Court Upholds Right of Christian Company Not to Print T-Shirts With ‘Gay Pride’ Messages

Hands OnLEXINGTON, Ky. — In the first decision of its kind upholding the rights of a Christian business, an appeals court has ruled that a Christian t-shirt company did not violate the law when it declined to print t-shirts for a local “gay pride” event.

As previously reported, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington (GLSO) had wanted the company Hand On Originals–a company that identifies as “Christian outfitters” on the home page of its website–to print t-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Gay Pride Festival. When manager Blaine Adamson declined the order due to the company’s biblical convictions, GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Human Rights Commission.

“I want the truth to come out—it’s not that we have a sign on the front door that says, ‘No Gays Allowed,’” owner Blaine Adamson said following the filing of the complaint. “We’ll work with anybody. But if there’s a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I can’t promote that.”

During a hearing regarding the matter last June, GSLO representative Aaron Baker admitted to the commission that his desire to force Christians to print pro-homosexual messages works both ways, and that the homosexual companies could be forced to print messages that are against homosexuality.

“I believe that a gay printer would have to print a t-shirt for the Westboro Baptist Church,” he stated, referring to the controversial organization whose messages express a desire for Americans to burn in Hell rather than repent and be saved. “And if the Westboro Baptist Church were to say, ‘Look, we’re a church; we’re promoting our church values by having our name on a T-shirt,’ I don’t see how you could refuse that.”

HRC examiner Greg Munson therefore ruled in October that Hands On Originals violated the law by not printing the shirts for the event. The company was then ordered to undergo diversity training so that it would not decline to print such messages in the future.

But Hands on Originals filed an appeal with the Fayette Circuit Court via its legal counsel, contending that the ruling violated its constitutional right to freedom of religion and its freedom of expression.

  • Connect with Christian News

“No one should be forced by the government to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell told reporters. “A book editor or ghostwriter could be forced to write a book advocating messages they find contrary to their convictions based on this ruling.”

On Monday, the circuit court reversed Munson’s ruling, noting that the company regularly does business with homosexuals, and so the decision not to print the shirts was not based on any person’s sexuality, but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.

“In short, HOO’s (Hands on Originals) declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members,” the court wrote in its 16-page decision. “In point of fact, there is nothing in the record before the Commission that the sexual orientation of any individual that had contact with HOO was ever divulged or played any part in this case.”

“The Commission … says that it is not trying to infringe on the constitutional rights of HOO, but is seeking only to have HOO ‘… treat everyone the same.’ Yet, HOO has demonstrated in this record that it has done just that. It has treated homosexual and heterosexual groups the same,” it declared.

The court noted that from 2010-2012 Hands on Originals declined 13 orders from various groups because of the message that was to be printed.

“Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video and shirts containing a violence-related message,” it explained. “There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support.”

“Nonetheless, the Commission punished HOO for declining to print messages advocating sexual activity to which HOO and its owners strongly oppose on sincerely held religious grounds,” the court continued. “The Commission’s order substantially burdens HOO’s and its owners’ free exercise of religion, wherein the government punished HOO and its owners by its order for their sincerely held religious beliefs. This is contrary to established constitutional law.”

ADF says that it is pleased with the outcome and is in agreement with the court’s conclusion.

“The government can’t force citizens to surrender free speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that,” Campbell said. “The court rightly recognized that the law protects Blaine’s decision not to print shirts with messages that conflict with his beliefs, and that no sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way.”

Bakers and florists who have been facing legal action in recent months have likewise stated that they regularly do business with homosexuals and have homosexual friends, but do not believe that they should be forced to be a participant in an event that conflicts with their biblical convictions.


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

    I agree with this decision.

    • Paul Hiett

      I concur.

  • Crono478

    “The government can’t force citizens to surrender free speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that,” Campbell said. “The court rightly recognized that the law protects Blaine’s decision not to print shirts with messages that conflict with his beliefs, and that no sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way.”

    This is exactly correct. That is the definition of Freedom of religion.

    • The Last Trump

      Those darn homosexuals done wandered into yet ANOTHER Christian business for the purpose of promoting the gay lifestyle! How weird is THAT, right?
      So weird…
      What agenda? 😉

      • Oboehner

        Wandered into nothing, targeted with the purpose of silencing opposition to their perversion.

        • MisterPine

          What perversion is that?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      ““The government can’t force citizens to surrender free speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that,” Campbell said.”

