anyone.

            I disagree. There are many instances where people have lost their jobs because they wouldn’t support gay marriage. That is being forced.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The intent of your straw man argument is obvious. ”

            My only intent was to show that official government recognition is not sufficient to prove that something is real. If it makes you feel better to attach some other meaning to it, you are welcome to do so, but any meaning other than what I have stated is false.

            “Which is that?”

            To quote you “I gave you my answer”. When you define which sect of Christianity will get to determine what is moral and what is not, then I’ll provide more detail on my statement.

            “In reference to the conversation about the reality of God. This is a straw man.”

            You are mistaken. Go back and read the definition you provided of straw man. Stating that proof cannot be provided for something not existing is not a refutation of your argument that God does exist. It is a recognition that your request “Prove God doesn’t exist” is without logic.

            “Yet, you didn’t provide any evidence to support your, ‘no.’”

            What is the proof that Jesus was the son of God? What is the proof that Jesus rose from dead?

            “You assume God isn’t real”

            No, I do not. As I have said many times, I believe that God is real.

            “I never said it would.”

            Yes, you did. From your post above:

            “> Catering a same-gender wedding would not require you to change your beliefs.

            Yes, it would.”

            “I wasn’t referring to the discrimination laws.”

            You wouldn’t be catering a same-gender wedding unless you had a catering business, which is subject to anti-discrimination laws. So, yes, saying that you should not have to cater a same-gender wedding is commenting on anti-discrimination laws.

            “There are many instances where people have lost their jobs because they wouldn’t support gay marriage.”

            Have those people changed their beliefs or been required to violate their beliefs?

          • Paul Hiett

            $10 says he tells you to prove God isn’t real.

            “You can’t. Can you?”

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Nor more than I can prove Unicorns are not real. There seems to be a misunderstanding by some regarding proving a negative.

          • Richard

            Do you believe Unicorns are real today?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            No, I don’t. But I cannot prove that they are not real.

          • Richard

            If you don’t believe unicorns are real today, why would it be important to you to have someone prove to you what you already know? Isn’t that being illogical?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            My example had nothing to do with my personal beliefs about the existence of unicorns. It was provided to show the fallacy of the statement: “Prove it’s not real”.

          • Richard

            Your beliefs do enter into it. If you are asking someone to prove something to you, they need to know about your beliefs so they can supply appropriate evidence to change your beliefs. Otherwise, it could be very long conversation.

            But if you don’t believe unicorns are real, then there is nothing to prove. It’s an illogical question since you already have reasons to believe they aren’t real.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You can’t prove the non-existence of something. It is a logical fallacy.

          • Richard

            The fallacy is the straw man argument.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What straw man argument are you referring to?

          • Richard

            Equating a real historical entity with an imaginary fabrication.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            How do you know for certain that it is imaginary?

            There are probably as many books about Unicorns as there are about the Christian god.

          • Richard

            > How do you know for certain that it is imaginary?

            Look up the history of the unicorn. It never was real.

            > There are probably as many books about Unicorns as there are about the Christian god.

            Yours is a reasoning error…equating a real entity with an imaginary/fictional one.

          • Richard

            Does that mean a restaurant owned by a gay owner has to cater to a reparative therapy seminar? A seminar that is discussing the reasons behind Sodom and Gomorrah?

          • Paul Hiett

            “Reparative therapy” is not a protected status in this country.

          • MisterPine

            Yes.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If the restaurant rents out space in the restaurant to groups, they would not be able to turn down a group based upon religious belief.

          • Richard

            I should be able to rent a hall from a gay owner and hold reparative therapy seminars. Great. I’ll get on that.

          • Paul Hiett

            And be prepared to be denied service for that….legally.

          • uzza

            Richard, is it wrong for the government to force people–Christians and others—to obey the law?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            It is your legal right to do so. It would, of course, depend on the basis for the therapy. If it were strictly religious based, then you would not be able to be legally turned away. If, however, it involved something other than religious intervention, you would be able to be turned away.

            “I’ll get on that.”

            Why?

          • Richard

            >you would be able to be turned away.

            Why would that be? Reparative therapy isn’t banned in all states. It’s a form of therapy…a business.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If it were not strictly religious based, then the refusal would not be based upon religious belief, which is a protected category.

            For example, a restaurant owner can turn away a group that wants to hold a seminar on White Supremacy because views on race is not a protected category. A conservative could refuse to rent out space for a Democratic fundraiser.

          • Richard

            If if were for religious deliverance, that would be okay?

          • Paul Hiett

            Now you’re getting it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The person making the request could not be refused based upon religious belief.

          • Richard

            Good to know.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Agreed.

          • Richard

            Super. I’ll get on that right away.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Why? Are you looking for places to hold reparative therapy?

          • Richard

            Interested to see how the gay community responds, and what the legal system will do.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            They might complain, but that is irrelevant. The law is the law. It is unreasonable for one to seek protection of the law, but then be unwilling to follow the law when the law protects someone/something they don’t agree with.

          • Richard

            I agree. It should work both ways.

            Don’t businesses in America have the right to deny service to anyone they choose?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Don’t businesses in America have the right to deny service to anyone they choose?”

            No, they do not. They used to, but that ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Richard, they don’t. The CRA of 64 explains why.

          • Paul Hiett

            Maybe you should take Business 101 at your local college?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Forcing a Christian to participate in a gay wedding is trumping a Christian’s right to say no.”

            No such right regarding businesses of public accommodation exists. Therefore, it can’t be trumped.

            “Forcing someone to participate in an event that goes against their beliefs is still FORCING.”

            Owning a business is a choice. Offering certain products in a choice. There is no forcing. If one doesn’t want to operate a business within the confines of the law, then one should not open a business and/or work to get the law changed.

            There is no right to know the law, open a business, and then expect to not be held accountable to the law, based solely upon religious belief.

          • Richard

            Perfect. I’ll start renting buildings from gays and hold deliverance services. We’ll even have gay restaurants cater.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Certainly within your rights to do so. Would you find pleasure in that?

          • Richard

            The only thing I would find pleasure in regarding homosexuality, is that they receive Christ. Salvation is the only thing that really matters. All else is secondary, with most things a waste of time and meaningless.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The only thing I would find pleasure in regarding homosexuality, is that they receive Christ.”

            Then why would you do those other things?

          • Richard

            Interest sake or to make a point, such as some gay activists have done. Would you think that would be wrong?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If making a point brings you pleasure, and you do so in a way that is legal, that is your choice. My views on whether that is “right” or “wrong” are irrelevant.

          • Richard

            Fair enough.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Why should your rights trump mine?”

            There is no right to operate a business in contravention to the law utilizing religious belief as the reason.

            “why should gays force Christians to participate in their weddings?”

            They aren’t. Operating a business is a choice. Offering certain products in a choice. There is no “forcing”.

          • Tristan A

            Religious freedom is not a license to discriminate

          • Richard

            Gays aren’t a race of people. Gays engage in an immoral lifestyle.

            It’s wise to discriminate against immoral behavior or else society will collapse upon itself.

          • Tristan A

            Sorry Richard, your so called immoral behavior is nothing more than your opinion. There are also people that claim that being of a different race makes you immoral or degenerated or whatever. That is also nothing more than their opinion. They could make the same claim as you that discrimination of black/yellow/orange people is just.

            It is not. It is discrimination. and it is not just. it is evil

          • Richard

            Without one moral compass, morals are subjective. In that case, they are self-refuting. This also means it’s illogical for you to judge me. Doing so goes against the very moral code you adhere too.

          • Tristan A

            Morals are subjective indeed. Your moral compass is not mine, and my moral compass is not yours.
            Mine clearly excludes the killing of people, letting people die from HIV/Aids while it is not necessary, mine clearly excludes the bullying of kids, mine clearly excludes the killing of gay people in Uganda and alike, mine clearly excludes the killing of people during the crusades, mine clearly excludes burning people on the stake. Your “one moral compass” clearly does not exclude the above. Clearly a matter of opinion indeed. I suggest you keep your morals to yourself. The world has seen more than enough of them. I keep my morals to me. I respect your universal declared human right (speaking of “one moral compass”) of having your own religion, will even defend your right with my life if need be, and I expect you to respect my universal declared human right to privacy (it is none of your business what I do or not do in my bed room), and my universal declared human right to have a family life with the person I choose. And I warn you, that is a human right I will defend with my life if need be.

          • Richard

            > Morals are subjective indeed.

            Then you are out of line to judge me…or anyone. I suggest you think through moral relativism so you understand what you believe…because clearly, right now, you don’t understand it…as your very comments betray moral relativism.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “It’s wise to discriminate against immoral behavior or else society will collapse upon itself.”

            Who would get to decide the totality of what behavior is moral and what is immoral? Is it not immoral, based upon your belief system, to deny the Christian god? So would we then strip freedom of religion from the constitution? Is it not immoral, based upon your belief system, to take the Lord’s name in vain? Should we therefore strip freedom of speech from the constitution?

            Which sect of Christianity should get to decide? The Baptists? So we ban alcohol? The Mormons? So we ban caffeine? The Amish? So we ban electricity?

          • Richard

            > Who would get to decide the totality of what behavior is moral and what is immoral?

            What do you use for your moral guide?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Once you’ve answered my question, I’ll be happy to provide you an answer to yours.

          • Richard

            > Which sect of Christianity should get to decide?

            The real one, absent from man-made rules.

            What do you use for your moral guide?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            That’s not an answer Richard. Name “the real one”.

          • Richard

            That’s my answer. Where is yours?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The real one.

          • Richard

            You get our moral guide from the real one? Which is that? How do you know it’s real?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’m just following your example. That was your response to my question. I responded in kind. To quote you: That’s my answer.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “If a gay baker didn’t want to make me (a Christian) pastries, fair enough. ”

            While you are certainly free to view it as you care to, that would not change that the act violates the law.

            “But to turn around and force them out of business (or make an example of them) is wrong, in my opinion.”

            So you believe it is wrong to hold business owners accountable for breaking the law? If they refuse to serve a black person, is it wrong for that person to hold the business accountable? How about if they refuse to do a cake for an interracial marriage because it is their sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix? Wrong to hold them accountable?

            “Does that mean we should force all Jewish and Muslim restaurants owners to serve pork? What about vegan restaurants to serve meat?”

            You show a lack of understanding regarding anti-discrimination laws. A business is free to determine what products it offers. Once it has chosen to offer a product, it may not restrict access to that product based upon anti-discrimination laws.

            So, no, Jewish and Muslim restaurants are not required to serve pork nor is a vegan restaurant required to sell meat.

          • Richard

            Gays aren’t a race of people. They are people who engage in an immoral lifestyle. Big difference.

          • Paul Hiett

            An opinion about morality is not a law.

            Big difference.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Race is not a requirement for being included in anti-discrimination laws.

            What “lifestyle” are you referring to?

          • Richard

            > Race is not a requirement for being included in anti-discrimination laws.

            Does that mean any behavior can be included? So long as a group convinces the public it’s ok?

            The gay lifestyle – man with man, woman with woman.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Does that mean any behavior can be included? So long as a group convinces the public it’s ok?”

            Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait.

            “The gay lifestyle – man with man, woman with woman.”

            So you are defining a lifestyle as being only the gender to which one is attracted? That seems to be a very narrow definition of “lifestyle”. So then there is also a heterosexual lifestyle, correct?

            While you are certainly entitled to your belief that being gay is immoral, your views on that are irrelevant to the legal question. We don’t determine rights in this nation based solely upon how some people view what his moral and what is immoral.

          • Richard

            > Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait.

            Can you prove that?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Yes.

          • Richard

            Please do.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            My pleasure. Regardless of what behavior I am engaged in, I am still physically, romantically, and emotionally attracted to persons of the same gender. My behavior does not determine my sexuality. My sexuality influences my behavior.

          • Richard

            > I am still physically, romantically, and emotionally attracted to persons of the same gender.

            These aren’t traits, but preferences. There’s a big difference.

            Do you know how attraction forms? Do you know what drives it? Do you understand what causes love?

            And what causes you to act on your attractions? What prevents you from saying no?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            No, they are traits. I didn’t choose, therefore they are not preferences.

            “Do you know how attraction forms? Do you know what drives it? Do you understand what causes love?”

            No, I do not. Do you?

            “And what causes you to act on your attractions?”

            The attraction. What causes you to act on your attractions?

          • Richard

            > No, they are traits. I didn’t choose, therefore they are not preferences.

            The reality is, you don’t know you chose. But you did. Just because you don’t know why you chose, doesn’t mean it’s not a choice. Some education would help clarify that.

            > No, I do not. Do you?

            Yes, I do.

            > The attraction.

            No, you have an attraction, but you have to choose to act on it to fulfill it. This is called free will and the ability to make decisions. Decisions are choices.

            I suggest you don’t understand this connect because you haven’t studied behavior or psychology. Would this be true?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The reality is, you don’t know you chose.”

            Of course I know how I chose. I make a conscience decision to do something. My sexuality, on the other hand, is not something I chose.

            “Some education would help clarify that.”

            Oh great. Please, educate me.

            “No, you have an attraction”

            Agreed.

            “but you have to choose to act on it to fulfill it”

            Agreed.

            “Decisions are choices.”

            Agreed. I did not decide to be homosexual. Did you make a choice at some point to be heterosexual? If sexuality is a choice, then it would reasonable to say that you could simply, at this moment, choose to be sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender and find that both fulfilling and desirable. Could you just make that choice, Richard?

            “I suggest you don’t understand this connect because you haven’t studied behavior or psychology.Would this be true?

            No, it would not. My college education was in Psychology and I am a published author in Psychology.

          • Richard

            > My sexuality, on the other hand, is not something I chose.

            It is a choice. You just don’t realize you made the choice. This is common among those who don’t understand behavior and psychology. Many therapy clients need to be educated before they can begin to make behavioral change. Since you don’t know this, I suspect you’ve never been to therapy.

            Attraction is formed when another person appears to have the qualities that agree with our desires or things we agree with. Desires are learned through experiences and the conclusions we make about them. For example, during our formative years, we develop our system of beliefs that shape our personality. Our system of beliefs motivate our behavior. Based on our motivations, we decide to act.

            In your case, you said you were attracted to members of the same gender. This is because there something about the same gender you find appealing and that lines up with how you think about things. For example, many homosexuals are attracted to the same gender because they find the same gender safer than the opposite s e x. Others find the same gender more caring and inline with how they live their lives. Others are attracted to the same gender because they like being like minded (men don’t like how women do things and vice versa). Yet others have a distaste for the opposite s e x because of an earlier negative experience with them, such as abuse. There is a host of reasons for ss attraction. But all of these reasons are because of learned preferences, not because our preferences are innate.

            If I knew more about your background I could tell you exactly why you prefer ss (I’m not suggesting you tell me).

            Once our preferences are established (most before the age of 8), they motivate behavior and decision making. This won’t change unless a person works to understand why they have the preferences they do and then make change where appropriate. Generally this is where a therapist comes in…to help people understand current behavior and then help them make healthy change. This applies to all forms of behavior, such as aggression, depression, anxiety, addictions, and sexual behavior. Sexual therapists have been doing this successfully for decades.

            Love occurs when another person appeals to our learned preferences. If that person responds favorably, love flourishes. If the other person continues to meet our needs (which are also learned preferences) love will continue. If the person fails to meet our needs, or continually treats us poorly, loves dies.

            Love is a state of mind: when our self-talk lines up with our learned expectations about the other person.

            For example, you most likely won’t love someone or find them attractive if they don’t look according to your preferences. While you say you are attracted to the same gender, most likely not everyone in that gender is attractive to you. You have a certain set of criteria you are looking for (hair color, shape of face, mannerisms, character qualities, body type, etc.). When you find someone who meets your criteria, attraction flourishes…because of how that person lines up with your desires, which again, are learned over time.

            Just as you are attracted to someone, there are others that you aren’t attracted to, and may even be repulsed by. This is because that person has qualities that are contrary to what you learned to like.

            But even though we have attractions, they still require us to make a decision to act on. No one behaves without making decisions, whether conscious or unconscious. Unconscious decisions are just habituated decisions that have become so automatic (through practice) that they occur seemingly instantaneously. Nevertheless, they are still decisions (therapists help clients interrupt instantaneous decisions so that they can make healthier choices).

            I could go on, but that is a nickel overview. All of our behaviors are based on our learned system of beliefs and decision making, whether we realize our decisions or not…they are still decisions right from the get go. That is the nature of human development and free will.

          • Richard

            > Could you just make that choice, Richard?

            Many people do. Our attractions and preferences are fluid. As we interact with our environment, we change preferences all the time. The same is true for sexual attraction.

            Most children experiment during their development years. Through the experimentation they arrive at their preference. This is basic child and sexual development.

            I understand that not many have this training, but not having training doesn’t mean attraction is innate. It’s not. It’s definitely learned over time and experience.

            > My college education was in Psychology and I am a published author in Psychology.

            I’m surprised you have this background. Surely you should know about what motivates behavior, systems of beliefs, child development, sexual development and so on. This is fairly basic stuff.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Many people do. ”

            That is not an answer to my question, Richard. Could YOU? If it is a choice, then you should simply be able to say that you choose to be sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender. Could you?

            “we change preferences all the time. The same is true for sexual attraction.”

            Basis?

            “Most children experiment during their development years. Through the experimentation they arrive at their preference. This is basic child and sexual development.”

            Oh, great. If it is so basic, then it should be easy for you to provide backup for a statement that is patently not true.

            “doesn’t mean attraction is innate. It’s not. It’s definitely learned over time and experience.”

            How does one “learn” attraction? Did someone teach you to be attracted to women? If so, how did they teach you that? What means did they use?

            “Surely you should know about what motivates behavior, systems of beliefs, child development, sexual development and so on.”

            I do. And I’m so looking forward to your sharing where you came to your views on those issues. It should be fascinating, as despite my educational background and years of work in the field, I am unaware of the things you mentioned.