      Campbell is mistaken. The ruling does not mean that at all. The ruling simply says that a business is not required to print something that the owner doesn’t want to print.

      • Crono478

        No, Campbell is not mistaken. The ruling said that because it affirms first amendment which includes both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          The decision makes no mention of religious beliefs, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech. Campbell is mistaken in his hyperbolic statement regarding the ruling.

          • Crono478

            “…rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.”

            That is obvious a reference to first amendment. I am sorry if you are unable to see this in any way.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Nothing in the ruling about freedom of religion. I know you badly want to believe Campbell – that the ruling covers things it does not – but that is simply not the truth.

          • Crono478

            It is like someone try to argue that Jesus is silent on homosexuality in Bible. Jesus stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This itself ruled out homosexuality even if it wasn’t mentioned.

            This is same idea. If you read the ruling, it was obviously about first amendment even if it make no mention of that at all.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The only mention from Jesus regarding homosexuals is that they are born that way.

            ” Jesus stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman.”

            Please cite where Jesus used the word “only”.

            “If you read the ruling, it was obviously about first amendment even if it make no mention of that at all.”

            You are certainly free to believe what you care to. But there was nothing in the ruling about religious freedom.

          • Crono478

            Matthew 19:4-6

            4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

            This is God’s definition of marriage. It leaves out homosexuality when you read that.

            For the ruling, I am sorry if you are really blind to see that it is not connected to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

  • mfernandez57MN

    Well, it’s about time.

  • magormissabib

    Aaron Baker is simply a liar or certainly does not represent most sodomites who would NOT print a godhatesfags shirt.

    • Paul Hiett

      And you know this because…why? Or, are you just assuming on your own with no actual evidence to support your claim?

      • magormissabib

        actually I have a lot of evidence.

        • Paul Hiett

          Such as?

          • magormissabib

            such as the one at the mall of the bus station.

          • MisterPine

            But of course straight couples never go to shady places for illicit “encounters”.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You seem to be surprisingly familiar with that.

          • magormissabib

            what boy hasnt gone nto a public toilet and seem some sickening [email protected] peeping thru a hole. Yes, Im familiar with that.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Well I hope they didn’t recognize you.

          • magormissabib

            nope not me. probably youre the sick [email protected] watchin people poop.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            No doubt you must be relieved that no one recognized you.

  • magormissabib

    this fight is going to play out over and over and over thruout every aspect of our society because sodomites will never be satisfied. what they crave is the whole world telling them that their sin is acceptable in the sight of God.

  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    On Monday, the circuit court reversed Munson’s ruling, noting that the company regularly does business with h–, and so the decision not to print the shirts was not based on any person’s s_xuality, but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.

    Bingo! I keep trying to explain this and yet I keep getting hit over the head with the Constitution, which supports THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION. It’s not discriminatory to base your decision on not supporting a cause you are forced to support. That is my point. It has nothing to do with SSG it has to do with being forced to submit to a law that forces you to have to comply with a message that your beliefs (religious in this instance) is expressly against the message. It has nothing to do with not serving a person. Most of the time business owners don’t know someone’s S_xual preference anyway, or doesn’t care.

    • Paul Hiett

      There’s a difference between this and providing a cake/flowers for a wedding.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        How so?

        • Paul Hiett

          You don’t know why asking for a pro-gay statement on t-shirts is different than providing a wedding cake or flowers for a wedding?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Not when the cake is forced to provide a message contrary to one’s beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            What message was requested on the cake?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            You read the article, you brought up the issue. I would think you would know what was on the cake. I’m pointing out specifically that the issue is being forced as said “but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.” If that message is contrary no matter what its on, then the business has the right not to convey that message on its products.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m asking you what “message” was supposed to be written on a wedding cake?

          • magormissabib

            the message is irrelevant As a christian I will never participate or condone sodomite ”marriage” I dont care how many laws they pass.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Please, never again post on a thread I have started. I have not seen one thing in any of your posts that represent Christ whatsoever, and your profile pic is repugnant. I am hoping you are able to rationalize what I just said.

          • magormissabib

            “Christians” caused sodomite marriage by their cowardly ass kissing. YES. sodomy is repugnant and God abhors america , land of the sodomite damned. and guess what.No one needs your approval or permission to post on here.

          • Paul Hiett

            By the way, I don’t lump him in with the rest of the folks on here…well, not the majority anyway. Like every group of people on the planet, we all have our bad apples.

          • MC

            The “bad apples” in your mind are the ones who constantly refute your arguments. That’s why you refer to them as, “bad apples” instead of admitting defeat.

          • Paul Hiett

            Magormissabib hasn’t refuted a single point I’ve made, he’s simply thrown out insults to me and other Christians on here…and you defend him. No surprise .

          • MC

            When and where did I defend him? You said, “By the way, I don’t lump him in with the rest of the folks on here…well, not the majority anyway.” the words, ” not the majority anyway” means you’re are talking about others not just him.

          • FoJC_Forever

            What messages are normally written on wedding cakes? Even with no words, the cake itself is a message and part of a celebration of what is deemed by God as Sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            So no message. See, that’s the part you’re struggling with.

          • MC

            The wedding cake is in itself the message. Are you really this obtuse?

          • Bill

            no it’s not. it’s just a cake

          • MC

            No, it’s not. To you it might be just a cake but not to us Christians. Your opinion of, “It’s just a cake”, derp, is exactly that, your opinion, and your opinion is irrelevant and doesn’t trump our religious beliefs, so nice try but your argument was a complete fail.

          • Bill

            it’s not just my opinion it’s the opinion of the courts

          • MC

            That will be overturned on appeal. We are protected under the constitution to practice our religion without persecution from the government. The FACT of the matter is that NO discrimination went on. You can’t be sued for discrimination of sexual orientation when they don’t provide a service for gay celebrations to gays AND straights equally. The T-Shirt designer is and artist, the baker is an artist, you can’t force an artist to make art just because YOU say so. Get over yourself. Unjust laws are meant be broken and over turned.

          • Bill

            they are merchants if they think they think they’re artists then that just makes them pretentious . and that *ullshit excuse doesn’t work. if you refuse to provide a serve for a event a involves gay people then that’s still illegal.

          • MC

            Just because your small mind calls them pretentious is irrelevant. But hey, you just called thousands of gay pastry artists, ” pretentious “. And you do know that you CAN be an artist AND a merchant, right? Well I guess you didn’t know that, figures. But I’m still laughing at the fact that you don’t think photographers are artists. Lol! The gay photographers would slap you for saying that. And I’ll remind you of this article and ruling, the judge said the T-Shirt company does NOT have to provide services for gay events and celebrations. It is NOT illegal. Read the article again.

          • Bill

            I read it and it doesn’t mean what you think it does. all they determined is you don;t pint messages that conflict with your beliefs but you still can’t discriminate against people because of their orientation and that mean that if you are asked to provide a cake for a SSW then you cannot refuse because it’s a SSW

          • MC

            That’s because they never discriminated against gay people, just like the bakers never discriminated against gay people. You can’t force a person to make you a cake for a gay event if it goes against their religious beliefs. Especially since they don’t provide services to gay events to gays AND straights.

          • Bill

            I can actually. just like you can force an atheist to cater a christan event

          • MC

            An atheist doesn’t believe there is a god/gods so there would be NO conflict in their belief system. Your argument fails yet again.

          • Paul Hiett

            THat’s right MC, so why should an atheist be forced to support something he doesn’t believe in? Oh that’s right, it’s only Christians that should have special protections…

          • MC

            Are you now taking over Bill’s failed arguments? Are you speaking for him or is this now a ventriloquist act? Who’s hand is where? Who said an atheist should be forced to support something he doesn’t believe in? I’m against forcing anyone to do anything. Matter of fact, I want the government out of the marriage business.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice job, MC! You really took them down on this article. Sorry I could not up-arrow all of your comments, but the “tolerant” bullies are out en mass and need an education. God bless and keep up the great work!

          • MC

            It’s not hard, all they use is failed strawman arguments. They lack logic and critical thinking skills, but that’s because they use emotion instead of facts. Thanks for your support and God bless you and your family!

          • MisterPine

            Keep fighting for your right to hate and calling it Christianity!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It sounds like you hate me. 🙂 Self-refuting much? God bless you, MisterPine!

          • MisterPine

            Why is it so important for you to discriminate against homosexuals, WorldGoneCrazy?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I also discriminate against nudists: I don’t believe they should have the freedom to bare themselves in public. I discriminate against pedophiles, since I believe that they should not have the freedom to practice their “craft.” (The ACLU disagrees with me here.) Rapists, murderers, abortionists – I discriminate against them too. Don’t you?

            But, it is funny that you bring up discrimination in a story where homofascists from the Inhuman Wrongs Commission discriminated against a Christian company. Why is it so important for you to discriminate against Christians, MisterPine?