          • Richard

            > that is not an answer to my question, Richard. Could YOU?

            Yes, it is. Many people change their sexual preferences over time. It’s well documented. And, sure I could if I wanted to…just like everyone else can.

            > Basis?

            For someone who claims to understand psychology, I’m surprised at this comment. This is entry level information.

            Attitudes/Preferences change all the time. They are the least resistant among our system of beliefs. Preferences are the notions of ‘like’ and ‘dislike,’ which are fluid. Examples include food choices, choices of clothes to wear, choice of the type of vehicle you want, where to live, exercise types and routines, and so on. These change regularly and at will.

            > Regarding child sexual development

            http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_What_Normal/

            > How does one “learn” attraction?

            Attraction is learned through the conclusions we make about our life experience. They are formed along with our system of beliefs, just like all of our preferences are learned. As someone who claims to know about psychology, you should know this. Again, entry level information.

            > And I’m so looking forward to your sharing where you came to your views on those issues.

            Training in psychology, social and behavioral sciences, child development, sexual development.

            > as despite my educational background and years of work in the field, I am unaware of the things you mentioned.

            That surprises me too. The concepts I’ve mentioned are entry level concepts. You can even find these in most behavioral self-help resources.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “And, sure I could if I wanted to”

            Then you must be bisexual. I do not know any heterosexuals who could simply choose to be sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender. How about you do a little poll of heterosexuals you know and ask them if they could just choose to be attracted to members of the same gender. Let me know the results.

            “This is entry level information.”

            Then provide the source.

            “Attitudes/Preferences change all the time.”

            For the items you mentioned, that is true. I have found no evidence that holds true for sexuality. However, if you have scientific evidence that sexuality is a matter of choice, just like food, clothing, cars, etc., then please, provide it.

            There was nothing in the article you provided a link to that supports your statement: “Most children experiment during their development years. Through the experimentation they arrive at their preference.”

            “Attraction is learned through the conclusions we make about our life experience. They are formed along with our system of beliefs, just like all of our preferences are learned. As someone who claims to know about psychology, you should know this. Again, entry level information.”

            Again, provide your basis for this statement.

            “Training in psychology, social and behavioral sciences, child development, sexual development.”

            What training was that?

            “The concepts I’ve mentioned are entry level concepts. You can even find these in most behavioral self-help resources.”

            Such as?

          • Richard

            > Then you must be bisexual. I do not know any heterosexuals who could simply choose to be sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender.

            I’m not bisexual. Many people change their preferences later in life. Have you not heard of a happily married heterosexual choose ss after many years of hetero marriage? How about a gay person returning to hetero later in life? This happens all the time.

            “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.” – Ex-Homosexual and ex-“gay rights” leader Michael Glatze

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1289652/How-I-went-committed-lesbian-happily-married-mother-four.html

            > I have found no evidence that holds true for sexuality.

            http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2006-07/article-pdfs/Dec06_Garnets_Peplau.pdf

            > There was nothing in the article you provided a link to that supports your statement: “Most children experiment during their development years. Through the experimentation they arrive at their preference.”

            http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dfs/childrenyouth/sexualbehaviorchildren.htm

            > The concepts I’ve mentioned are entry level concepts. You can even find these in most behavioral self-help resources.” Such as?

            Pick up a self-help resource on addictions, depression, anxiety, personal development, behavior, and so on. The self-help industry is replete with how to make behavioral change information…gleaned from professional mental health training materials.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Have you not heard of a happily married heterosexual choose ss after many years of hetero marriage? ”

            I’m not sure about “happily”, but yes, I am aware of people who have been in opposite gender marriages and then divorce when one in the couple finally decides to stop denying their true sexuality.

            You seem to of the mistaken belief that if a person is involved in an opposite gender relationship, that means the person is heterosexual. That would not be accurate 100% of the time. People, less so now than in the past, often felt pressured to enter into opposite gender relationships due to societal pressure, religious beliefs, etc. That does not mean that they were heterosexual. When I was in high school and college, I dated women, had sexual relations, and was even engaged to be married. During all of that, I knew I was gay….I just didn’t want face it. I kept thinking that if I just involved myself with women that the attractions I felt would go away. Fortunately, for both me and my fiance, I was able to see the error in my thinking.

            Again, behavior does not determine attraction. Attraction influences behavior.

            “How about a gay person returning to hetero later in life?”

            What about it? How are you certain that the person was strictly homosexual? How are you certain that the person is free of same-gender attraction?

            “http://www.csw.ucla.edu/public…”

            Please note the word “potentially”. Further note that there is nothing in there that says that “Attitudes/Preferences change all the time.”

            “http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/d…”

            I reviewed the link. Please provide where in that information it says that “Most children experiment during their development years. Through the experimentation they arrive at their preference.”

            “Pick up a self-help resource on addictions, depression, anxiety, personal development, behavior, and so on.”

            I am quite familiar with such resources. I am published in that area. And, yes, the self-help industry is replete with how to make behavioral change. What it is NOT replete with are books on how to change sexual orientation nor are they replete with books discussing how sexual, emotional, and romantic “Attraction is learned through the conclusions we make about our life experience. They are formed along with our system of beliefs, just like all of our preferences are learned.”

            Please, point to the specific texts that show this to be true.

            “http://psychology.about.com/od…”

            Interesting article on attitudes. Did you have something similar that speaks about attractions based on sexual, emotional, and romantic aspects?

          • KenS

            Yes, I finally see that the gay and lesbian agenda pushers are the bullies, you have shown only 8 pastors (so-called) to how many gay activists, the bullies truely are the gay activists not the Christians and no I do not consider any of those 8 people you showed us to be pastors with that kind of twisting of scripture.

          • MisterPine

            How many of those gay activists are calling for the death of Christians?
            How many Christian bullies are denying homosexuals the right to marry the people they love?

            You have a very warped sense of what’s fair.

          • KenS

            I believe that this article alone had more than 8 death threats to this pizzeria owner and her family, that is just one occasion, how many death threats did Miss Stuzman get or the Baker, need I go on?

            Not to mention that I have heard many commenters for the gay activists on this forum also dishing out death threats to Christians.

          • MisterPine

            You really think that’s the same thing, random crackpot anonymous threats from people who as far as we know might not even BE homosexuals, compared to people teaching this kind of crazed hatred from their pulpits in the name of Christ?

            Face it. You are not the oppressed party here.

          • KenS

            My point is there are more instances of these crackpots threatening Christians than these so-called misguided pastors preaching heresy

          • MisterPine

            There will always be crackpots, but there is no need to discriminate in the first place which is why people are getting so angry with you Christians.

          • KenS

            So you are saying that it is okay for the crackpots to issue death threats, vandalize buisnesses, and force businesses out of business because they feel like they are being discriminated against

          • MisterPine

            Did I say anything even remotely like that? Ever?

          • KenS

            I quote: “There will always be crackpots, but there is no need to discriminate in the first place which is why people are getting so angry with you Christians.”

            what else did you mean by in the first place is why people are getting angry?

          • MisterPine

            I’m saying this is cause and effect. Don’t be the cause in the first place, and you won’t have any effects to deal with. But I am not excusing violent or criminal actions on either side and never said I did.

          • KenS

            The bible clearly states that near the end times, evil will be seen as good, and that we will be persecuted for being on the original good side, This is clearly what is happening now.

          • MisterPine

            “The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound.
            Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.”
            – Assyrian tablet circa 2800 BC

          • KenS

            1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come .
            2 For menshall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
            3 Without natural affection,trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that aregood,
            4 Traitors, heady, highminded , lovers of pleasures more than lovers ofGod;
            5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turnaway .
            6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive sillywomen laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
            7 Ever learning , and neverable to come to the knowledge of the truth.
            8 Now as Jannes and Jambreswithstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds,reprobate concerning the faith.

            9 But they shall proceed no further * : for theirfolly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was .
            2 Timothy 3:1-9, This describes the world today far more precisely than your quote from Assyrian tablet and it was written in 67 AD

          • Richard

            This doesn’t even take into consideration of all of the institutions and organizations gay rights activists have forced to change policy, not including the entire country on gay marriage.

            Yet misterpine complains about a handful of pastors who merely expressed their opinions.

          • KenS

            Thanks, Richard

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “This doesn’t even take into consideration of all of the institutions and organizations gay rights activists have forced to change policy”

            What organizations had no choice but to change policy? Who “forced” them to?

            “Yet misterpine complains about a handful of pastors who merely expressed their opinions.”

            So you support these pastors “merely” expressing their opinions regarding the government killing gay people or rounding them up and putting them behind electric fences and being left to die, but you decry people expressing their opinion that a business owner deserves to die. How do you reconcile those two positions?

          • Richard

            > What organizations had no choice but to change policy? Who “forced” them to?

            The American Psychiatric Association for one. Gay activists forced them to drop homosexuality from the DSM and change their position on it.

            > So you support these pastors “merely” expressing

            No I don’t. The point I was making was the comparison between expressing their views and gay militancy.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The American Psychiatric Association for one. ”

            How were they forced? Under what threat? What possible coercion, at a time when homosexuality was widely derided, could less than 4% of the population brought forth that would have caused the APA to, by vote of its members, change their views on something against their will?

            “The point I was making was the comparison between expressing their views and gay militancy.”

            So you think both are wrong?

          • Richard

            > How were they forced?

            Why don’t you read up on the circumstances that forced them to change the DSM? That should answer your question.

            > So you think both are wrong?

            I don’t think both are wrong. I believe there is a vast difference between expressing an opinion and being militant about it. Don’t you?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I am well aware of how the changes took place regarding the DMS. I am also aware of the claims of one man regarding that change. A claim that is not backed up by any other member of the APA.

            I’ll ask again: What possible coercion, at a time when homosexuality was widely derided, could less than 4% of the population brought forth that would have caused the APA to, by vote of its members, change their views on something against their will?

            So you don’t think it’s wrong to preach to your congregation that the government should execute all gay people or put them behind an electric fence to die? That is just “expressing an opinion”?

          • Richard

            I don’t think you understand the true nature of what happened. Dismissing it as a one person issue speaks to that.

            Yes, think it’s wrong to express that tone toward homosexuals. But that doesn’t equal the militancy displayed by many gay activists. The two aren’t equal.

            Do you think gay militancy is wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            Militancy from any group is wrong, Richard. Gays, atheists,Christians, and Muslims included.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Dismissing it as a one person issue speaks to that.”

            How many people are you aware of who have put forth evidence that the membership of the APA, which numbers in the 1,000s, were forced, against their will, to change how homosexuality was designated in the DMS? I am only aware of one – Dr. Nicholas Cummings.

            I’ll ask yet again: What possible coercion, at a time when homosexuality was widely derided, could less than 4% of the population brought forth that would have caused the APA to, by vote of its members, change their views on something against their will?

            “But that doesn’t equal the militancy displayed by many gay activists.”

            Hmmmm…..let’s see…..throughout the history of our country Christians have supported the death penalty for homosexuals, imprisonment, castration, legal discrimination, public condemnation, and being treated as less equal under the law as other citizens.

            Do you really want to get into a discussion of which group is more “militant”?

            As I have clearly stated, I do not support any threats of physical harm or violence toward person or property. Is that what you mean by “gay militancy”? If not, what do you mean?

          • Richard

            What you failed to mention is that only 55 percent of the APA membership voted to have homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses. Obviously there was far more dissension than you claim. If you studied the circumstances that led up to that decision you’d see clearly the change was political, not scientific. As I said, gay activism forced the change. This scenario has played out many times since and still witness it.

            > throughout the history of our country

            Do you have a list of said homosexuals who were executed, imprisoned, or castrated?

            As for public condemnation, immoral behavior brings that on itself. The pubic also condemns adultery, bigamy, ped o filia, beast i ality, murder, incest, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and so on.

            > I do not support any threats of physical harm or violence toward person or property

            Agreed.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “What you failed to mention is that only 55 percent of the APA membership voted to have homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses.”

            If they were “forced”, why wasn’t it 100%?

            “Obviously there was far more dissension than you claim.”

            Where did I make any claim about the level of dissension?

            “As I said, gay activism forced the change.”

            What is your basis for that claim?

            “Do you have a list of said homosexuals who were executed, imprisoned, or castrated in America?”

            No, I do not. This goes back beginning with the early days of the country up until 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas. If it is important to you to see how the laws on the books during that time were enforced and against whom, I could probably research that and give you some names.

            “As for public condemnation, immoral behavior brings that on itself. ”

            People are free to condemn whatever they care to. Many people view it as immoral, in a country where equality is a basic right, to treat others as being less than equal. So, given your criteria, you would support the public condemnation of those who want to discriminate against gay people and who wish to restrict the rights of gay citizens, yes?

          • Richard

            > If they were “forced”, why wasn’t it 100%?

            Because almost half of the membership disagreed with being forced. If it was 100%, that would suggest everyone was in agreement…which you inferred in a prior comment.

            > Where did I make any claim about the level of dissension?

            Your quote, “I am only aware of one – Dr. Nicholas Cummings” implies only one person disagreed, which suggests the overwhelming majority was in agreement…which is not the case, as I pointed out.

            > What is your basis for that claim?

            If you take the time to read up on the events at the time, you’d get your answer.

            > No, I do not.

            Then your point is moot.

            > So, given your criteria

            I support free will. But not have my will imposed on by those with opposing beliefs, such as what gay activists are attempting to do. Do what you like with your life, but don’t expect me to agree or participate.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Because almost half of the membership disagreed with being forced.”

            So 55% agreed with being forced, against their will, to vote a certain way? How does that make any possible sense? If 45% were able to openly disagree, then they were not forced.

            “Your quote, “I am only aware of one – Dr. Nicholas Cummings” implies only one person disagreed”

            Completely false. I said that I was only aware of one person who is making the claim that homosexuals forced the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. It is deceptive of you to claim I said otherwise.

            “If you take the time to read up on the events at the time, you’d get your answer.”

            So you can provide no basis. Got it.

            “Then your point is moot”.

            So you are suggesting that since I cannot provide a complete list of individuals who were executed, imprisoned, castrated, in the US that none were?

            “But not have my will imposed on by those with opposing beliefs”

            So you believe you should be able to do whatever you want to, correct? If you, as a business owner, want to turn away black people, you should be able to. If a business owner believes that the bible says that a woman’s place is in the home, he should be able to turn away female applicants. If a business owner believes that sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong, then he should be free to fire an employee if he finds they are having such relations. If a business owner believes that the bible says that persons of different race should not mix, then he should be able to turn away an interracial couple. If a business owner believes that God only makes perfect beings, and thus a physically handicapped person is the “devil’s spawn”, then he should be able to turn that person away.

            All of those should be legally allowed, correct?

            “Do what you like with your life, but don’t expect me to agree or participate.”

            I have no expectations of you. With that said, don’t expect to be able to open a business and operate outside of the law.

          • Richard

            > If 45% were able to openly disagree, then they were not forced.

            Gay pressure caused the change of the DSM. 55% were forced to change their opinions based on their pressure, and 45% rejected the change. Many wanted to have homosexuality put back in the DSM, but continued gay activism suppressed that desire.

            > I said that I was only aware of one person who is making the claim.

            Are you Dr. Nicholas Cummings? If not, quoting him leaves the impression that only one person was against the change. Insinuating this is deceptive…which I called you on.

            > So you can provide no basis. Got it.

            That’s an errant conclusion.

            > So you are suggesting that since I cannot provide a complete list of individuals who were executed, imprisoned, castrated, in the US that none were?

            You made the claim. You should be able to support it with evidence, which you haven’t. That’s called an unproven assertion, but not fact.

            > All of those should be legally allowed, correct?

            Using hypothetical examples is another straw man. The issue is gay marriage. I disagree with it. I should not be forced to participate.

            I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever he chooses. Forcing him to do business is not being free.

            > With that said, don’t expect to be able to open a business and operate outside of the law.

            I have owned several businesses. We did decide who we served. Not once we were taken to court.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’re claiming that 100% of them were against the change? Yeah, pretty sure that’s no where near being accurate, and that is nothing but an opinion of yours with absolutely nothing factual to back it up.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Gay pressure caused the change of the DSM”

            What is your basis for that claim?

            ” 55% were forced to change their opinions based on their pressure, and 45% rejected the change.”

            How would it be possible to “force” 55% to change their opinion, but not the other 45%? If force was being utilized, then 100% would have done it. What force was used on the 55% that was not exerted on the 45%?

            ” If not, quoting him leaves the impression that only one person was against the change.”

            I didn’t quote him. You are, once again, lying. My statement was clear that Dr. Cummings was the only person from the APA who has asserted that members were forced to vote a certain way. I said nothing about Dr. Cummings being the only person who voted against the change. That you chose to misuse what I said speaks more to the desperation of your argument. If you know of others who also have made said this claim, then provide it.

            “That’s an errant conclusion.”

            You provided none. So, if my conclusion was errant, please provide the information to prove me wrong.

            “That’s called an unproven assertion”

            An unproven assertion (which, by the way, I offered to provide upon request) does not make a point moot.

            “Using hypothetical examples is another straw man.”

            No, using hypothetical examples is not straw man. First, many of those were actually practiced. Second, in order for an argument to have validity, it must be able to be applied in all relevant situations. I provided other examples of business owners being able to make decisions based upon religious beliefs. I did not refute your argument. That was not straw man. You may have copied and pasted the definition of straw man, but you obviously failed to understand it.

            “The issue is gay marriage.”

            No, that is one situation. The “issue” is being able to turn away customers based upon the religious beliefs of the owner.

            “I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever he chooses.”

            You are free to believe as you like, but the law says otherwise.

            “I should not be forced to participate.”

            You aren’t. You are free to not open a business and you are also free to not offer services to weddings. You are not “forced”.