          • MisterPine

            Are you actually serious, comparing homosexuals to rapists, murderers, pedophiles and other people who are committing acts of abuse? Homosexuality is a consensual union and hurts no one.

            If pointing the insanity of that out to you makes me discriminatory against Christians, it’s for the best reasons in the world, WorldGoneCrazy. Which is that you need a serious wake up call about how things are in the real world.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Are you actually serious, comparing homosexuals to rapists, murderers, pedophiles and other people who are committing acts of abuse? Homosexuality is a consensual union and hurts no one.”

            I wasn’t comparing them – I was pointing out that we are all discriminatory against other people. I also note that you left out nudists. 🙂 BTW, homosexuality DOES hurt someone – the people involved – and any children around them. Do I really need to quote the CDC statistics on the physical and psychological destructiveness of the gay lifestyle?!? I am tired of picking up the paper and seeing another man who was “active in the LGBT community” and is now dead at 45. And we won’t even get into diapers at 25. That is not loving – to encourage someone to go into a destructive relationship.

            “If pointing the insanity of that out to you makes me discriminatory against Christians, it’s for the best reasons in the world, WorldGoneCrazy.”

            Thank you for admitting your discrimination! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            “I wasn’t comparing them – I was pointing out that we are all discriminatory against other people.”

            I just read it again. Sure looks like a direct comparison to me. And I continue to wonder why. I left out nudists because they are hurting nobody, unlike the others you mentioned.

            “BTW, homosexuality DOES hurt someone – the people involved – and any children around them. Do I really need to quote the CDC statistics on the physical and psychological destructiveness of the gay lifestyle?!?”

            Yes, PLEASE do – let’s examine the inherent bigotry in what is being said. You aren’t going to quote outdated AIDS-era data from the 1980s are you? Because that would be really embarrassing on your part.

            “I am tired of picking up the paper and seeing another man who was “active in the LGBT community” and is now dead at 45.”

            Oh, me too – no doubt about it. It’s shameful how Christian spremacists drive homosexuals to suicide with guilt and shame.

            “And we won’t even get into diapers at 25.”

            Yes, let’s not – for YOUR sake.

            “That is not loving – to encourage someone to go into a destructive relationship.”

            Most relationships require no encouragement, they just happen. But in the case of straight couples, it results in divorce 50% of the time anyway, sigh. What a shame.

            “Thank you for admitting your discrimination! :-)”

            Did I do that? I’m not privy to what goes on in your imagination, sorry.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Yes, PLEASE do – let’s examine the inherent bigotry in what is being said. You aren’t going to quote outdated AIDS-era data from the 1980s are you? Because that would be really embarrassing on your part.”

            Google “Top 12 studies showing risks to couples in same-sex unions” for one of many examples. All modern data. I cannot believe you are so ignorant as to not admit that the homosexual lifestyle is significantly more destructive than the population at large. How intellectually disingenuous of you!

            “Oh, me too – no doubt about it. It’s shameful how Christian spremacists drive homosexuals to suicide with guilt and shame.”

            I’m talking about AIDS! But, yes, I am sure many of those AIDS patients DO die in guilt and shame. Thank you for making my point!

            “Most relationships require no encouragement, they just happen. But in the case of straight couples, it results in divorce 50% of the time anyway, sigh. What a shame.”

            Which is why I am against no-fault divorce. Nevertheless, continue to ignore the peer-reviewed research on the significantly increased destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle at your risk.

            “Did I do that? I’m not privy to what goes on in your imagination, sorry.”

            Yes, you said that discriminating against Christians was for a good cause. Thank you for admitting that gay “rights” is more KKK than MLK.

          • MisterPine

            “Google “Top 12 studies showing risks to couples in same-sex unions”

            Sure – and then you can Google “12 reasons why 9/11 was an inside job”. You know as well as I do that this is a matter of fidelity. Straight OR gay couples are in no danger of STDs if they remain faithful. If you want to tell me that two gay people in a committed monogamous relationship (which, you’d think, would be their reasons, in part, for wanting to get married in the first place) can contract STDs, I’m going to suggest that you’re seriously misinformed. Nothing new there I should imagine.

            “I’m talking about AIDS!”

            Know who the demographic with the most AIDS is these days? Straight, black females. Stop looking at outdated data.

            “Nevertheless, continue to ignore the peer-reviewed research on the significantly increased destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle at your risk.”

            Sure thing, when are you going to provide some?

            “Thank you for admitting that gay “rights” is more KKK than MLK.”