            “I have owned several businesses. We did decide who we served. Not once we were taken to court.”

            I have often exceeded the speeding limit. Not once did I receive a ticket. I still, however, broke the law. If you turned away customers in violation of anti-discrimination laws, you broke the law, regardless of whether or not you were held accountable.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Try less than ONE percent, UMBKM.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I could try it, but it wouldn’t be accurate. It would, however, make my point even more valid.

            What does “UMBKM” stand for?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It stands for your oh-so clever moniker, Einstein.
            Cognitive reasoning is not your forte, is it?

          • Paul Hiett

            Neither is it yours if you think the LBGT population in America is less than 1%.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Only when you combine the LBGTPSMBDQTYOLXVHADPOAOEAMSL, and any other sexual deviant class, is it above 1%. If you take each group by itself, they’re all less than 1%, Mr. Hiett.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just gays and lesbians alone is about 2.2%.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Only if you poll New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco…maybe.

          • Paul Hiett

            Larger cities with more people might have higher percentages? Really? That’s amazing!!! I mean, who would have thought that!

            The bottom line is, you were wrong. Just accept it. The number of gays/lesbians is not large, even when you throw in those who identify as bisexual or transgender it barely gets over 3%, but the size of the group does not matter.

            No US citizen should ever be discriminated against for sexual orientation.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Larger leftwinger cities with more people….
            There, fixed it for you, Mr. Hiett.
            Pro-homosexual zealots always inflate those numbers, in order to make it appear that they are growing. Which is a little strange, since they are constantly, out of the other side of their mouths, trying to convince us that homosexuals were born that way.

            Yes, U.S. citizens should be discriminated against for their sexually deviant behavior. Such as, s3x-offenders. It’s sexual preference, by the way.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Maybe in your family, Mr. Hiett. But not in the real world, sorry.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What moniker would that be?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Umm…that would be U Must B Kiddin Me, UMBKM.
            Are you really this obtuse?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Thanks.

            Not obtuse, just old.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            10-4.

          • MisterPine

            Nick from Detroit, do you tire of lying? LESS THAN 1%, are you actually serious? Citation please.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Source: Me.
            Of the thousands of people I’ve know in my lifetime, homosexuals comprised less than 1%. Next.

          • MisterPine

            Couple of obvious reasons for that:

            You would not strike me as someone who would willingly befriend a gay or lesbian person due to your religious beliefs regarding them.
            Also, I guarantee you that you DO know many closeted gay people. Some of them may even be in sexless marriages.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You can guarantee nothing, Mr. Pine. You’re not omniscient.
            I served 4 years in the U.S. Army and met many different people, around the world. Some of my friends, who I partied with, were lesbians.
            So, as usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • MisterPine

            I can absolutely guarantee that you pulled that “less than 1%” figure out of your nether regions, Nick from Detroit, because you admitted it’s your own and it also flies in the face of every other reliable statistic out there. As usual, you re-imagine reality to fit with your fantasy, as you do by actually believing you align with the supposed hordes of gay and lesbian supporters of the homophobic pizzeria.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Pot calling kettle.
            There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

          • MisterPine

            There are also made-up statistics, such as yours.
            Oh, wait – never mind, those are lies.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I can say the same about yours, Mr. Pine. See how that works?

          • MisterPine

            I report the news, Nick from Detroit, I don’t invent it, as you do.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            We report. You decide, folks.
            Leftwingers rewrite history. Like Stalin did when he airbrushed c0mmies out of pictures. Orwell called it the Ministry of Truth. (That’s called irony, for all of you liberals out there.)

          • MisterPine

            If you get to invoke Stalin, do I get to invoke Hitler?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Oh, Mr. Pine, it’s so easy to push your buttons. Am I living rent-free inside your head, yet? As I’m doing with Parque?
            To answer your question, NO! Since they were both leftwingers, like yourself, you get to own both mass murderers, okay?

          • MisterPine

            Is THAT what you think you’re doing, Nick from Detroit? Who exactly are you trying to convince, you or me? I’m still processing the rather interesting news that I’m a leftwinger.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I know I’m doing it, Mr. Pine. It’s soooooo obvious.
            If you’re a man of the right, why didn’t you share your thoughts on Socialist Security and bi-lingual laws?

          • MisterPine

            Well, you just keep telling yourself that, then. If it isn’t obvious to you yet that you’re a laughingstock, you’re not likely to twig to that anytime soon.

            I’d answer your question if I knew what you were talking about. There is no such thing as Socialist Security, just as there is no such thing as SS counterfeit “marriage”. Rewriting the English language is clearly a job you take seriously, unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world and use language common to one another.

            I have no opinion on bi-lingual laws.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Oh, Socialist Security is welfare for old people. In the U.S., it was imposed on us by the Polio Prince (FDR). I don’t know what it’s called there, my Canadian cousin. But, I remember my mom telling me that you guys had the same thing.
            How can you no have opinion on bi-lingual laws? How about Quebec seceding?

          • MisterPine

            The “Polio Prince” – nice, do you have a mocking, derogatory phrase for every person or thing you hate?

            We have CPP, Canada Pension Plan. It’s nice to know it’s there for when I may need it. Bilingual laws don’t affect me, I never give them a second thought.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, Mr. Pine, I have funny and amusing names for lots of people. I learned that from Saul Alinsky. And, for the umpteenth time, I’m Catholic. I don’t hate ANYONE. Really. Honest. Even horrible people like Charles Manson, Vlad Putin, and Bubba “The Rapist” Clinton.

            Oh, right, the CPP. Reminds me of the CCCP! You’ll probably have to look that up, too, if your too young to remember. Bi-lingual laws don’t effect you? Don’t you have to pay for all of those signs & legal documents with your taxes? You didn’t address Quebec’s secession movement, by the way.

          • MisterPine

            If it walks like a duck and hates like a duck, Nick from Detroit, what else should I deduce? Funny and amusing names like “homo-fascist” – yes, completely delightful. I’m sure that goes down a storm at KKK rallies. Can’t imagine where else, though.

            All right, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you hate CPP, you hate bilingualism in Canada, and you hate a few other things about my country, but you haven’t stated why. Hard to imagine ANYONE in Canada who’d be opposed to CPP, it’s going to benefit us later on when we need it. Regarding Quebec/bilingualism, as I’ve already stated, I don’t care. It doesn’t affect me.

          • Tristan A

            Last week a conservative christian GOP official filed for a law in California to actually shoot homosexuals….. Sounds like execution to me…

          • Paul Hiett

            I know you’ve been on here long enough to see what people like “Gary” would say. I know you’ve seen him advocate for these things.

        • The Last Trump

          Man, you can’t even bring yourself to just acknowledge that arson and death threats are wrong, can you?
          Bash Christians and sling your hate and intolerance with every post, EVEN when the Christians are the victims of your hateful group. Shameful.
          Be sure to add this post to your hate machine website of bigotry and intolerance. That’s MisterPine’s gang of thugs for hate and intolerance at fstdt.com. Where hater’s go to hate! Sad.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nobody here is suggesting that the death threat and arson threat weren’t wrong. Why would you think that? I, myself, have stated several times it was wrong, but those who do that do not represent anyone but themselves.

          • MisterPine

            You want sad?

            Pastor Donnie Romero, founder of Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas
            Texas pastor brags about harassing lesbians as he calls for death of ‘dirty f*ggots’
            “I love that part of the Bible, and I’m going to preach that part of the Bible until the day I die, and if I ever stop preaching that part of the Bible, I hope my kids tell me, ‘Dad, you’re going soft on sin. You need to get up there and rip on these queers because it’s only getting worse and worse’”
            “Romero said gays should be marked for death, unlike other sinners, because he said God views them as an abomination.”
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/texas-pastor-brags-about-harassing-lesbians-as-he-calls-for-death-of-dirty-fggots/

            Patsor Stephen L. Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona
            ‘Kill All Homos’ Pastor: ‘It’s the Government’s Job’ to Execute Gay People (VIDEO)
            http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/06/kill-all-homos-pastor-its-the-governments-job-to-execute-gay-people-video/
            http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/arizona-pastor-the-government-should-use-the-death-penalty-on-homosexuals/
            “It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there,” he told his congregation after quoting from Leviticus. “Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”
            “Rather than the government’s job is to punish criminals and to execute those who commit capital crimes and, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a capital crime, and I didn’t write the Bible.”
            “Well, that’s just a fallacy that it just turns out that certain people are gay. That’s just a lie. Because it’s not random — it’s not something that’s just gonna accidentally happen to one of my children…”

            AZ Pastor’s ‘Biblical’ FINAL SOLUTION to ‘Homo’ ‘Pedophiles’: Mass Extermination (VIDEO)
            http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/this-arizona-pastor-wants-to-cure-aids-by-exterminating-all-the-homos-video/
            “And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.
            Because just think — what would be your attitude toward pedophiles? That should be your attitude toward homos. Would you have pedophiles over for a family gathering? Would you invite pedophiles into the church? No — that’s what they are.”

            Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church
            “I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.”
            http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/north-carolina-pastor-calls-death-gays-lesbians-trapping-electric-fence-article-1.1082160

            Pastor Robby Gallaty, Brainerd Baptist Church
            “They must be put to death. And their blood is on their own hands”
            http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/04/christian-pastor-at-mega-chruch-calls-on-gays-to-be-put-to-death/

            Pastor Curtis Knapp, of the New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas
            “They should be put to death. Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”
            http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/audio-pastor-curtis-knapp-calls-us-government-kill-gays

            Pastor Robert Anderson, Colonial Baptist Church
            “Those who practice such things are deserving of death”
            http://www.theindychannel.com/news/pastor-says-same-sex-couples-worthy-of-death

            Pastor Michael V. Williams, PreachingPolitics
            “practice of homosexuality in the United States of America and in all its territories and possessions, and in all its States, Counties and Cities shall be a felony punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor.”
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/pastor-calls-to-imprison-gays-for-ten-years-hard-labor-with-new-constitutional-amendment/

            Reverend Michael Crook
            “I really, truly wish that atheism and homosexuality could both be criminalized with the death penalty as end result”
            http://aattp.org/christian-pastor-calls-for-atheists-and-gays-to-be-put-to-death/

          • The Last Trump

            So, no. You CAN’T bring yourself to even say what your ‘people’ did was wrong.
            Thought so.
            As you were, hater.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you can’t bring yourself to admit that there are preachers in this country advocating to the people that look up to them that gays and atheists should be executed.

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            I was commenting on THIS article.
            Not sure why you folks seem to still be on the Christian witch hunt.
            Oh, who am I kidding! Of course you are!
            You always are. Sigh.

          • Paul Hiett

            He lists many article about preachers preaching the execution of gays and atheists. You responded directly to that article.

            I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of what you did.

          • The Last Trump

            Witch hunt. I responded to THAT article!? Say what now?
            Remember the other day when you SHOCKED the forum by claiming you support all religions, including Christianity?
            Talk about hypocrisy. Thy name is Paul.
            You’re not doing to well supporting your own false claims, bud.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you even paying attention to what you say? Yes, you responded to his post.

            And yes, I support the belief that everyone should have the right to believe what they want, but that your beliefs end where my rights begin.

          • The Last Trump

            “You responded directly to that ARTICLE” ??

            Am I even paying attention to what I SAY?!

            “Yes, you responded to his POST”

            Yeah, I’m the ONE not paying attention.
            Clearly.
            Apology accepted, POT. (You know the rest..)

          • Mary Kilbride

            I have never heard one. I have only heard them speak of loving and forgiving. You will have to take your anger about what is in the Bible to God. If somebody behaves in such a horrible manner, is that an excuse for you to behave in the same way? Is that the solution? By the way, that is what my mom would say to me when I was a child. Time to grow up.

          • Paul Hiett

            Maybe you should read the links Mr Pine posted above?

          • The Last Trump

            Whatever for?
            Because those individual cases represent the entire group, right?
            Is this what Paul Hiett would like to go on record here and now to proclaim?

            This oughta be good.

            (And thanks again Paul, for your undying support for Christianity. Please don’t do us anymore favours, bud. Thanks.)

          • Paul Hiett

            You seem to think one person making death threats is indicative of all atheists and gays.

            Furthermore, you missed the entire point. Mary said “I have never heard one” in regards to the claim that preachers don’t say those things.

            I merely posted Mr Pines links proving that some do, in fact, say those things.

          • MisterPine

            8 hate-spewing, murderous pastors are “individual cases”, yet one screwball making a death threat represents all homosexuals?

            Rumpy, I could have a more stimulating conversation with an ant.

          • The Last Trump

            EIGHT whole cases!!? Hold the phone!
            Well, that settles it then. Christianity is B.A.D.!
            (Hee, hee! What a knuckle head! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            And yet you make such a huge deal about a single screwball who threatens a pizzeria. Hypocrisy much?

          • The Last Trump

            Um, the article is ABOUT a pizzeria that is threatened by screwballs. Not sure where I lost you there…
            And they were threatened by MANY LGBT screwballs, not ONE.
            Nice try though. 😉

          • MisterPine

            Any proof they were LGBT Rumpy? No? Then why make that assumption? Maybe they just don’t take kindly to Christian bigots. Which you are. Hee, hee! Too funny, Rumpster!

          • MisterPine

            I already did, Rumpy. I notice you have no comments or objections about all these bigot pastors who want to kill gay people.

            Want to talk about hate? It oozes from your pores.

          • The Last Trump

            No comments? Why would we be commenting on the evils OTHER people have done?!

            I’m here commenting about THIS article!? Koo, koo!
            But sure, let’s talk about all of the homosexuals who have abused children and committed other crimes. Only to have you then, claim, we can’t judge the entire group on individual cases. Sure.

            Yawn. No thanks, argumentative attention wh0re.
            No rabbit trails for you today. The trolls have been fed enough.

          • MisterPine

            “No comments? Why would we be commenting on the evils OTHER people have done?!”

            Oh, sorry, I forgot you had a comprehension problem. Well, you see Rumpy, there is this problem in the country now with Christian supremacists stomping all over the rights of homosexuals, but every so often you’ll encounter a spin doctor who will ACTUALLY try to deflect attention from this very real problem, and even occasionally try to play the victim card instead. Yes, poor little Christians, so hard done by – even though if they would mind their own business they’d find they can still practice their religion in peace.

            “But sure, let’s talk about all of the homosexuals who have abused children and committed other crimes.”

            …all the homosexuals who have…?
            LOL!!!!!!
            Oh, by ALL means! Yes! Let’s do just that, and then compare the same exact statistics to straight people who have abused children!

            “Yawn. No thanks, argumentative attention wh0re.”

            No, trust me, you do NOT want to get your butt handed to you for the million and first time. Let’s keep it at a nice round million.

          • The Last Trump

            You mean just over 800 000?
            Oh , sorry. I thought we were still talking about ALL THE MONEY the evil Christians made from the hateful and intolerant antics your favorite group shamed themselves with!
            Hee, hee! Too easy Pinester! Keep servin’ them up! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Well of COURSE it’s “too easy”, Rumpy, when you ignore my points completely and talk about the completely unrelated disgrace of a bunch of your fellow bigots sending money to each other.

            Hee, hee! Too funny, Rumpy! Crank up your hate machine some more!

          • KenS

            Hello, did you forget which article we are posting on? This is the article about how the money was used to reopen the pizzeria. You know that right?

          • MisterPine

            Well, I know how to follow a thread, do you?

          • The Last Trump

            ??

            “the completely unrelated” he says! 🙂 Hee, hee!

            You mean, THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE!
            That YOU have consistently tried to ignore in desperate and obvious attempts to steer the conversation to what the article is NOT about.

            Killin’ me Pinester! Where do you come up with this blatant hypocrisy and complete insanity? Don’t ever change you little nutjob you!

            Do you do birthday parties, clown?
            🙂

          • MisterPine

            Right, and in the real world as we know it, threads may contain several subjects at once, including the ones you chose to ignore. Convenient. Idiotic, but convenient.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh, so we CAN talk about other things then…
            ?
            But…you…complained…”about the completely unrelated..”!?
            Sigh. Make up your mind, MisterHypocrical. We can, we can’t.
            It’s whatever Pine says it is when he says it is and then not again?
            You’re arguing from both sides of the same issue. Again.
            Like I said. Attention wh0re. You just want to argue.
            Have fun, you poor misguided fool. 🙁

          • MisterPine

            It seems ludicrous to even have to do this, but here’s how this unfolded:

            UMustBKiddinMe posts suggesting the pizzeria people are pulling a publicity stunt.

            Mary Waterton gets her panties in a bunch and calls him horrible and suggests he is one of the people who made death threats.

            I respond asking if she’s OK with the actions of Christian pastors calling for the killing of gay people.

            Then you, Rumpy, stick your nose in and tell me that I think death threats and arson are OK, even though I said nothing at all like that. You call me sad.

            I say, you want sad? And I post with several links the gay-killing pastors’ own words.

            You again call me out for not speaking up enough (to your liking) about the actions of the people who made the pizzeria threats.

            I acknowledge that I did so already, and point out that you’ve said nothing about the hateful pastors I asked you about.

            Then suddenly you get high and mighty about sticking to THIS article even though you’ve diverted it yourself by talking about FSTDT.com. And then, you make the UNBELIEVABLE, and equally unrelated, comment: “let’s talk about all of the homosexuals who have abused children and committed other crimes.”

            I laugh at you (which you deserve) and take you up on your suggestion and ask that we compare the statistic to straight abusers of children.

            You then make a sharp left, ignoring all the most recent things and go back to gloating about the money the Christian pizzeria bigots raked in.

            That’s how it unfolded, Rumpy. If it went off topic, you went right along with it with no complaints. Until now.

          • The Last Trump

            So…what you’re saying is….?

          • KenS

            I agree that both sides are wrong. The pastors should not be preaching the hate and the gay activists should not be vandalizing and sending death threats.

          • Paul Hiett

            By the way, we do recognize that those preachers do not represent all of Christiandom…just like those who make death threats against businesses who discriminate based on sexual orientation are not like all atheists or gays. Most of us just want to “live and let live”.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I agree. There is no excuse for threats of violence or harm simply because you do not with someone’s beliefs.

            With that said, I certainly understand that people wish to express their feelings and views – even if that is not always done in the least harmful way.

            Again, there is no justification for threats against others.

          • The Last Trump

            Hey, MisterIntolerance!

            Scroll back up again and check out the smile on her face!
            Something to behold, eh little hate-filled buddy?

            Who would have thought that out of such shameful hate and intolerance from your LGBT crowd, such joy and relief could come to followers of Christ!

            Oh yeah. CHRISTIANS would have thought! What a great God we serve, eh you “I’m a descendant of monkeys” (!?) loon, you!

            “Nothing is impossible for those that believe” comes to mind here, as well as, “Thou preparest a table before me (an $800 000 dollar TABLE!) in the presence of mine enemies”

            Blessed be our God. All glory and honour belong to HIM. 🙂

          • Paul Hiett

            “Check out the smile on her face!”

            http://christiannews.net/2015/04/03/hundreds-of-thousands-in-donations-pour-in-for-pizzeria-forced-to-close-over-biblical-marriage-beliefs/

            Yeah, seen that pic before…it’s from the original article as well.

          • MisterPine

            How much money did you send her, Rumpy? How many bigot bucks did you liberate from your wallet in the name of Christian love and tolerance?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            And again Amen !

        • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

          Your hate for Christians is unbelievable. May God send all your hate back to you DOUBLE. And may His Love, Peace and his protection rest on every Christian you have abused with your hate .

          • MisterPine

            I don’t hate Christians, I hate HATRED, BIGOTRY and STUPIDITY practiced by so many Christians who should know better. Especially people like you who REQUEST that God come after me with hate! What the hell is the matter with you?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            No, you do ((((Hate)))) Christians. And you (((Hate))) the God we believe in . We can read it in your words. We see it in your attitude ! <

          • MisterPine

            Is it that hard for you to just not hate on gay people?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            I do not hate gay people . I never did and I never will . I do not agree with their life style .
            If God loved Humanity enough to send his Son to give Humanity a way out Through Christ . How can I hate them .
            I do not like how they bully people. But if God ((((LOVES)))) them …….
            There is a gay man who lives near me , When we see each other we talk .If you could talk to him you would know that I do not hate Gays . I do Pray for him . I Pray for him because I Love him as a brother . My Prayer is that he will one day be Delivered and to receive Salvation and become my Brother in Christ ! He is not the only one I know and care for .
            We can love others without compromising what we believe in . Love can be a strange thing ………….
            <3 < God < Is < Not < Dead < <3

          • The Last Trump

            Where did she say she hated anybody?
            Disagree does not mean hate, MisterIntolerance.
            When will you sick liberals get that through your thick heads?
            Crying “Hate!” is just a sad bullying tactic immature people on the wrong side of right have to use to take the focus off their own shameful position. Gettin’ old.

          • MisterPine

            And where did *I* say I hated Christians, as she claims? Didn’t think this through, did you Rumpy? You huge pile of crap! Hee, hee!

          • The Last Trump

            So…she didn’t.
            Thanks Pine! Almost got a straight answer…

          • MisterPine

            She hates, Rumpy. Just like you do. Hee, hee! You wanker!

          • MisterPine

            Most Christians don’t say things like “May God send all your hate back to you DOUBLE” Rumpy.

            She’s like you, delusional in that she sees hate in all the places except where she SHOULD see it – herself.

            Keep fighting the nasty evil “gaystop” Rumpy! Keep on denying those equal rights!

          • The Last Trump

            More fans huh, Pine?
            Nah, you don’t hate. 😉

            Keep up the good work bud.
            AT FSTDT.COM. WHERE HATERS GO TO HATE!

          • MisterPine

            No no..

            http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=107579

            Where people delight in fundie stupidity of the LAST TRUMP variety!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You hate Christians and you’re a h0m0ph0be, Mr. Pine.
            And, I see that you’re still h0cking that l0ser site who couldn’t even afford to upgrade from win’95!
            What did you do, Mr. Pine? Plead with any atheist you could find to come here to help you out? Like you did with Paul?
            Truly pathetic.

          • MisterPine

            Utter crapola as usual, Nick from Detroit, but that does seem to be your specialty. Since I am here standing up for homosexuals who put up with nonstop hatred and garbage from you, how exactly can I be called a homophobe in ANY way? Is it because I didn’t make a monetary contribution to the pizza bigots? Wait – the people who DID that are homophobes, so no, it can’t be that. And Christians – REAL Christians who do as Jesus did and show kindness and respect to homosexuals, how do I hate THEM, Nick from Detroit? Sounds to me like you’re talking out your wazoo yet again.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re a homophobe, Mr. Pine, because you’ve attacked homosexuals, like Miss Hoffman & Mr. Smith (whom you want to deny existence), and called the “gay community” hateful, just because they supported the pizza shop owners and gave them money. You know, those who are not homo-fascists, and believe that business owners can enter into contracts freely, without some apparatchik fining them for thought crimes.
            How many times do I have to remind you that, as a Catholic, I don’t hate anyone. Even you. I love everybody, because all are made in the image and likeness of God.

          • MisterPine

            You are a liar, Nick from Detroit. Plain and simple.

            Nowhere on the internet can it be confirmed that Buz Smith is a real person. If he were, I would be the first to admit it. I disagree with Miss Hoffman’s position and her actions, but not because she is a lesbian.

            So the question remains, Nick from Detroit, how am I being homophobic?

            As for your actions being “loving”, I think you might want to look at your actions a little more closely and then find a more appropriate word.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So, you’re denying Buz Smith personhood, eh, Mr. Pine? This is how homophobic you have become? (Did it ever occur to you that he made used a pseudonym (look it up) so that he wouldn’t get attacked by you and your intolerant leftwing zealot friends?)
            I stand with the “gay community” who supported the owners of Memories Pizza to run their business they way they pleased.

          • MisterPine

            No, I’m not denying Buz Smith personhood, Nick from Detroit. Reality seems to be doing that.

            And this is homophobic how? Please explain. I’m dying to know how this makes me in any way homophobic.

            “I stand with the “gay community” who supported the owners of Memories Pizza to run their business they way they pleased.”

            What, all two of them? I stand with the great many more who stood up to Memories’ bigoted statement.

            My disagreement with the actions of Hoffman and Smith relates in no way to their sexuality. Your charge is BS.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Do I have to spell it out for you, Mr. Pine?

            You called those who supported the owners of Memories Pizza, and gave them money, bigots, haters, and homophobes.
            Miss Hoffman, Buz Smith, and many members of the “gay community” supported Memories Pizza’s right to run their business however they wanted, and gave them money.
            Thus, according to you, these supporters must be bigots, haters, homophobes.
            Ergo, you’re a homophobe because you disagree with what these homosexuals believe. This is how leftwinger logic operates.
            I don’t hate pro-homosexual zealots, such as yourself; I hate HATRED, BIGOTRY and STUPIDITY practiced by so many pro-homosexual zealots who should know better.

          • MisterPine

            > Do I have to spell it out for you, Mr. Pine?

            Yes, because you’re using a brand of logic that only you understand.

            > You called those who supported the owners of Memories Pizza, and gave them money, bigots, haters, and homophobes.

            Correct. With you so far.

            > Miss Hoffman, Buz Smith, and many members of the “gay community” supported Memories Pizza’s right to run their business however they wanted, and gave them money.

            The only one we know of for sure was Hoffman. Buz Smith may not exist, he may for all we know be a straight donor who SAID he was gay. However, I still follow you.

            > Thus, according to you, these supporters must be bigots, haters, homophobes.

            WRONG. This is where your logic fails UTTERLY. I talked about Hoffman already and said I disagreed with her. I didn’t call her any names, and if I had, they would have had nothing to do with her orientation. And if there are any ACTUAL homosexuals other than Hoffman who contributed, I would make NO reference to their orientation in my disagreeing with them.

            I don’t hate anti-gay zealots, such as yourself; I hate HATRED, BIGOTRY and STUPIDITY practiced by so many anti-gay zealots who should know better.

            This was an utter lie, Nick from Detroit. You have been utterly and completely owned on this one.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I’m using liberal logic, Mr. Pine. See why you leftwingers are so unreasonable?

            The only LGBT one we know of for sure was Hoffman.

            Wrong. Miss Hoffman also included her “girlfriend.” Unless, you’re going to call her a liar too? Like you have been with Mr. Smith.

            WRONG.
            You called anyone who supported the owners of Memories Pizza bigots, intolerant, and haters. Remember? That includes Miss Hoffman, her girlfriend, and the “gay community” she referred to. You gave no qualifiers when you made those hateful, bigoted statements. Does their sexual preference give them a get-out-of-jail-free card in your twisted mind and logic?

            Mr. Pine: “EVERYONE who gave money to Memories Pizza is a bigoted, hateful HOMOPHOBE!!!!!!!”

            Nick from Detroit: “But…umm…here are some homosexuals who gave money to Memories Pizza. Plus, they support their right to provide service to whomever they wish. Oh, and they apologized for all of the hateful comments spewed at Memories Pizza by people like you, Mr. Pine.”

            Mr. Pine: “Everyone, except those homosexuals. I just merely disagree with them. Because I respect the views of everyone. All the rest of you Christian haters are BIGOTS!!!!!!

            The twisted logic of Mr. Pine. Well, most leftwingers, really.

          • MisterPine

            > I’m using liberal logic, Mr. Pine. See why you leftwingers are so unreasonable?

            Nope, you’re not using logic at all, you’re going by your feelings, as you do when you make irresponsible statements like the LGBT population is less than 1%. You came right out and admitted that was your own statistic.

            > Wrong. Miss Hoffman also included her “girlfriend.” Unless, you’re going to call her a liar too? Like you have been with Mr. Smith.

            In the first place, it isn’t her “girlfriend,” it’s her girlfriend. In the second, I never called Hoffman OR Smith a liar. Really think it’s best that you stop making things up.

            > You called anyone who supported the owners of Memories Pizza bigots, intolerant, and haters.

            No. Again, stop making things up. I may well have called the Christian bigots who ponied up cash to support the pizzeria’s hate machine, and they are. I didn’t call the LGBT members – all two of them – anything of the kind.

            > You gave no qualifiers when you made those hateful, bigoted statements. Does their sexual preference give them a get-out-of-jail-free card in your twisted mind and logic?

            It was unnecessary to give qualifiers, you just lumped ALL the supporters in to make your lie more convenient

            It’s obvious you’re lying because I would never refer to a lesbian as a homophobe. That’s stupid and illogical.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That’s all you leftwingers do, is go by your feelings, Mr. Pine. Rather than rational, reasoned argument. You’re Exhibit A of this, I’m afraid.

            In the second, I never called Hoffman OR Smith a liar.
            You wrote, “Buz Smith may not exist, he may for all we know be a straight donor who SAID he was gay.” That’s calling Mr. Smith a liar. You’d better stop making things up, okay?

            I may well have called the Christian bigots who ponied up cash to support the pizzeria’s hate machine, and they are. [Called them what?] I didn’t call the LGBT members – all two of them – anything of the kind.
            Do you not see the cognitive dissonance, Mr. Pine? (Look it up, or, ask Mr. Hiett for help, again.)

            That’s stupid and illogical.
            And, yet, you did it anyway. Such is the mind of a leftwing zealot. Facts do not deter you.
            I wanted to be a liberal when I was younger. I just couldn’t go through with the lobotomy.

          • MisterPine

            “That’s all you leftwingers do, is go by your feelings, Mr. Pine. Rather
            than rational, reasoned argument. You’re Exhibit A of this, I’m afraid.”

            Provide an example then, so I can demonstrate you’re lying.

            “That’s calling Mr. Smith a liar. You’d better stop making things up, okay?”

            Not quite clever enough, Nick from Detroit. The key lies in the part of my sentence which you DIDN’T highlight:

            “he may for all we know”

            So that is not calling Mr. Smith a liar. Since Mr. Smith’s very existence is in question, how is that even possible? Present me Mr. Smith, and prove he’s a homosexual, and then I’ll tell you that I disagree with him – but don’t HATE him, and certainly have no issue with his sexuality. Exactly as I feel about Hoffman.

            “Do you not see the cognitive dissonance, Mr. Pine?”

            There is none, Nick from Detroit. This is you backpedalling and tap-dancing your way out of a web of lies.

            “And, yet, you did it anyway. Such is the mind of a leftwing zealot. Facts do not deter you. ”

            I didn’t do it AT ALL. My entire reason for being on this forum is to stand up to radical Christian bigotry, including homophobia and hate, so tell me why I’d EVER have any reason to say anything homophobic to a lesbian. You are just grasping at straws, and becoming more incoherent with every post.

            Incidentally I can see the worst thing anyone can be in your eyes is a “leftwinger” – that’s all you scream at me over, and over, leftwinger leftwinger leftwinger – here in Canada my views are considered center-to-right, so you should really ask yourself what you THINK a leftwinger is. Because I promise you, I’ve never been called that by anyone in my life until I showed up here.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Provide an example then, so I can demonstrate you’re lying.
            Like you provided examples of my alleged “lying” to Paul, Mr. Pine? I’m still waiting for them, by the way.
            So…um…NO. I will not give you examples until you show me where I lied.

            The key lies in the part of my sentence which you DIDN’T highlight:
            Those are the weasel words of the liar. You questioned the contributor’s homosexuality, ergo, you called him a liar. Which also makes you a homophobe, again. That makes you homophobic-squared!

            Since Mr. Smith’s very existence is in question, how is that even possible?
            It’s only “in question” to a few loons, like yourself, Mr. Pine.

            There is none, Nick from Detroit.
            There is, Mr. Pine. A lot of it, to be sure. By what rationale do you call those who gave money to Memories Pizza bigots, haters, & intolerant; and, yet, exclude any homosexual, who also gave money, from the same set of hateful adjectives? Especially, when they also apologized for the hateful and intolerant comments of people like you, Mr. Pine?

            [S]o tell me why I’d EVER have any reason to say anything homophobic to a lesbian.
            I wouldn’t know, I’m not delusional, like you, Mr. Pine.

            Hey! I’m half Canadian. Boy, am I glad that my Granpa and Nana brought my mom to the U.S.!
            If you’re center-right, tell me how you feel about Socialist Security, or whatever you guys call it up there? How about the bi-lingual laws? Do you support them? You do enjoy the tyranny of the minority, after all.
            I know how hard it is for you to answer questions, Mr. Pine, so, I won’t expect your response to these. Just like you couldn’t answer all of those simple Bible questions, remember?

          • MisterPine

            You were proven a liar twofold by myself and by Mr. Hiett, Nick from Detroit. It was proven. You dodged, ignored, deceived, lied. It’s your standard response to everything when you’ve been caught in something you can’t get out of.

            “Those are the weasel words of the liar.”

            Let’s look at them again…in the exact, complete sentence I typed them in:

            “Buz Smith may not exist, he may for all we know be a straight donor who SAID he was gay.”

            You didn’t like that “for all we know” part so you conveniently pretended it wasn’t there, hoping people reading wouldn’t notice. But I noticed, Nick from Detroit. As you can see, it is his very existence that I question. As for his sexuality, I proposed that it would be very easy for a straight person who wants to make LGBT people look bad (like yourself) who pledged the money and claimed to be homosexual. That doesn’t make me anything resembling a homophobe, Nick from Detroit. So you can stop trying to make yourself out to be the savior to LGBT people and me the one who attacks them.

            “By what rationale do you call those who gave money to Memories Pizza bigots, haters, & intolerant; and, yet, exclude any homosexual, who also gave money, from the same set of hateful adjectives?”

            By the rationale that if they were gay people contributing money to people only hostile to gay weddings, I could call them a lot of things, but there is not a single, solitary, rational reason to insult them for being gay or lesbian, something I have never done to any LGBT person my entire life. What you’re trying so feebly to paint me as is so completely antithetical to my entire existence, that you are a buffoon extraordinaire. You are depriving a village somewhere of an idi0t.

            Do you likewise scream at nuns and priests and call them anti-Catholic? Do you likewise scream at Richard Dawkins for being such a bad Christian? Do you likewise go to the Creation Museum and protest for it being too pro-evolution? This is the kind of thing you’re trying to float with a straight face, hoping people will take you seriously. No one does, Nick from Detroit. You’re a nutty as a fruitcake.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It was proven.
            It wan’t proven. What was the alleged lie? I’m still waiting. Quote me at length. Please! I insist.

            You didn’t like that “for all we know” part so you conveniently pretended it wasn’t there, hoping people reading wouldn’t notice.
            Umm…I quoted you, Mr. Pine, verbatim. How was I hiding it, Einstein?

            So you can stop trying to make yourself out to be the savior to LGBT people and me the one who attacks them.
            But, you did attack them, when you called them bigots, haters, and intolerant, remember?

            but there is not a single, solitary, rational reason to insult them for being gay or lesbian
            Straw man. I didn’t claim that was the reason for your hateful and bigoted attacks against ANYONE who gave money to Memories Pizza. You attacked us for supporting them, and called us hateful things. Miss Hoffman and her “girlfriend” apologized for your disgusting behavior, Mr. Pine. Deal with it.

            What you’re trying so feebly to paint me as is so completely antithetical to my entire existence
            I’ve painted you as a hypocritical, unreasonable, and irrational anti-liberty, anti-Christian bigot, Mr. Pine. I give you a lot of credit, though. You did provide plenty of material!
            (Plus, now you’re a homophobe-cubed!)

            Do you likewise scream at nuns and priests and call them anti-Catholic?

            Umm…yeah. Somebody get a net.

          • MisterPine

            You insist? Isn’t that interesting. Insist all you like. Stamp your feet. Paul called you out first, I just commented on it.