            Thank you for again attributing me to something I never said. Is this how you approach all of your arguments? Do you ever win any?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            If you only had a brain! 🙂

            From the CDC:

            In the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. Gay and bisexual men represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for three-fourths of all estimated new HIV infections annually from 2008 to 2010.

            Among gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men—especially those who are younger—are the group most affected by HIV. In 2010, African American gay and bisexual men accounted for almost as many new HIV infections as white gay and bisexual men, despite the differences in population size of African Americans compared to whites.

            Although some progress has been made against new HIV infections among African Americans overall, a recent study of gay and bisexual men in 19 US cities and the District of Columbia showed a 19% increase in self-reported sex without condoms in HIV-positive African American gay and bisexual men—from 47% in 2005 to 56% in 2011.

            The Numbers

            In 2010, there were an estimated 10,600 new HIV infections among African American gay and bisexual men. By comparison, in the same year, there were an estimated 11,200 new HIV infections among white gay and bisexual men and 6,700 new HIV infections among Hispanic/Latinoc gay and bisexual men.
            Young African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 are especially affected by HIV. In 2010, they accounted for approximately 4,800 new HIV infections—more than twice as many estimated new infections as either young white or young Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.
            Estimated Incidence of HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age at Infection, 2010—United States

          • MisterPine

            If you only were honest! 🙂

            HIV Among African American Gay and Bisexual Men

            “Do I really need to quote the CDC statistics on the physical and psychological destructiveness of the gay lifestyle?!?”

            And yet you haven’t done that, you’ve presented stats on a subgroup of homosexual men, that of African Americans, and tried to make it appear representative of all. How can we take you seriously, WorldGoneCrazy?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            What part of “Estimated Incidence of HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age at Infection, 2010—United States” do you not understand?!?

            This is for the population at large:

            “In the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. Gay and bisexual men represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for three-fourths of all estimated new HIV infections annually from 2008 to 2010.”

            Why is it so important for you to stick your head in the sand?

          • MisterPine

            Nice try. Here’s the next paragraph which you conveniently omit:

            “Among gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men—especially those who are younger—are the group most affected by HIV. In 2010, African American gay and bisexual men accounted for almost as many new HIV infections as white gay and bisexual men, despite the differences in population size of African Americans
            compared to whites.”

            Anyone who wants to check your whitewash out for themselves can do so at www dot cdc dotgov/hiv/risk/racialethnic/bmsm/facts/

            Oh, and this is cute, too – the TITLE of the article, ALSO conveniently left out by you:

            HIV Among African American Gay and Bisexual Men”

          • Bill

            what are you talking about? I said that if they discriminated against me I would take them to court

          • Paul Hiett

            The baker DID discriminate, which is the part you seem to be confused about. I don’t know why, it’s pretty simple to understand. Oregon has included sexual orientation as a protected status in that state. Coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 64, you simply can’t do what they did. This T-Shirt company did not discriminate, the baker did.

          • MC

            No, they did not discriminate. They served gay people all day everyday, they never told gay people to leave the store because they didn’t want to serve them. They don’t provide services for gay events to anyone, straight or gay. Why are you so confused about this? A straight person can’t get a cake for a gay wedding.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            They refused to provide a product that they provide to others based solely upon the sexual orientation of the people who requested the product. A violation of the law.

          • MC

            Wrong. They don’t provide services for gay events to straight people either. But they do sell products to gay people all day every day.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What are “gay events”?

          • KenS

            universities and colleges give them a degree in the culinary arts for a reason, they are culinary artists!!!!

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “That will be overturned on appeal. ”

            Unlikely. There have been numerous cases where religious belief was cited as a basis for not being held accountable for violating anti-discrimination laws. None have prevailed.

          • MC

            Trust me, it will be overturned. The women are perpetrating fraud.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The women are perpetrating fraud.”

            How so?

          • William T. Robbins

            There is the problem “the wedding cake is the message”. Hence the baker would sell a cake or the same message to a straight couple but not a gay couple. In this case they won’t sell pro gay Tshirts to anyone.

          • MC

            The baker doesn’t sell cakes for gay events to anyone.

          • William T. Robbins

            Thanks for proving my point. Events aren’t gay, people are. Same event for straight people and they do it.

          • MC

            Wrong! A “wedding” of two homosexuals is a gay event, a traditional wedding is a wedding of one man one woman, a heterosexual event. That’s why it’s called TRADITIONAL. Seems like logic waved bye bye to you a long time ago.