            “Umm…I quoted you, Mr. Pine, verbatim. How was I hiding it, Einstein?”

            By quoting half a sentence, EINSTEIN, and totally losing most of the context in the process by leaving a crucial part out.

            “But, you did attack them, when you called them bigots, haters, and intolerant, remember?”

            Only in your imagination did I do that. It is obvious I wouldn’t call homosexuals those words.

            I was critical of Christian bigots who sent money to the pizzeria. I didn’t attack in any way the two or three homosexuals who contributed money, although I’m sure I stated that I disagreed with them and thought they were misguided. It ends there, Nick from Detroit. You’re working overtime to mind homophobia out of a situation that doesn’t contain an ounce of it.

            No, Nick from Detroit, the light you were trying to paint me into was one of homophobia. Ludicrous and insane though it was.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You insist?
            That was I insist, as in, “Have the last piece of pie, I insist.” Not a temper tantrum. Conveying such manners of speech is tricky, I readily admit.

            Paul called you out first, I just commented on it.
            No, you called me a liar, without any evidence, too.

            By quoting half a sentence […].
            Do you really not know the meaning of the wore verbatim, Mr. Pine? No wonder you’re so bad at this! It means quoted every word. Here is what I wrote, again: You wrote, “Buz Smith may not exist, he may for all we know be a straight donor who SAID he was gay.” See? No ellipses. I included “for all we know.” How can make such bald-faced lies and still live with yourself, Mr. Pine?

            It is obvious I wouldn’t call homosexuals those words.
            And, yet, you did.

            I was critical of Christian bigots who sent money to the pizzeria.
            Which only proves that you’re a hypocrite and have double-standards for Christians and homosexuals. And, you used no qualifiers.

            I didn’t attack in any way the two or three homosexuals who contributed money […].
            It was the “gay community” according to Miss Hoffman. I’m going to bet that she knows more homosexuals than you, Mr. Pine. And, since you called everyone who gave money a bigot, you did attack them, brainiac.

            […] [A]lthough I’m sure I stated that I disagreed with them and thought they were misguided.

            Quotation, please?

            Just admit it, Mr. Pine, okay? Homosexuals are disgusted by you, and your ilk, who have attacked those brave pizza shop owners for doing nothing more than stating their deeply held beliefs. The same tactics of the fascists.

          • MisterPine

            “No, you called me a liar, without any evidence, too.”

            You lie here nonstop, that’s established.

            “Here is what I wrote, again: You wrote, “Buz Smith may not exist, he may for all we know be a straight donor who SAID he was gay.” See? No ellipses. I included “for all we know.” How can make such bald-faced lies and still live with yourself, Mr. Pine?”

            Then why did you choose to bold the text excluding the “for all we know” part, Nick from Detroit? Anyone can hit their arrow up key a few times to see that’s what you did. Doesn’t dishonesty go against your faith?

            “Which only proves that you’re a hypocrite and have double-standards for Christians and homosexuals. And, you used no qualifiers.”

            It isn’t necessary to use qualifiers because anyone with a kindergarten education would know that I’m not including homosexuals when I discuss a group of people who are attacking homosexuals. You may quote me on this, Nick from Detroit. The vast majority of people who contributed to the pizzeria owners are hardcore bigots and they hate homosexuals. I’m not going to shrink from that statement and there’s no reason why I would.

            “It was the “gay community” according to Miss Hoffman. I’m going to bet that she knows more homosexuals than you, Mr. Pine. And, since you called everyone who gave money a bigot, you did attack them, brainiac.”

            And how exactly would Miss Hoffman know that, Nick from Detroit? She can speak for herself and her partner just fine, but not on behalf of people she doesn’t know. And for the last time, I didn’t call EVERYONE who gave money a bigot. I doubt very much Miss Hoffman is a bigot. I think she was wrong to contribute, and misguided. But I would not call her a bigot. You do very well with words you put in the mouths of other people, but you don’t do so well with facts and truth.
            “Quotation, please?”

            Unnecessary.

            “Just admit it, Mr. Pine, okay? Homosexuals are disgusted by you, and your ilk, who have attacked those brave pizza shop owners for doing nothing more than stating their deeply held beliefs. The same tactics of the fascists.”

            Closing the pizzeria doesn’t sound like a very brave act to me. If homosexuals are disgusted by me let them say so, I’d take it from them but not from a misguided, hateful bigot like you.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re the one who continually lies, Mr. Pine. Such as, when you repeatedly made the false claim that Memories Pizza refused to serve homosexuals. Something they never said. You have no qualms spreading calumnies and lies about good Christian people. Don’t you think that’s wrong?

            Then why did you choose to bold the text excluding the “for all we know” part, Nick from Detroit?

            Now which is it? Did I only “quote half a sentence”? Or, did I “bold the text”? Don’t you know the difference between the two? How could you get that so wrong, Mr. Pine? I never denied highlighting your words in bold, did I?

            Anyone can hit their arrow up key a few times to see that’s what you did.

            Yes, they can. And they’ll see just how wrong you were. Don’t you tire of being embarrassed like this, day after day after day? I hope you aren’t showing these exchanges to your family. I wouldn’t want your loved ones to totally lose respect for you, Mr. Pine. The only one being dishonest, is you.

            The vast majority of people who contributed to the pizzeria owners are hardcore bigots and they hate homosexuals.
            And how exactly would Miss Hoffman know that, Nick from Detroit? She can speak for herself and her partner just fine, but not on behalf of people she doesn’t know.
            More cognitive dissonance, Mr. Pine? Will it ever stop? And in successive paragraphs? How exactly do you know how many of the contributors to Memories Pizza were “hardcore bigots” (whatever that is)?

            And for the last time, I didn’t call EVERYONE who gave money a bigot.
            Yes, you did, Mr. Pine. Since you’re delusional, you probably forgot about it.

            Unnecessary.
            Yes, it is necessary, I’m afraid.

            Closing the pizzeria doesn’t sound like a very brave act to me.

            It was very brave, considering the onslaught of hate, abuse, and threats of physical violence directed at them by your anti-Christian bigoted buddies, Mr. Pine. The “gay community” has made it very clear that they are disgusted by the fascist tactics that you use.

          • MisterPine

            I’m not sure how much longer you want to play this game where you lie and accuse me of lying, make homophobic slurs like “homo-fascists” and accuse me of homophobia, attack gay people while you whine about being attacked by gay people, etc. I can play it all day long if you want to but it’s going to be tiresome for people reading it.

            Memories Pizza, which was having financial difficulties before their media circus, didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals and I never said they did. They said they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. I know the story very well, don’t continue to try to muddy the waters in your usual haphazard way.

            > Now which is it? Did I only “quote half a sentence”? Or, did I “bold the text”? Don’t you know the difference between the two? How could you get that so wrong, Mr. Pine?

            I don’t see that it matters terribly much which way you look at it, do you? The point is you focused on the bolded text (why bold it otherwise)?

            > Yes, they can [hit the up arrow key to see what you did]. And they’ll see just how wrong you were.

            Well then let’s let them DO that, Nick from Detroit, and see who the liar, the cheat and the deceiver is in this whole thing. Rather than make accusations, let’s see what people have to say for themselves, although I think the fact you discussed bolded text and disregarded un-bolded text pretty much tells all the story anyone needs to hear.

            > How exactly do you know how many of the contributors to Memories Pizza were “hardcore bigots” (whatever that is)?

            What would you call someone who contributed money to a restaurant who did nothing to deserve it except announce that they would not service a gay wedding? Good, brave, loyal Christians, I suppose?

            > And for the last time, I didn’t call EVERYONE who gave money a bigot.
            Yes, you did, Mr. Pine. Since you’re delusional, you probably forgot about it.

            I know what I said, Nick from Detroit. I didn’t call Miss Hoffman a bigot. Go look for the text that confirms it if that’s what you want.

            > It was very brave, considering the onslaught of hate, abuse, and threats of physical violence directed at them by your anti-Christian bigoted buddies, Mr. Pine.

            Onslaught of hate? Is that right? And how do you know the people making the threats were “anti-Christian bigots”? How do you know they were anti-Christian? How do you know how many they were? How do you know ANYTHING about them at all, based on a couple of vague news stories?

            Answer: You don’t. You are impervious to facts.

            > The “gay community” has made it very clear that they are disgusted by the fascist tactics that you use.

            So now they are the “gay community”? I thought they were “homo-fascists”, Nick from Detroit, you KNOW I can easily go back and find many times when you called them that. Make up your clouded mind.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You seem to have forgotten, as usual, that homo-fascist is my shorthand way of saying pro-homosexual special rights fascists. It’s not exclusive to only homosexuals, but, includes all of their fascistic allies. Like you, Mr. Pine. I haven’t lied about using it, I constantly repeat it. Especially, for you.

            Memories Pizza, which was having financial difficulties before their media circus, didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals and I never said they did.

            “Oh yes, those poor oppressed pizzeria owners who are refusing to serve people who have absolutely no control over whom they are attracted to and love.” – MisterPine, 14 days ago

            Do you NOT know how easy it is to find your EXACT words on the internet, Mr. Pine? It took me about 2 minutes to find this quote of yours. How sad it is that you have to lie all the time. Or, do you suffer from Alzheimer’s?
            I tried to link to your comment, but, it kept going to the moderator. People can just google, though.

            By “muddy the waters” I assume you mean how I report nothing but the truth, while you continue to lie?

            I don’t see that it matters terribly much which way you look at it, do you?
            It doesn’t matter to you, Mr. Pine, because you just got caught in another whopper! Why can’t you just admit it? I focused on the bolded part, because that proved that you lie about claiming that Mr. Smith was lying about his sexual preference.

            Well then let’s let them DO that, Nick from Detroit, and see who the liar, the cheat and the deceiver is in this whole thing.
            They already know, Mr. Pine. It’s quite obvious. This is almost like the fight between Dragline and Cool Hand Luke. “Stay down!” Haven’t you had enough, yet?

            […] [A]nd disregarded un-bolded text pretty much tells all the story anyone needs to hear.
            I addressed the unhighlighted part when I told you that you were using “the weasel words of the liar,” remember? NO, of course you don’t. I’m sorry that I have better recall abilities and intelligence than you, Mr. Pine.

          • MisterPine

            “You seem to have forgotten, as usual, that homo-fascist is my shorthand way of saying pro-homosexual special rights fascists.”

            Hate is hate. Your shorthand doesn’t sugar-coat it. You’ve already been taken to task in this very thread for your use of “special rights” when what they want are EQUAL rights.

            “Do you NOT know how easy it is to find your EXACT words on the internet,
            Mr. Pine? It took me about 2 minutes to find this quote of yours. How
            sad it is that you have to lie all the time. Or, do you suffer from
            Alzheimer’s?”

            Let’s look at your bolded text YET again (sigh)…

            pizzeria owners who are refusing to serve people

            Yes, pretty much describes what you’re doing if you refuse to accommodate a gay wedding. Or not? Come on Nick from Detroit. Show me where the problem is.

            “By “muddy the waters” I assume you mean how I report nothing but the truth, while you continue to lie?”

            Oh, you mean like you told the truth and were SO honest in this most recent example?

            “It doesn’t matter to you, Mr. Pine, because you just got caught in
            another whopper! Why can’t you just admit it? I focused on the bolded
            part, because that proved that you lie about claiming that Mr. Smith was
            lying about his sexual preference.”

            You caught me in NOTHING. You are weaseling in and out of things left and right, and I’ve pointed out every single one. In fact, you lied right there – “claiming that Mr. Smith was lying about his sexual preference.” Where’s the lie? You have a biggest task ahead of you before you can even SAY that – prove Mr. Smith exists, because no one else has been able to so far. Again, where’s the lie? Where’s anything LIKE a lie?

            “They already know, Mr. Pine. It’s quite obvious.”

            Then let them speak up. And you can be quiet until they do, I’m sure you can manage that.

            “I addressed the unhighlighted part when I told you that you were using “the weasel words of the liar,” remember?”

            Not before you tried our your lie of omission and were caught in the process. You lose.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Your reply was soooo long, Mr. Pine, I decided to split mine in two. You sure have a lot to say to someone you think is a bigot, eh?

            What would you call someone who contributed money […].
            Quit trying to deflect your hypocrisy in these two statements. Own it. Like I’m owning you!

            > And for the last time, I didn’t call EVERYONE who gave money a bigot. […] I know what I said, Nick from Detroit. I didn’t call Miss Hoffman a bigot. Go look for the text that confirms it if that’s what you want.

            Oh, Mr. Pine, I really hate to do this to you, again, but, it’s so easy to find your quotes, ya’ know?

            “Oh yes those poor pizza shop owners who are now millionaires because they’ve been funded by crazy hateful bigots. Miss Hoffman has so much to apologize for. She and Buz Smith do NOT represent the vast majority of homosexuals outraged by this blatant human rights violation.” – MisterPine, 9 days ago

            You charged homosexuals, like Miss Hoffman and Mr. Smith, with contributing to a “blatant human rights violation.” It doesn’t get more clearer than that, I’m afraid.

            How do you know how many they were?
            Umm…I never claimed that I knew how many there were, Einstein. Your blinding hate keeps you from reading what I actually wrote, and, makes you see things that aren’t there. I know that they are anti-Christian bigots by their own words. Pretty simple.

            […] [Y]ou KNOW I can easily go back and find many times when you called them that.
            Go ahead, Mr. Pine. I’ve explained the term already. I don’t disavow it, I embrace it. Now, embrace your lies, homophobia and anti-Christian bigotry, okay?

          • MisterPine

            > Quit trying to deflect your hypocrisy in these two statements. Own it. Like I’m owning you!

            Yeah, speaking of DEFLECTION! Nice non-answer there. How are you owning me by dodging and deflecting, Nick from Detroit? Do you suffer from a mental problem?

            “Oh, Mr. Pine, I really hate to do this to you, again, but, it’s so easy to find your quotes, ya’ know?”

            And what did you find? Nothing. Nothing at all. You can see for yourself that I didn’t call Miss Hoffman a bigot, despite your bolding of phrases that attempt to make it appear so. All the bold statements are quite true. But at no point was she called a bigot. Most of the people who funded this travesty are bigots, that is very true. But I didn’t say everyone exclusively who contributed was a bigot. You only WISH I did. And this kind of twisting of words is becoming very boring, Nick from Detroit. No wonder Paul Hiett got bored of talking to you.

            “I know that they are anti-Christian bigots by their words.”

            WHAT words? You know precisely nothing about them! All you know is what you read in an article!

            Lies, homophobia and bigotry? All of them your hallmarks, Nick from Detroit, not mine.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Why do you believe me to be a horrible person, Mary?

        “one of those”

        To the best of my knowledge, they only received one online “death threat”. Were there others?

        To the best of my knowledge, the store was not vandalized in any way. The photo you presented appears to be photoshopped. I could find no pictures or stories about vandalism on the web. Do you have information to the contrary?

        • Mary Kilbride

          They were getting death threats and made the decision to close the store and go to a safe place. That’s their business and not up for judgement calls by people just reading about it online. You aren’t there, so it isn’t up to you. They have decided what they will do with the money and that, too, is up to them. Not you. They don’t answer to you…so take your hatred of Christians and go to an appropriate venue to spew it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They were getting death threats”

            As I said, I was only aware of one. They only mentioned one. Are you aware of others?

            “You aren’t there, so it isn’t up to you.”

            I never suggested it was.

            “They have decided what they will do with the money and that, too, is up to them. Not you.”

            Agreed.

            “so take your hatred of Christians”

            What have I said that would cause you to conclude that I “hate” Christians?

            I’ll ask again: Why do you believe me to be a horrible person, Mary?

        • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

          She is not the only one who thinks your Horrible . Although unkind might be better.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Who else thinks I’m “horrible” and upon what basis?

    • Richard

      Your comments are in line with gay suppression and activism. No tolerance and acceptance there.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        How so?

    • bowie1

      How can it be a publicity stunt if the press approached them with a hypothetical question?

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I was referring to the closure.

  • bowie1

    Obviously this was a sting by the press causing all this hullabaloo, and there was no excuse making death threats against them, no matter what they believe. I wonder, though, if they had said “no comment”, would it have made the response any different.

    • Richard

      It is a reflection of gay intolerance and attempt to suppress. It appears they don’t practice what they preach.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “It is a reflection of gay intolerance and attempt to suppress.”

        So the small number of inappropriate comments made toward this business are a “refection of gay intolerance and attempt to suppress”.

        Utilizing that line of thinking, it would then be reasonable to state the the actions and words of the Westboro Baptist Church or pastor Steve Anderson (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/04/pastor-calls-for-killing-gays-to-end-aids/19929973/) would be a reflection of Christian intolerance and attempt to suppress, correct?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “there was no excuse making death threats against them”

      I completely agree. Actions, or threats, of harm are never warranted.

  • Covered California

    Of course they were gonna have a full house on opening night. All the “anti queer” people came out of the woodworks to stand with them and I’m sure dish out lots of high fives and “we ain’t ever gonna serve them homos”. I’m sure the last thing they actually talked about was God… Let’s see how they’re doing in a year from now.

    • Chris

      Based on how Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A are doing years after their “anti-queer” people came out of the woodworks, I’d say their success ratio is excellent. Next theory?

      • The Last Trump

        Yes, they’ll probably have to retire EARLY now so they can get a good start on spending ALL that money! 🙂

  • Richard

    Just as in this situation, good will win over evil. It’s just a matter of time.

  • Paul Hiett

    Public service announcement…if you’re one of those people who keep posting this picture…

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1906/6927/original.jpg

    …as proof of people vandalizing the store, you might want to Google what “photoshop” is.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      It’s not even a good photoshop job. The breaks around the glass show how the image was cut and paste. And, of course, the “Jesus” sign in the shop next door doesn’t exist in reality.