          • William T. Robbins

            Logic? You can’t find logic through your bigotry. Gay people eat dinner, is it gay dinner? If a gay surgeon operates on you did you have gay surgery? I get it you don’t like gay people. Too bad. They are people and deserve equality.

          • MC

            There’s no bigotry involved, but nice try with empty words, it’s just a fact. Gay people eating dinner is people eating dinner, a “gay wedding” is a gay event, a NON traditional wedding. A traditional wedding consists of two heterosexuals getting married. And yes, one of my best friends in my life is gay, so what, it still doesn’t change the facts. Take a course in logic.

          • Paul Hiett

            Based on the things you say on here, there is no way you have a gay best friend. Or, if you do, you hide your intolerance of him very well.

          • MC

            I don’t care if you believe me or not because you’re irrelevant and useless to me.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, you don’t have any gay friends.

          • MC

            Wow, so now you’re claiming you’re clairvoyant. Does that come with your gander? Have you seen a mental health professional lately?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you let this “friend” of yours read your comments about gay people?

          • MC

            What are my comments about gay people?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you let him read your comments on this site?

          • MC

            What are my comments on this site?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you or don’t you?

          • MC

            What comments are you talking about, what comments about gay people are you talking about? Can’t you even answer the questions? Do you understand the questions, are they too difficult for you?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Gaydar” – that’s a new one to me. Well-played, MC.

          • Paul Hiett

            A wedding is neither a “straight” or “gay” event. It’s simply a wedding.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The legal question is printing a message on something. No request was made to print anything on the cake.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’m not struggling with anything.

            No one should be forced to participate in a gay “wedding”, period. A business being forced to supply anything for them is a violation of their commonly accepted, and provable Christian religious beliefs.

            You’re a troll and I see you’ve brought some more of your troll buddies along with you.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “No one should be forced to participate in a gay “wedding”, period. ”

            No one is forced. Owning a business is a choice. Deciding what products the business offers is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You ignore reality and obvious facts. This is typical among those who reject the Truth.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What “reality and obvious facts” do you believe I am ignoring?

            Are you saying that people are forced to open a business? That business owners are told what products they have to offer?

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh look, a loving Christian throwing out insults. Typical.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re very deprived and troll Christians websites for attention. I feel sorry for you and anyone who believes what you say, but your eyes will be opened in the End. Judgement is coming.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            LOL, the message on the cake that was wanted on the cake never became part of the cake. I’ll again have to refer you to the article. I’m lazy lol.

          • Paul Hiett

            I think we’re thinking of two different incidents. “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. There was nothing “pro gay” being requested, but the company discriminated based on sexual orientation. Oregon has a law against that. The bakery broke the law, plain and simple.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            What was going to be put on that cake? I really don’t recall what was going to be put on that cake.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nothing, just a wedding cake…it wasn’t a “pro gay” rally or anything like that, it was just a wedding and they were wanting a cake for it.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            A wedding cake with nothing on it? Not even an image of two SS people on top of the cake? I guess I’m going to have to get off my behind and look up what the cake was to have on it. I just don’t remember, but I know there was something that was on the cake and I’ll let you know when I find it.

          • Paul Hiett

            I am not sure any details were released about any thing being “on” the cake, but apparently as soon as the shop found out it was a for a lesbian wedding, they initiated the discrimination. Regardless, they broke the law.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Not even an image of two SS people on top of the cake?”

            Images are not typically put on cakes. Toppers are usually what goes on top of a wedding cake (hence the name “topper”). The bakery most certainly would not have to provide a two-male or two-female topper.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Ok, so was their a topper on the cake? Do you know if there is anything at all on the cake, a tag on flowers, any indication that it was a message that it was a wedding on a product that conveyed a message against the beliefs of the cake maker?

          • MC

            That’s a pro gay event, Captain Obtuse!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Hey and Paul, ignore the dude with the profile pic, you know the one. He does not to me represent Christ at ALL. I’m ashamed that he even posted on this thread and I apologize.

          • magormissabib

            Thats cause you think Christ was a long hair sissy [email protected] who taught that God loves all, instead of the righteous judge who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            How would the people making the cake have known there the people were lesbian, if there was nothing to be put on the cake. Did the couple just announce it to the cake makers?

          • Bill

            maybe because they walked in and requested a cake for THERE wedding

          • magormissabib

            The details are irrelevant , What they seek and what they crave is for everyone to tell them that their sin is acceptable in the sight of God. Their conscience bears witness with the word of God that they are an abomination and they seek to sooth it by ferreting out those that hold to the truth and persecute them and silence them. It wont work. I for one will NEVER condone it and will never stop speaking the truth.