      Either some people are easily fooled, or they care little about deceit, which seems counter to their supposed belief in Christianity.

  • The Last Trump

    “Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” Mathew 5:11.
    Enjoy your almost one million dollars, sister!
    And all of this over PIZZA FOR WEDDINGS!? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    Who gets pizza FOR WEDDINGS!?
    The nonsensical, militant LGBT crowd got all worked up about the “evil” Christians who NEVER EVEN ACTUALLY REFUSED ANYBODY SERVICE!
    And now she’s set for life. Too funny! 🙂

    • The Last Trump

      Hey atheists! Check out the smile on her face!
      Something to behold!

      Who would have thought that out of such shameful hate and intolerance from the LGBT crowd, such joy and relief could come to followers of Christ!

      Oh yeah. CHRISTIANS would have thought! What a great God we serve, eh you bunch of “we’re descendants of monkeys” (!?) loons, you!

      “Nothing is impossible for those that believe” comes to mind here, as well as, “Thou preparest a table before me (an $800 000 dollar TABLE!) in the presence of mine enemies”

      Blessed be our God. All glory and honour belong to HIM. 🙂

      • Paul Hiett

        So you were so bummed that no one responded to you, that you had to respond to yourself.

        That’s funny.

        • The Last Trump

          YEAH! BUMMED! 🙂
          Guess you didn’t read the comments, once again. Huh?

          (I was just posting where I knew you would see it. At the top of the forum. You know, attached to the post with the most up votes 🙂

          • moleshired

            6?

      • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

        Amen! And with God all things are possible !

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        You are bringing your A-game tonight, Trump!

      • MisterPine

        QUOTE SUBMITTED!

    • Norbert Okumu

      Amen, the gays will just be as violent as they were in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, when they demanded to sleep with the men (who were actually Angels disguised) who had visited Lot, to rescue Lot and his family from the judgement that was to strike Sodom and Gomorrah.

      • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

        Some say it was not about Homosexuality . But they lie about it . Because Lot offered the Men his two daughters to do as they would please with them . They rejected his daughters because they wanted men not women .
        You are right in what you say .The Bible proves it. They deny it because they do not want to give up their sexual sins .

        • Norbert Okumu

          True, Amen. The same old trick of satan, always twisting/denying God’s word, remember Garden of Eden

        • roald

          I say it was not about homosexuality. That Lot’s daughters were offered for rape as though they were mere property aside, the cause of Sodom’s downfall was the failure to welcome strangers.

          If you wish to talk about sins identified in the old testament, there are 613 and I would be that Christians today violate more than a few of them. Why do you choose to cherry-pick the sins about which you care?

          Although religious arguments are moot in a secular nation, Jesus did not say a lot about homosexuality and what he did say put it on the same level as most divorces. Would the pizzeria decline to cater a wedding for a couple if one or both were divorced? My personal belief with nothing but observations to support it, is that they would not even think about it. Jesus had a term for that. What was it? Oh yeah, “hypocrite”.

          “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will
          be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)

          “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
          so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees
          in secret will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            < Have a great day .

          • roald

            You too. Hopefully, some day, you will choose to respond.

    • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

      God is so Great !

    • Dakia Graush

      Dude.. pizza makes everything better!

    • Webb

      “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” –John 15:18

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    UPDATE: Barronelle Stutzman, the Christian florist who has been mercilessly attacked and sued by homo-fascists has received OVER $165,000, so far!!!!
    Thanks, homo-fascists!

    Here is Mrs. Stutzman’s GoFundMe page:
    http://www.gofundme.com/mz6zm4

    Perhaps, all of you haters out there could listen to the gay community, who are ashamed of all of you. People like Courtney Hoffman & Buz Smith, who both donated to the Indiana pizza shop owners GoFundMe page. And, who both denounced all of the hateful attacks on those poor people.

    “As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business,” Hoffman wrote in the note accompanying her donation.
    […]
    “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.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/gay-woman-apologizes-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-sends-donation/

    You haters could only raise 650 bucks! Losers!

    • Paul Hiett

      Most of us denounce the attacks as well, Nick, something you fail to mention time and time again.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        Most of you, Mr. Hiett, also called the pizza shop owners Christian bigots, homophobes, and haters.
        So…yeah.

        • Paul Hiett

          That’s not untrue though, they are. That doesn’t mean they deserve to be threatened.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No. they aren’t. That’s why Miss Hoffman and Mr. Smith and the “gay community” stuck up for them. And, she apologized for “the mean spirited attacks on you and your business” too, not just the threats. So, that includes you, Mr. Hiett.

          • Paul Hiett

            Having an opinion about someone who discriminates based on sexual orientation doesn’t mean i support people having death threats made against them.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Again, Miss Hoffman didn’t limit her apology to only the death threats. She meant you, Paul. And, all the other anti-Christian bigots and homophobes out there.

          • Paul Hiett

            Calling a spade a spade is not intolerance, it’s simply an observance.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Oh, you’re a racist, too, huh? The “gay community” is against you, Mr. Hiett.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where did you get racism from?

            Are you on drugs or something?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Because you called someone a “spade.”

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh sweet jeebus…are you really not familiar with that common term?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, I’m familiar with it. I’m just using liberal logic on you, Mr. Hiett.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Nick, you just learned what it meant, otherwise you wouldn’t have called me a racist.

            I don’t suppose you’d be offering up an apology for your insult now that you know how wrong you were to say that?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Please, Mr. Hiett, don’t project your own ignorance on me.
            Do you really think that’s a new expression?

          • Paul Hiett

            No one, Nick…no one…could have possibly seen “racism” in that phrase unless they did not know what it meant to begin with.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Wrong, yet again, Mr. Hiett. You really aren’t very good at this debate thing, are you? And, now, we know that you have no sense of humor, either.
            Go onto DailyKKKos and tell one of the kos kids to call a spade a spade. You’ll see what I meant.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nothing you said was said in a sense of humor, you legitimately called me a “racist” because you didn’t understand the term.

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

            Learn a little…

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “To “call a spade a spade” is a figure of speech which explicitly calls out something as it is, by its right name. The implication is not to lie about what something is and instead to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity, unpleasant, or embarrassing nature.[1]”

            “ts ultimate source is a phrase in classical Greek. Plutarch’s Apophthegmata Laconica (178B) has την σκαφην σκαφην λεγοντας (ten skafen skafen legontas). σκαφη (skafe) means “basin, trough”, but Erasmus mis-translated it (as if from σπάθη spáthe) as ligo “shovel” in his Apophthegmatum opus. Lucian De Hist. Conscr. (41) has τα συκα συκα, την σκαφην δε σκαφην ονομασων (ta suka suka, ten skafen de skafen onomason) “calling a fig a fig, and a trough a trough”.

            The phrase was introduced to English in 1542 in Nicolas Udall’s translation of Erasmus”

            “The phrase predates the use of the word “spade” as an ethnic slur against African Americans,[2] which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur[4] or confusion with playing card references such as “black as the ace of spades”.

            So, no, using the phrase “calling a spade a spade” is not a definitive sign of being a racist.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Thanks, for the copy and paste job, UMBKM. But, I’m well acquainted with the phrase’s meaning. If you’d read the whole thread, you’d have seen that I was using a liberal, knee-jerk reaction reply I’ve seen used before. I.e., “spade” had a racist connotation in the past; someone I disagree with just used it in a different connotation, but, I’m sure he’s a racist; ergo, he must be using it now in a racist way.
            Such is the mind of the bleeding heart, reactionary leftwinger. Like Paul.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “but, I’m sure he’s a racist”

            What is your basis for being certain that he is a racist?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re not getting it, again, UMBKM. Another senior moment, perhaps?
            Everything after “I.e.,” is coming from the mind of the liberal, not myself.
            As I told Mr. Hiett, go to the DailyKKKos and tell one of the kos-kids that you’re just calling a spade a spade, and see what happens.
            Those mind-numbed robots are not very familiar with this phrase, but, they do know the racial past of “spade.”

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “Most of you”

          Really? So of the approximately 10,000,000 gay people in the US, “most” of them called the pizza shop owners Christian bigots, homophobes, and haters?

          And your basis for that statement would be?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Mr. Hiett is not a homosexual, UMBKM. He’s a supporter of special rights for homosexuals and SS counterfeit so-called “marriage.” It is to those whom I was referring.

          • Paul Hiett

            Special rights? You mean the same rights as Christians.

            Yes, I support equality for all.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, you don’t, Mr. Hiett. You support tyranny, unlike Miss Hoffman, Mr. Smith, the “gay community,” and myself.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…I support tyranny because I support equality for everyone?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, because you support special rights for homosexuals.
            Oh, and, because you’re against the rights to freely contract, associate, and exercise one’s religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let’s see…I support gays receiving the same protections as Christians, and that somehow equates to “special rights” for gays?

            It seems like you’re saying that you only want special rights for Christians.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Wrong, Mr. Hiett. Not special rights, these are natural law enshrined in the Constitution. I’ve showed this over and over again, yet, you continue NOT to get it.
            It’s why a Catholic school can only hire Catholics to work there. Would like to finally answer my very simple question on precisely why it is justifiable to allow religious schools to discriminate like this, but, not for businesses? I’m still waiting.

          • Tristan A

            special rights????
            We only stand up for our universally declared human right to have a family life with the person of our own choice. There is nothing special about that.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            There is not “universally declared human right” to marriage or to “have a family life,” Tristan.
            There have always been restrictions on whom can get married. Or, do you also support counterfeit so-called “marriage rights” for an adult man or woman and their mother/father? Or, polygamy?

          • Tristan A

            Polygamy is an interesting one. You obviously are of the opinion that it should not be allowed. But that is our western arrogance. We are not the only culture on this world. And some cultures live closer to nature, and people spend their days still hunting and gathering food (or it is something not so long ago). These are communities where the man on average do not become very old. Lots of them die in their twenties early thirties during the hunt. Young married man die. Custom dictates that the brother (who is probably already married) marries the wife of his dead brother. Because it is in this way that his dead brother’s children find protection within the family, that the widow is still part of the protection of the family life, can contribute, gets food from the family table, even has a love life. In a society where there is not such a thing as social security maybe the best next thing?
            There is actually something like the universal declaration of human rights. And it does include the right to a family life. As it includes the right to privacy (it is none of your business what we do in our bed room), and it includes the right to be protected against discrimination.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Hebrews had no issue with polygamy, actually. It was commonplace in their society.

            Christianity itself didn’t adopt monogamy in marriage until the Romans introduced it when Constantine adopted the religion in 313. I always get a kick out of Christians who shout “one man, one woman!” when it was actually “pagans” who introduced it to them.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That’s a lot of words to avoid answering my two very simple questions, Tristan. Do you support incestuous “marriage” of adults and polygamy, or not?

          • MisterPine

            Can you prove the existence of Buz Smith yet, Nick from Detroit? Can you prove he wasn’t an invention of someone trying to make homosexuals look bad?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “It is to those whom I was referring.”

            What “special rights for homosexuals” does he support?

            Do you have a list? How were you able to determine that all of them called the pizza shop owners Christian bigots, homophobes, and haters?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The right to completely change the definition of marriage, for one. Would you like others?
            And, I was speaking generally, of course. You couldn’t tell?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Homosexuals have no special right to change the definition of marriage, nor is any such right being sought. The definition is the same as it has been for years: Two, consenting, non-closely-related, adults.

            “And, I was speaking generally, of course.”

            So you didn’t really mean “all of them”. That was just hyperbole and inflammatory. Got it.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Bzzzzzz! Wrong.
            Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, who were not closely related, and were of child-bearing age. Because the covenant of marriage has always been procreative.

            No, I meant all of the anti-Christian bigoted trolls, like Mr. Hiett, who came here to trash those brave pizza shop owners. Get it, now?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The definition of civil marriage did not contain restrictions based upon gender until recently.

            Civil marriage has never carried any requirement of procreation.

            Please cite some statements by Mr. Hiett where he has “trashed” the pizza shop owners.

            I wouldn’t label closing your shop after a few threats as “brave”.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “The definition of civil marriage did not contain restrictions based upon gender until recently.”

            That’s because normal people knew the actual definition of marriage without having to be told. You just admitted that your side is trying to change the definition of marriage; thus, making my point for me.
            Marriage has ALWAYS been procreative. Kinda’ doesn’t need any explanation, really.
            Mr. Hiett has called both the pizza shop owners, and those who defended them (with words and money), discriminating, intolerant bigots.
            You wouldn’t call them brave because you’re on the side of tyranny & despotism, UMBKM.

          • Paul Hiett

            Discrimination against another human being based on sexual-orientation IS bigotry, Nick.

          • Richard

            Your comments fly in the face of moral relativism, which you believe in. Did you know you were violating your own moral code?

          • Paul Hiett

            So by claiming that discrimination against other people based on sexual orientation is bigotry, I’m somehow violating some moral code you think I have set in place?

            How, exactly, does that work in your world?

          • Richard

            Do you believe in subjective morals…that each person can make up their own morals? If not, whose morals do you adhere to?

          • Paul Hiett

            Technically, yes, each person can do that. However, morality is usually established by the people who make up a given society. We can see this reflected in our laws. Yet, it’s also subject to change, as we have seen over the decades.

            Once, the religious right claimed it was immoral for a white to marry a black. Most of us don’t subscribe to that ridiculous notion now. So, clearly, morality changes depending upon the society.

            That said, I can choose my own morals and ethics based upon what I feel, and my observations of how my actions affect others. Yet, my morals and ethics do not trump the laws of this land, so I can either maintain my morals and ethics in accordance within the society I live in, or risk the consequences if what I decide is moral violates the morals (laws) of society.

          • Richard

            Society’s morals are established by popular vote?

          • Paul Hiett

            In some cases, yes. We also have our courts to help decide what we consider moral and ethical.

            Right now, the majority of our citizens consider homosexuality to be morally and ethically acceptable, even if some people think it’s “icky”. This is why we see both the popular vote supporting it, and in some states, the courts have to help it along.

            It’s not hard to see this throughout the history of our country. Morals and ethics shift as a society grows and expands, and I expect in another 200 years those morals and ethics might appear even more different than now.

          • Richard

            > In some cases, yes.

            In some cases or all cases.

            If it was by popular vote, did you change to accept homosexuality when the laws changed, or before that?

            > Right now, the majority of our citizens consider homosexuality to be morally and ethically acceptable

            Will you comply when homosexuality is returned to its immoral status?

          • Paul Hiett

            “If it was by popular vote, did you change to accept homosexuality when the laws changed, or before that?”

            Like you now, I really didn’t care what laws surrounded homosexuality. I thought they were “icky” and “gross”. That being said though, homosexuality was not a part of my life. I’m straight, and typically only associated with straight people…I simply didn’t know any gay people.

            Now, my life is different. 15 years ago, my daughter came out to me. Surprisingly, I didn’t care…and to clarify, I didn’t care if she was straight or gay, just that she was happy. It opened my eyes, and I took to the books, so to speak, to see what the issue was. As expected, there was no issue, that’s just the way she is, and I love her dearly.

            I don’t expect, in an educated country like the US anyways, that we’ll reverse the idea that gay people are normal and should be treated like everyone else, so it’s really not something to worry about.

          • Richard

            What’s more important: that your daughter is happy now, or for the rest of eternity?

            Keep in mind, if you say there isn’t life after death, you would have to disprove that in light of the fact that Jesus proved there is (which was another reason God came to earth…to prove the reality of what is).

          • Paul Hiett

            That question is really irrelevant, since you can’t prove that your particular version of religion is correct. Based on that, I could pick any religion out there, one that tolerates homosexuality and provides a great after life. There are many to choose from. Odin, for example…Valhalla sounds like a great place.

            My daughter is happy with her life, although we had to deal with the intolerants out there who loved condemning her to hell on behalf of their deities. We dealt with vandalism and hate letters in the mailbox (mind you this was during high school in the late 90’s early 00’s), but knowing her parents loved her and supported her was enough.

            Sadly, there are way too many Christian parents out there who disown their children, or send them to reparative therapy, which worsens the issue. Simply put, I found that simply accepting her for who she was “as is”, was more than enough for her.

          • Richard

            If your moral code is established by popular opinion, then your moral code is swayed by those who can manipulate popular opinion the best. Are you okay with that? Having your morals manipulated by the best manipulators?

            So then you are okay with her short term happiness in spite of the eternal anguish. Is that really loving, or is it just people-pleasing so she’ll like you?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Jesus proved there is ”

            Jesus proved no such thing. The writers of the gospel made that claim. There is no proof.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Will you comply when homosexuality is returned to its immoral status?”

            Those who choose to believe that homosexuality is immoral are still free to hold to that belief. The status of homosexuality as being immoral has not changed for them. Based upon that, what do you mean you say: “will you comply when homosexuality is returned to its immoral status”?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Society does not have morals. People have morals. Those morals may or may not be reflected in law. If we view morals as what we consider to be “right” and “wrong”, in the US, from a legal standpoint, our overriding “morals” are freedom, liberty, and equality. As such, it is “immoral” to treat some citizens as less equal than others.

            Within that overall framework, each citizen is free to hold to whatever moral code they care to.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “that each person can make up their own morals?”

            Each person does make up their own morals. People use different information as a basis for those morals, but it is still a choice that each person makes.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, it’s not. It’s your mere opinion, Mr. Hiett.
            I don’t hate pro-homosexual zealots, such as yourself; I hate HATRED, BIGOTRY and STUPIDITY practiced by so many pro-homosexual zealots who should know better.