          • Paul Hiett

            Psst…the only reason you are a Christian is because you were raised as one by Christian parents. If you’d been born to Muslim parents, you’d be kneeling to the east 5 times a day. Chew on that for a while.

          • magormissabib

            You dont know none of that. and its just stupid./ as if there are not Christians in muslims countries. As if children of Christians all become christians. Shut up with these same old stupid atheist arguements.

          • MC

            So, according to your logic then I should be an atheist?

          • Paul Hiett

            There are maps of the world that show what religion is predominate in each region. You should probably learn that there are other beliefs in the world, and that Christianity does not have a monopoly. And yes, it’s a fact that if you were born to parents of a different religion, you’d probably not be a Christian.

          • MC

            Again, using your logic, then I would be an atheist? And the Christians who were born from Muslim parents who practiced their Muslim religion in their Muslim countries should be Muslims? And the people who are in the Baha’i faith religion who were born from Catholic parents should be Catholics? And all the Christians turned atheist should still be Christians? And the Christians who were raised by Mormon parents should be Mormons? This is why atheist John Loftus’ argument has been refuted many times and was laughed at by scholars. You repeating it just makes me laugh at that strawman argument. Lol!

          • Paul Hiett

            Conversions happen, we know that. However, the majority of people who are religious are simply following in the footsteps of their parents before them. It’s a simple fact, MC.

            I didn’t say “all” folks are, I said the “majority”.

          • MC

            No they didn’t, they served gay people all day every day, so there was NEVER any discrimination. You can’t force a business to provide a service that they don’t provide to anyone, straight or gay.

          • Bill

            they sold wedding cake didn’t they? if they did then they discriminated by refusing to sell it to a gay couple

          • MC

            They sold all yummy cakes, cookies, and other delectables to gay people all day every day. They NEVER denied service to gay people, never. They never refused a gay person from coming into their shop. They don’t provide service for gay celebrations to gays AND straights. Whether it is a wedding or for a gay parade. If a STRAIGHT person came in wanting to buy a cake for a gay celebration they would also be rejected because it not a service they provide for. Let me dumb it down for you guys, you guys are the kind of people who would take their watch into the bakery and try and force them to fix it, even though it’s not a service they provide, no matter if you’re straight or the gayest person in the galaxy. It really is that easy to understand, well, for most of us.

          • Bill

            but a straight couple didn’t come in did it? a gay couple walked in a asked for wedding cake for their wedding which the bakery sells and there turned away, if it had been a straight couple asking for a cake for their wedding they would of gotten it no problem.

          • MC

            Please put on your thinking cap and at least try to use some critical thinking skills? Again, it doesn’t matter if a gay person walked in and asked for a cake for a gay celebration, the company does NOT provide services for gay celebrations, if a straight person came in wanting a cake for a gay celebration they also would be rejected equally. Why? Because they DON’T provide services for gay celebrations. If the gay couple wanted a cake for a persons birthday then they would have gotten a nice birthday cake. If you go to a Kosher deli and ask them for a BLT, you’re out of luck, are they discriminating against thousands of Pork eaters? No. Because they serve thousands of Pork eaters every day, they just don’t serve Pork to Pork eaters AND non Pork eaters equally for religious reasons. It’s just not a service they provide to anyone.

          • Bill

            it doesn’t work like that. under the law that’s still considered discrimination

          • MC

            Did you read the the article and understand it?

          • Bill

            yes i did. the judge ruled that the shop didn’t have to print MESSAGES that conflicted with his beliefs not events

          • MC

            Exactly! Because it went against his religious beliefs, just like the Christian baker making a cake for a gay event goes against their religious beliefs.

          • Bill

            ok here’s how it works

            if you sell wedding cakes then you sell them to anone who can aford them but if somone request a offensive message be written on the cake then you can refuse

          • MC

            No, here’s how it actually works. You can’t force a business to provide a service that they don’t provide to anyone. And by the way, there was no offensive message for those T-Shirts, it was just advertising the gay pride event.

          • Bill

            it was still about the message not who was ordering it and what it was for. and as i said they sold wedding cakes which means they didn’t refuse because it was something they didn’t provide.