          • Paul Hiett
          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I prefer its original definition, Mr. Hiett. Not the newer one, which makes it a synonym of racist.
            bigot [big-uh t] noun
            a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

            And, since I tolerate homosexuals, and pro-homosexual zealots, like yourself, and do not hate them, but, rather, love them; I am, therefore, not a bigot.
            You, on the other hand? Your preferred definition seems to fit you to a tee, vis-a-vis Christians.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you don’t call homosexuals “perverts” and “deviants” and work to ensure that they don’t have the same rights and privileges you enjoy as a Christian?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, Mr. Hiett, I call homosexual acts perverted and deviant. There is a difference, to rational thinking people.
            Plus, they have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. You pro-homosexual zealots want special rights for them. I’m against that. It’s called tyranny.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “special rights ”

            What rights are desired by “pro-homosexual zealots” that would not be available to every other citizen?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The right to redefine the institution of marriage. So-called “hate crimes” legislation. The power to dictate acceptance of their disordered acts. Stuff like that.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The right to redefine the institution of marriage.”

            Homosexuals have no right to redefine the institution of marriage. They, like all citizens, have the right to challenge laws in court. Every citizen has the right to challenge laws in court – it is not a right exclusive to homosexuals. So you fail on that one.

            “So-called “hate crimes” legislation.”

            Hate crime legislation is put into place by legislators. It is not a “right” that homosexuals have. So you fail on that one.

            “The power to dictate acceptance of their disordered acts.”

            Homosexuals cannot force anyone to accept “their disordered acts”. People are free to accept or not accept whatever they care to. So you fail on that one.

            “Stuff like that”

            So you have other examples? Perhaps you’ll do better with those.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Homosexuals have no right to redefine the institution of marriage.
            We finally agree. Unfortunately, the pro-homosexual zealots, and their allies in the judiciary, don’t agree. They have redefined marriage in several states, overturning the will of said states, which had not violated the Constitution. Sorry, the failure is on your part, not mine.

            It is not a “right” that homosexuals have.
            The so-called “hate crime” laws confer special protections to certain classes of people, thus making a simple battery somehow worse because of the motive of the perpetrator. Even though intent has always been the determining factor as to what degree of crime was committed, while motive has always been an element of a crime, e.g., means, motive, and opportunity. Changing this fact conveys special rights, and, homosexuals have lobbied to be included in these special classes. Capice?

            Homosexuals cannot force anyone to accept “their disordered acts”.
            And, yet, they continue to use the sinister tactic of lawfare to force Christians to submit to their will. They will not stop until they force us to provide services/products for their SS counterfeit so-called “wedding” ceremonies, and, ultimately, force churches to “marry” them. It’s already happening in Europe.

            So you have other examples?
            Those were off the top of my head. If I think of any more, I’ll let you know.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They have redefined marriage in several states, overturning the will of said states, which had not violated the Constitution.”

            So are you suggesting that citizens should NOT have the right to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT be empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

            Where the Lovings and those who supported them “zealots”? Were they wrong to challenge existing marriage laws? What the judiciary wrong in ruling that the existing marriage laws were unconstitutional?

            “The so-called “hate crime” laws confer special protections to certain classes of people,”

            No they don’t. The people in those classes have no more nor no less protection than other people. What hate crime laws do is provide for more severe punishment based upon the motive of the crime.

            “Changing this fact conveys special rights”

            What rights do people who are included in hate crime laws have that other citizens do not?

            “And, yet, they continue to use the sinister tactic of lawfare to force Christians to submit to their will.”

            What’s “sinister tactic of lawfare”?

            Do you have one example of someone being “forced to submit” to the will of homosexuals?

            “They will not stop until they force us to provide services/products for their SS counterfeit so-called “wedding” ceremonies”

            Since owning a business is a choice, and providing certain products in a choice, it is inaccurate to state that anyone could be “forced” to provide services/products for same-gender weddings.

            “and, ultimately, force churches to “marry” them. It’s already happening in Europe.”

            Constitutional protections in European countries are not the same as they are in the US. So, no, citing what is happening in Europe as a definitive sign of what would happen in the US is inaccurate.

            “If I think of any more, I’ll let you know.”

            While I doubt that you will, if you do, please do.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “You just admitted that your side is trying to change the definition of marriage”

            I admitted no such thing. What “my side” is supporting is changes to who is allowed to access civil marriage.

            “Marriage has ALWAYS been procreative.”

            Perhaps this is news to you, but being married doesn’t result in procreation nor does procreation require marriage. A course in basic biology may prove helpful to you.

            “You wouldn’t call them brave because you’re on the side of tyranny & despotism”

            What have I said that would cause you to state that I am on the side of tyranny and despotism?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What “my side” is supporting is changes to who is allowed to access civil marriage.

            And, those “changes” change the definition of marriage. Even a 10-year-old could understand this. Sheesh!

            Perhaps this is news to you, but being married doesn’t result in procreation nor does procreation require marriage.

            The small percentage of childless marriages doesn’t negate the fact that the purpose of marriage has ALWAYS been procreative.

            You’re on the side of tyranny & despotism because you don’t believe in the right to freely contract, associate, or exercise one’s religion.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “And, those “changes” change the definition of marriage.”

            No, it does not.

            “Definition: A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.

            A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale.”

            No change in definition is occurring. A change in access is occurring, but not in definition.

            “The small percentage of childless marriages doesn’t negate the fact that the purpose of marriage has ALWAYS been procreative.”

            Again, and perhaps you haven’t study biology, but the only purpose of civil marriage is to establish legal standing for the couple. It has nothing to do with procreation. If it were the purpose of marriage, then there would be a requirement to procreate. There is not.

            “You’re on the side of tyranny & despotism because you don’t believe in the right to freely contract, associate, or exercise one’s religion.”

            Do you support the ability of a citizen to express their religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place their care to?

          • Paul Hiett
          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I would imagine so. Kinda blows a hole through the “marriage has always been a religious ceremony between one man and one woman” narrative.

          • Paul Hiett

            I believe it’s because they can’t wrap their heads around how different this world was 2000 years ago.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, it does not.
            Yes, it does. Glad we cleared that up.
            Advocates for SS counterfeit so-called “marriage” are not satisfied with just civil unions.
            So…yeah.
            And, it still changes the definition of “marriage” from a union of a man and woman to anything goes.

            If it were the purpose of marriage, then there would be a requirement to procreate.
            Cause and effect fallacy. No, it doesn’t. Try researching the history of the covenant of marriage sometime. You might find it interesting.

            Do you support the ability of a citizen to express their religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place their care to?

            Yes. Up & until it infringes on the rights of others. My rights end where your’s begin, and all that. Before you write it, there is NO right to marriage or to a wedding cake, or to the expertise of another person.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I provided the definition of civil marriage. Allowing two citizens of the same gender access to civil marriage does not change the definition of civil marriage.

            “Advocates for SS counterfeit so-called “marriage” are not satisfied with just civil unions.”

            Correct. As civil unions do not provide the same benefits, rights, and protections as civil marriage.

            “Up & until it infringes on the rights of others.”

            Then the answer to my question should have been “No”, as including a qualification means that you do not believe that citizens should be able to express their religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place their care to.

            How does allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage infringe upon your rights?

            “there is NO right to marriage”

            In Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS ruled that there is, indeed, a right to marry. You are certainly free to disagree with that, but your disagreement doesn’t change the court’s ruling.

            “or to a wedding cake, or to the expertise of another person.”

            Correct. There is, however, a right to not be denied the purchase those things from a business of public accommodation in accordance with anti-discrimination laws.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Since, marriage has ALWAYS meant the lifelong covenant bond of man and woman for the purpose having and raising the next generation of children, yes, it does significantly change the definition.

            No right is absolute, obviously. Rights contain liberties and duties, protections and responsibilities. If you were being literal, well…you sure got me, didn’t you?
            Since, you insist on being literal, there is NO ABSOLUTE right to marriage. Better?
            I’ve already dealt with so-called public accommodation laws.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Since, marriage has ALWAYS meant the lifelong covenant bond”

            Since nearly half of all marriages end in divorce in the US, that is a fail.

            “of man and woman”

            Not always. Same-gender marriages have been performed in the past. So that is a fail.

            “for the purpose having and raising the next generation of children”

            Civil marriage has never had the requirement of procreation, nor is it necessary for “having and raising the next generation of children”. There is no requirement that couples enter into civil marriage. It is a choice they make. They are free to have, and raise, the next generation without a civil marriage license. So that statement is a fail.

            “No right is absolute, obviously.”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “there is NO ABSOLUTE right to marriage.”

            Agreed. Restrictions on allowing citizens to access a right offered by the state must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons. In the case of restrictions on two citizens of the same gender entering into civil marriage, there are none.

            So you are unable to explain how allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage infringes upon your rights. Got it. Thanks

            “I’ve already dealt with so-called public accommodation laws.”

            Yes. Quite poorly.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Since nearly half of all marriages end in divorce in the US, that is a fail.
            That’s completely irrelevant to the origins of the covenant marriage bond. Try again.

            Not always. Same-gender marriages have been performed in the past.
            Yes, always. When and where?

            Civil marriage has never had the requirement of procreation […].
            Straw man. I never claimed it was a “requirement,” did I? I stated that it was the purpose, the primary purpose, and ultimate goal of the covenantal marriage bond. Because the family is the building block of societies. Even the ancient Romans and Greeks understood this. If you’re ignorant of these facts, perhaps you need to study the subject more. I suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2197-2246.

            They are free to have, and raise, the next generation without a civil marriage license.
            Many of them shouldn’t be. If someone is going to repeatedly, and irresponsibly, procreate outside of marriage and without the means to provide for these children; they should be put into prison to stop them from procreating further.

            Restrictions on allowing citizens to access a right offered by the state must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons.

            Agreed, again. And, restricting marriage to a man and woman has worked since the beginning of time. Since men and women were designed to go together, physically, as well as emotionally. Nothing has changed these facts, as far as I’m aware.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Brave”.

            That’s funny.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What’s funny, Mr. Hiett, is that you still can’t seem to answer my very simple question on precisely why it is justifiable to allow private religious schools to discriminate by hiring only members of that religion, but, not for businesses? I’m still waiting.

          • Paul Hiett

            Because of the laws that govern such establishments, Nick. Ever heard of a website called, “Google”? It might help you understand.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Repeatedly crying, “It’s the law! It’s the law,” doesn’t give me the justification for such discrimination, does it, Mr. Hiett?
            After all, Dred Scott, Jim Crow, and the Nuremberg laws, were all legally mandated discrimination, too, were they not? Did that justify them?
            For the umpteenth time, what is the justification for allowing private religious schools to hire only members of their religion, while denying private businesses the same right?
            Still waiting.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m sorry Nick, I simply don’t know what you’re asking at this point, or why.

            You seem to think you’ve caught me in some kind of debate trap and are waiting for me to say something so you can spring it.

            Not going to happen.

            A private business that sells goods/services to the general public may not discriminate against customers based on the protected statuses at both the Federal and State levels.

            A private school, that receives no funding from the government, may discriminate as they wish to a degree. I don’t know the particulars, but feel free to look them up.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I keep asking, Mr. Hiett, because you keep refusing to answer.
            Why? Why can’t the business discriminate? Why is okay for one and not the other? What is the rationale?
            Your refusal to answer proves that your opinion is completely arbitrary, rather than based on logic and reason.
            Both private schools and private businesses do not receive funding from the government, so making that distinction is pointless.

          • Paul Hiett

            First, and we’ve covered this, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents businesses from discriminating against religion, race, gender, and a couple of others. That’s at the Federal level.

            Some states/cities are adding sexual orientation.

            As for private schools that receive no federal funding, I don’t know where that law is that allows them to do that, but I know they can.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Appealing to the authority of the CRA of ’64 is not a justification of the law, Mr. Hiett. Southerners made the same appeals to Plessy v. Ferguson to justify Jim Crow. But Plessy didn’t justify those laws. They were unconstitutional and unjust. Are you really this dense?

            I’m not asking for the law. (And, again, private businesses also receive no federal funding.) I want you to explain why it is OKAY to allow private schools to discriminate and forbid private businesses from the same.
            I realize this is taxing your mental abilities far above what they are used to, since you live in an echo chamber where your mistaken beliefs are never challenged. Maybe you could go ask some more of your atheist buddies, eh?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Why can’t the business discriminate?”

            They can, within the limits of the law.

            “What is the rationale?”

            The rationale is that a majority of people determined that it was more important for citizens to be treated equally regarding public accommodation, then it was for business owners to have complete control regarding who they serve and who they don’t.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, UMBKM, we are a republic, and, therefore, not subject to the despotic whims of the majority. Or, at least, we used to be.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Agreed. Which is why citizens are allowed to challenge laws in court and the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws. An excellent example of that is the legality same-gender marriage.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Which is why citizens are allowed to challenge laws in court….
            Umm, no. That’s what legislatures are for. Try again.

            …the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

            Yes. And, so-called public accommodation laws are unconstitutional, because they violate the freedom to contract, to associate, and to exercise ones religion.

            37 states passed laws, through referendums or their legislatures, to ban SS counterfeit so-called “marriage.” Even in California! Judges had no right to invalidate any of them.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Umm, no.”

            So citizens aren’t allowed to challenge laws in court? Hmm…when was that changed?

            “Yes.”

            How would the judiciary be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws if citizens are not allowed the challenge laws in court? There would be no way for a case to come before them.

            “And, so-called public accommodation laws are unconstitutional”

            The courts disagree. Of course, that was when citizens were still allowed to challenge laws in court which, according to you, they are no longer allowed to do.

            “Judges had no right to invalidate any of them.”

            But you said above that the judiciary IS empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws. So which is it? Are they or are they not?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So citizens aren’t allowed to challenge laws in court? Hmm…when was that changed?

            Oops! My mistake, UMBKM. I read your statement as, “Which is why citizens are allowed to CHANGE laws in court…”, for some reason. It was kind of late.
            Adjust your other comments, accordingly.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            That still leaves your contradictory statements that the judiciary is allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws, but that the judiciary had no right to invalidate laws that restrict marriage to only citizens of opposite gender.

            So which is it? Is the judiciary empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws or is it not?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “For the umpteenth time, what is the justification for allowing private religious schools to hire only members of their religion, while denying private businesses the same right?”

            Because private religious schools are not businesses of public accommodation.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Because private religious schools are not businesses of public accommodation.
            Bzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong, UMBKM.
            Catholic schools let any child attend. They still can insist that all employees be Catholics.
            Public accommodation laws are a rather recent invention in our English common law tradition. When the federal government first tried to legislate these types of laws, in 1875, SCOTUS struck them down as unconstitutional in 1883. Because they violate the right to contract and free association.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Catholic schools let any child attend. They still can insist that all employees be Catholics.”

            Quite right. They are private. The fact that they will let any child pay to attend, does not make them a business of public accommodation.

            “When the federal government first tried to legislate these types of laws, in 1875, SCOTUS struck them down as unconstitutional in 1883. Because they violate the right to contract and free association.”

            And that would be relevant, how?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            …does not make them a business of public accommodation.
            Why? Because you say so? You are not answering the question, just like Mr. Hiett refused to answer. If discrimination is so bad, why is okay for these schools to do it, but businesses can’t?

            And that would be relevant, how?”

            Research, study, and learn something, UMBKM, okay?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Why? Because you say so? ”

            No, because that is how the law defines a business of public accommodation.

            “You are not answering the question”

            “why is okay for these schools to do it, but businesses can’t?”

            Businesses can – if they are private and membership only.

            “Research, study, and learn something, UMBKM, okay?”

            So you can’t say how it’s relevant. Got it. Thanks

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, because that is how the law defines a business of public accommodation.
            What law would that be, counselor?

            Businesses can – if they are private and membership only.
            And, what law would that be?

            So you can’t say how it’s relevant.
            It’s obvious to any 10-year-old why it’s relevant. Since, I was sure that you had never heard of the Civil Rights Cases (1883), as they’re commonly known, I thought that I’d give you chance to bone-up on the subject.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “What law would that be, counselor?”

            42 U.S. Code § 12181 (7)

            42 U.S.C. § 2000(a)

            “It’s obvious to any 10-year-old why it’s relevant.”

            Well then either it should be easy for you to explain the relevance of rulings from 1883 given the subsequent legislation that has been pass as well as subsequent court rulings, or you are under 10. Which is it? If it is the first, then please, provide your explanation of the relevance. If it is the latter, well, ask your mommy to help you.

  • TheBBP

    This is outstanding news. I pray for their continued success.

  • Tristan A

    Something else very funny. All these very christian people that take the bible as literally coming from god, celebrate the holy day not on the Sabbath but on Sunday. And why? because a roman emperor 1700 years ago decided to merge his pagan religion with christianity because he couldn’t beat them. So we are celebrating a pagan god (the sun) on the Sunday. And then we still believe that all those words in that 2000 year (and more) old book are not written by people, (subject to social beliefs at that point of time) but come from god directly. Don’t be so naive ….

    • KenS

      We meet on the first day of the week, now in honor of when Jesus rose from the grave and by the example left to us by the disciples.

      Acts 20:7
      7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

      I Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store , as God hath prospered him , that there be no gatherings when I come .

      • Tristan A

        Wrong, it was emperor constantine that ruled that the holy day should be on the sunday, to make it work for him.
        It was only much later that the christians came up with the easter explanation for the change. But that was after the fact

        • Paul Hiett

          Wait til he learns about Christmas…

          • Tristan A

            Indeed:

            Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

            B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

            C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

            D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

            E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

            Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]

            H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6] On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.

            Speaking of morals….

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Your knowledge, Tristan, of this period of history is severely lacking, like most atheists and anti-Christian bigots.
            Try doing some real research, okay?
            http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/why-december-25

            http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/12/gospel-truth-about-christmas.html

        • KenS

          Hello, the verses I have given you were written long before Emperor Constantine’s time period, not to mention the fact that I belong to an independent fundamental baptist church, which were never, ever a part of that Roman Catholic Church that Emperor Constantine married up to. If you look at your church history, you will see that the baptists (known as waldesians at that time)were being percuuted by the Catholics long before Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation, we never reformed from that church because we never were a part of it.

          • Tristan A

            No Change Documented in the Bible

            In both Old and

            New Testament

            there is not a shadow of variation in the doctrine of the Sabbath. The

            seventh day

            ,

            Saturday

            , is the only day ever designated by the term Sabbath in the entire Bible. Not only was Jesus a perfect example in observing the weekly

            seventh-day Sabbath

            , but all His disciples followed the same pattern after Jesus had gone back to heaven. Yet no intimation of any change of the day is made. The apostle Paul, who wrote pages of counsel about lesser issues of Jewish and Gentile conflicts, had not one word to say about any controversy over the day of worship. Circumcision, foods offered to idols, and other Jewish customs were readily challenged by early Gentile Christians in the church, but the weightier matter of weekly worship never was an issue. Why? For the simple reason that no change was made from the historic seventh day of

            Old Testament

            times, and from creation itself. Had there been a switch from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, you can be sure the controversy would have been more explosive than any other to those

            Jewish Christians

            .

            History Gives Some Clues
            If the change did not take place in the Scriptures or through the influence of the apostles, when and how did it happen? In order to understand this, we must understand what happened in that early church soon after the apostles passed off the stage of action. Paul had prophesied that apostasy would take place soon after his departure. He said there would be a falling away from the truth. One doesn’t have to read very far in early church history to see just how that prophecy was fulfilled. Gnosticism began to rise up under the influence of philosophers who sought to reconcile

            Christianity

            with Paganism. At the same time, a strong anti-Jewish sentiment became more widespread. Very speculative interpretations began to appear regarding some of the great doctrines of Christ and the apostles.

            The Conversion of Constantine

            By the time

            Constantine

            was established as the emperor of Rome in the early fourth century, there was a decided division in the church as a result of all these factors. I think most of you know that Constantine was the first so-called Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. The story of his conversion has become very well known to students of ancient history. He was marching forth to fight the battle of Milvian Bridge when he had some kind of vision, and saw a flaming cross in the sky. Underneath the cross were the Latin words meaning “In this sign conquer.” Constantine took this as an omen that he should be a Christian, and his army as well. He declared all his pagan soldiers to be Christians, and became very zealous to build up the power and prestige of the church. Through his influence great blocks of pagans were taken into the Christian ranks. But, friends, they were still pagan at heart, and they brought in much of the paraphernalia of sun-worship to which they continued to be devoted. We mentioned in a previous broadcast about the adoption of Christmas and Easter into the church. At the same time, many other customs were Christianized and appropriated into the practice of the church as well.

            Sun Worship

            You see, at that time the cult of Mithraism or sun-worship was the official religion of the

            Roman Empire

            . It stood as the greatest competitor to the new Christian religion. It had its own organization, temples,

            priesthood

            , robes—everything. It also had an official worship day on which special homage was given to the sun. That day was called “

            The Venerable Day of the Sun

            .” It was the first day of the week, and from it we get our name Sunday. When Constantine pressed his pagan hordes into the church they were observing the day of the sun for their adoration of the sun god. It was their special holy day. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples. Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing anti-Jewish feelings against those who were accused of putting Jesus to death. Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews. It is therefore easier to understand how the change was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome. The very wording of that law, by the way, can be found in any reliable encyclopedia. Those early Christians, feeling that the Jews should not be followed any more than necessary, were ready to swing away from the Sabbath which was kept by the Jews.
            – See more at: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/how-the-sabbath-was-changed#sthash.KbjY92KX.dpuf

          • KenS

            The was a change from the old Testament Sabbath to the New Testament. For one, the Sabbath was a day of rest, not of worship as it is now. Also, Jesus, Himself said that he is the Lord of the Sabbath, and this became clear when we are now able to enter into eternal rest when we are saved, our salvation was finished when Jesus died in our place. Therefore, he has rested and we rest in his payment. We now worship Jesus as our savior and redeemer on the first day of the week and I have already showed you the scriptures that support this. It wasnt an issue, because it was started the very first day of his resurrection and continued to this day. This was one of hte sticking points to why the early Christians were persecuted by the Jews as well, because they did not believe that Jesus was the Lord of the Sabbath.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I used to be confused about this too, Tristan, before I was shown the correct explanation.

            “The apostle Paul, who wrote pages of counsel about lesser issues of Jewish and Gentile conflicts, had not one word to say about any controversy over the day of worship.”

            Your source is in error, and doesn’t seem to know the Sacred Scriptures very well, I’m afraid. Saint Paul most certainly discussed this very issue:

            Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. – Col.2:16-17

            The confusion, you see, comes from the erroneous beleif that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. She did no such thing. The first Christians were Jews, and, they continued to observe the Sabbath, which remained on Saturday.
            Christians, however, started observing the day of Christ’s Resurrection (Jn. 20:1ff) as the “Eighth Day” of creation (Ep.of Barnabas 15), i.e., the Lord’s Day (cf. Rv.1:10). The week after the Resurrection, Christ appeared again, to show Saint Thomas His wounds. And, twice more in the next 40 days, both on Sunday (Jn. 20:19 & 26).The Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday, 50 days after the Crucifixion. Saint Paul celebrated the Eucharist in Troas on Sunday (Acts 20:7; cf. 2:42). He told the Corinthians to tithe to the Church on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

            For Christians, the day set aside for worship was no longer confined to just one day, i.e., Saturday. In Hebrews 3 & 4 we find that today is the day to enter into God’s rest:

            Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7* again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, * God would not speak later of another day. 9 So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; 10* for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. – Heb.4:6-10

            Christ changed the day of rest, spiritually, from Saturday to today. But, the Lord’s Day was always the day His disciples met to break the bread, i.e., the Eucharist, “in remembrance of [Him].” It was not the “new” Sabbath.

    • mwhaar

      Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Colossians 2:8-17 KJV

  • mwhaar

    Those who enjoy evil will continue to remain in darkness as they reject coming to the light.

    Or do you not know that the unrighteousf will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

    And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32 ESV

    For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
    John 3:17-21 ESV

  • Sarah

    She stood up for her faith in God and God blessed her. So happy for her.

    • Norbert Okumu

      Amen

  • Ronald Freitas

    homosexuals are haters and are bigoted and they target Christians, reinstate the sodomy laws !!!!

    • Paul Hiett

      And what, exactly, would you like to see happen to gay people?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      Thanks, Ronald. It is comments like yours that are so helpful to the efforts of the LGBT community. Appreciate your help.

    • MisterPine

      Can’t you just feel the Christian love?

    • noromney

      VICTORY! Close down all those bigot businesses!

  • JohnDub

    “What used to be wrong is now right and what used to be right is now wrong. I don’t hold anything against them.” Nice. Being gay was never wrong. Don’t wanna cater a same-sex wedding? Don’t. Don’t wanna marry a gay man or a lesbian? Don’t. Just keep your bigotry at home and quit trying to outlaw something that your book of fairy tales says is not acceptable.

  • FoJC_Forever

    These are very ordinary people, and that was evidenced during the interview with Hannity. They were overwhelmed and you could see the effects of the pressures of all of this on their faces. It doesn’t take but one death threat to scare most people, especially when so many people are harassing and berating. Fear is one of the primary tools of homosexual activists.

    I do agree with one commenter that the alleged vandalism photo looks altered. We don’t need to exaggerate reality when proving that some, if not many, homosexuals are driven by anger and hate, and do get violent when confronted with the Truth about the nature of homosexuality. Personalities come into play. Some people are alpha (aggressive) others are beta (passive), and some can be both in differing circumstances.

    Under the OT, homosexuals were to be killed for their sin, this is Truth. Under the NT, through Jesus Christ, Salvation is offered and the death penalty for Sin is God’s alone to administer. This may anger some who claim Jesus Christ, but people do get saved from sexual sins of all kinds (as well as so many other types of sins), and we need to make certain we are not taking God’s Judgement into our own hands.

    It’s hard not to be angry and not want to lash back at those who are driven to harass and slander Christians and God’s Word. We have to remember the Sin that God saved us from and the Work that He is doing in us to transform us into the image of Jesus Christ. While we’re not to back down from the Truth about homosexuality, as well as all sins, we are to endeavor to continue to remind of the saving grace of the LORD Jesus Christ.

  • Jefferson_Lebowski

    No surprise. Christianity (and Islam) condones and institutionalizes all sorts of hatred. Hatred of Gays. Hatred of Science. Hatred of other religious traditions, etc…etc…etc…

  • BarkingDawg

    “Go on, take the money and run. . . . “

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    Here is video that shows precisely how liberals, the LameStreamMedia, and atheists, look at Christians today (enjoy!):https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    And here’s a video that portrays that hack New Atheist, Dawkins, to a tee:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY

  • Reason2012

    The issue has been falsely phrased as “states have the right to ban same-gender marriage” – this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

    The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment) – you are fined up to $150,000 if you do not violate YOUR Christian beliefs and use your business to support sinful acts.

    And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is false.

    Marriage was defined by God at the beginning. Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    As if that’s not enough,

    (1) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time – government never defined it and our government cannot start re-defining it now.

    (2) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion by violating their own religious beliefs is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined up to $150,000 dollars.

    (3) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing.

    (4) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design.

    (5) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages legally deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (6) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father. Same-gender marriages legally deny kids this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (7) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is.

    (8) A black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are supreme” meeting and so on. LIkewise a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for those who currently profess homosexuality cannot be forced to bake a cake for the ACT of a same-gender wedding.

    • Paul Hiett

      Guess you weren’t aware that “one man, one woman” was a Roman tradition, not a Christian one?

      • Richard

        “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” – Genesis 2:24

        Long before Roman tradition.

        • Paul Hiett

          Except that Polygamy was a part of the Hebrew culture, whether you want to accept it or not. Romans outlawed long before Christianity came around.

          • Richard

            Sin began to exist with man. Sin wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews. Sin isn’t a reflection of God, but of man’s desire to engage in any type of behavior he chooses.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Sin”, a religious invention, was only part of the Hebrew culture at first, which, to be fair, was a pretty small sect of the world, all things considered. Outside of the Jews, no one else cared or knew what “sin” was. It really is only a cultural idea, albeit one that has now spread throughout the Abrahamic religions and most of the world that subscribes. Yet, for those of us who do not subscribe to that viewpoint, “sin” means nothing.

          • Richard

            > “Sin”, a religious invention,

            Sin is a God invention…from the beginning of time…even before man.

            > Outside of the Jews, no one else cared or knew what “sin” was.

            Many other cultures talk about sin or disobeying a spiritual law.

            > Yet, for those of us who do not subscribe to that viewpoint, “sin” means nothing.

            Tell that to a Hindu. Tell that to a Buddhist (karma). And any other culture that had to appease their gods.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you now lending credence to those religions?

          • Richard

            Merely pointing out the error in your assertion.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s no error in what I said. Sin is a man made invention, nothing more.

          • Richard

            > There’s no error in what I said.

            Of course you made an error. Two of them:

            > Sin is a man made invention, nothing more.

            Can you prove that, Paul, or is this just another dogmatic assertion?

            To do that, you will need to disprove the reality of God, since sin is God ‘s invention (sin: disobeying God).

            The rest are man made.

            You also said, ” Outside of the Jews, no one else cared or knew what “sin” was.”

            That was also wrong, as I pointed out.

          • Paul Hiett

            If anyone other than a man wrote the Bible, then no, sin is not man made. However, since we know, as a fact, that men DID write the Bible, there is no other option but that “sin” is man-made.

            No, Richard, I don’t have to prove that your choice of a deity is not real. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

            “Sin”, or “original sin”, if you will, is definitely isolated to the Abrahamic religions. Outside of that, “sin” is merely a catch-all word now for anything that goes against a particular religions text.

          • Richard

            Written by man, inspired by God. Big difference.

            >I don’t have to prove that your choice of a deity is not real

            Yes, you do if you assert God isn’t real or that God didn’t ‘invent’ sin. Otherwise, yours is just another dogmatic assertion in a long line of them.

            You didn’t initially specify about sin. Trying to do that now admits you were wrong.

          • Paul Hiett

            Claiming that the Bible is “inspired by God” is merely your opinion. The fact is that it was written by men, and nothing more. That’s the only thing you can say about the Bible without bringing in opinion and assumption.

            No, Richard, I do not have to prove your deity does not exist. You need to prove it does. It’s pretty simple. If you claim a positive, you need to be able to prove it.

            Yes, semantics are always fun to use as a claim that someone was wrong. I admit I used incorrect terminology.

          • Richard

            > Claiming that the Bible is “inspired by God” is merely your opinion.

            No. God used several ways to show it was inspired by him. Predictive and fulfilled prophecy is one. No other book on earth can claim this. No human can compare.

            Written over 1800 years by 40 different authors over multiple generations. No other book can compare.

            Documenting Christ, who proved God is real. No other source can compare.

            These are three of very many.

            But if you don’t believe these already established facts, you would need to disprove them, not just claim they are false. Can you?

            > I do not have to prove your deity does not exist.

            Yes, you do. As an admitted atheist…who believes God isn’t real, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertions that God isn’t real. Can you?

            >I admit I used incorrect terminology.

            Fair enough.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one telling us that we need to follow your deity. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you to prove your deity is real.

            Imagine going into the Amazon and meeting a tribe of people who don’t believe in God. When they ask you prove that this deity is real, would honestly sit there and tell them they need to prove it’s not real? No, as we all know the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

            You claim that your deity is real. I disagree, and have asked you to prove your positive assertion. Until you can prove that it is real, the advantage is mine, as all i have to do is sit back and wait. As long as you provide no proof, that’s all I need to support my stance.

          • Richard

            God is already established as historical fact. To claim God is real agrees with the facts. To claim God isn’t real, which disagrees with the facts, would need to be proven, not just claimed. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            There isn’t a single fact that supports the existence of ANY diety, much less your particular choice of one.

            If there was, there would be a single religion in the world.

          • SpeakTruth

            That is positively ridiculous. The existance of any god is completely unsupported by any kind of fact, historical or otherwise. Your particular god’s existance is no more factually supported than any other person’s god. The only “evidence” of the existance of your god is your bible. The bible is not an accurate account of history and thus cannot be used to prove your god’s existance. So, god is real because the bible says god is real?

          • Jean Adams

            1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of the cross.” Unfortunately Paul, you’re in the wrong group. I will pray to God that you be enlightened.

          • Paul Hiett

            What does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 say?

  • Reason2012

    Even children who grew up forced to be in homosexual “households” condemn it and expose it for the depravity is truly inflicts on children.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

    Christian beliefs criminalized: fined many thousands of dollars and sued if you get out of line with this new State Religion

    A sampling of how criminalizing Christian beliefs on marriage because it now violates this new State Religion and how all of this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States on many levels:

    Mayor calls own city’s churches “criminals”.

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/mayor-calls-own-citys-churches-criminals/

    Bakery fined $150,000

    http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/

    Christian fired by Ford for expressiong his disagreement over them promoting homosexuality in newsletters.

    http://christiannews.net/2015/02/08/ford-contractor-says-he-was-fired-for-speaking-against-companys-support-of-homosexuality/

    It was Ekstrom who said last month that Stutzman personally was liable for the claims against her, placing both her business assets and her home and personal savings at risk.

    The judge ordered that the state and the homosexual plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorneys’ fees from Stutzman.

    “The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner.

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-authorizes-personal-ruin-for-florist/

    http://christiannews.net/2015/02/19/christian-florist-found-guilty-of-discrimination-for-declining-gay-wedding-could-lose-home-life-savings/

    “I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.”

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

    They don’t turn away people who prefer homosexuality, but when they point out they will not CATER the ACT of a same gender wedding:

    The family business came under fierce assault by LGBT activists and their cronies — accusing them of being anti-gay bigots. Their Facebook pages were smeared with gay_pornography. Their phones were overwhelmed by vulgar and profane threats. A high school softball coach in Concord, Ind., was suspended after tweeting to go burn down their pizza place.

    “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” Coach Jess Dooley tweeted.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/todd-starnes-christian-pizzeria-slammed-by-modern-day-fascists/?intcmp=latestnews

    Gay fashion icons “The Only Family Is the Traditional One”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/gay-fashion-icons-dolce-gabbana-only-family-traditional-one

    ..While growing up she “ached every day for a dad.”

    “same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not.”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/woman-raised-lesbian-couple-i-ached-every-day-dad

    Many muslim bakers will not bake a cake for the ACT of a same-gender “marriage” – where’s the outrage?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2015/04/03/why-isnt-media-going-after-muslim-bakeries

    Exposes the hypocrisy of the attack on Christianity over this issue.

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

    ======

    A black man who has no problem serving white people cannot be forced to use his business to instead cater a “whites are superior” gathering.

    Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving those who currently like homosexual behavior cannot be forced to use his business to instead cater any sinful acts, like gatherings that are celebrating abortion, a polygamy wedding, or a same-gender wedding, to name a few.

    And the fact that the homosexual activists completely ignore the FACT that many muslim bakers will also not support a same-gender wedding with their business proves it’s not about “equal rights” or “being against discrimination” but a flat out attack on Christianity alone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

  • Deborah F Titus

    Thank you for another e-article on the Christian American business status report. I have Memories Pizza’s back. Do this or that for the sake of the Lord!

  • Richard

    Jesus, who is God, gave his followers a great commission – to go out into the world and share the good news. But he, being aware of the world’s sinfulness, also told his followers what the outcome would be for those who rejected him.

    God has been 100% accurate on his predictions over thousands of years. It’s safe to say the rest will come true, as well. Here are God’s own words:

    “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” – Matthew 10:13-15

    In the spirit of love, I leave you with this. Receive God’s gift while there is still time. Once time is up, without Christ, only the eternal consequences of sin remain.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    If they were “forced” to close I wonder how it was that they were able to reopen.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    If they were “forced” to close, how is it they were able to reopen?

  • Truthhurts24

    God is Good!

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    If they were “forced” to close, what allowed them to reopen?