          • MC

            It was only because he didn’t want anything to do with a gay event, a straight person could have ordered it and he still would’ve rejected the job because it was the event NOT the message that he rejected. Just like the baker doesn’t want anything to do with a gay event because it goes against their religious beliefs. It’s the event that’s being rejected. BUT if you want to argue that it’s all about the message then the Christian baker doesn’t want to provide cakes for a gay event because it sends the message that they support perpetual sin. A message is a message, not all messages are spoken or written.

          • Paul Hiett

            A wedding is not a sexual orientation event. “Straight” marriages are not Heterosexual Events, so why are you claiming that “Gay” marriages are Homosexual Events?

          • Bill

            you’re an idiot. I’ll explain this once again. if you make wedding cakes then you sell them to ANYONE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM!

          • MC

            Sorry, but you’re the idiot who can’t understand something a child would, but that’s because you use emotion instead of critical thinking skills. They don’t make ANY products of any kind for gay events, to anyone straight or gay. It’s not a service they provide for. Now try and really understand the argument if you can but I have no hope for you. You can’t force a wedding photographer to take wildlife pictures if that’s not a service they offer in their public business , even though they have a camera and lenses. You can’t force an artist to paint your portrait if that’s not a service he offers in his public business even though he has all the paints and brushes. You can’t force a wedding photographer to photograph a gay event and you can’t force a baker to provide services to a gay event if they don’t offer services for gay events to anyone, it’s not something they do or offer. Go find a place that offers those services for gay events. It’s really that simple. And it has nothing to do with money.

          • Bill

            if you provide services to a weddings then you provide them to all weddings, personnel feelings are irrelevant

          • MC

            They don’t provide services for gay events, to anyone, straight or gay. It’s interesting though that you think religious beliefs which are protected under the constitution is, “irrelevant”.

          • Bill

            a wedding is a wedding. you don’t get to deice which ones are worth of your services and religious beliefs aren’t protected the way you think they are

          • MC

            Tell me, why does GoFundMe get to discriminate against those Christian Bakers?

          • Bill

            because GoFundMe’s policy prevents them from being involved in any criminal activity. the bakery broke the law and were using the site to pay their fine

          • MC

            What criminal activity, is raising money legally a criminal activity? And why are other people who have been convicted of crimes and are doing time, including a man convicted of child molestation of two young girls, raising money through GoFundMe? I’ll ask again, why is GoFundMe discriminating against the Christian bakers?

          • Bill

            no. they just felt it was a violation of their policy. you can look up their statement for yourself

          • MC

            I know the statement well, I’ve read it. So why are they violating their own policy by having people who have been convicted of crimes, like the man convicted of child molestation of two girls, get to raise money through GoFundMe? Why does GoFundMe get to choose who to do business with but not the bakers? Il ask you once again, Why is GoFundMe discriminating against the Christian bakers and NOT the others?

          • Bill

            GoFundMe took that page down

          • MC

            I’ll ask you again, why does GoFundMe get to choose who they want to do business with but not the Christian businesses? They choose not to work with abortion groups but choose to work with anti-abortion groups.

          • Bill

            they aren’t violating any ant-discrimination laws so I don’t care

          • MC

            And neither did the bakers, as they served gay people all day every day, so there was no discrimination involved.

          • Bill

            the courts ruled that they did break them and your opinion is irrelevant

          • MC

            So, slavery was legal and women weren’t allowed to vote, so you were ok with that because the law said it was ok. You’re totally fine with discrimination as long as it doesn’t break the law, ok got it. Thanks for telling me the truth.

          • Bill

            I believe in the rule of law and no one get to decide which laws they will follow, it’s all or nothing

          • MC

            Like I said, you’re fine with discrimination as long as it doesn’t break the law. Thanks for the truth, I think we’re done here.

          • Bill

            if it’s not against the law then there’s no much anyone can do about it

          • MC

            We’re done here, you’re for unjust laws and lawful discrimination.

          • KenS

            Billbbbbb

          • Paul Hiett

            Writing a message for a pro gay event is different than providing a wedding cake for a wedding.

          • Paul Hiett

            A wedding is not a same sex event.

          • MC

            Sorry to break the news to you but a “same sex wedding” is a same sex event, of two people of the same sex “getting married”, a traditional wedding is a wedding of two heterosexuals getting married, it’s a heterosexual event. Please try using logic in your future arguments.

          • MC

            Then why don’t you go to a Muslim bakery tomorrow and ask for a cake for a gay wedding, and when you’re rejected, sue them. And see what happens.

          • Bill

            nothing will happen. I know muslims and they aren’t the barbarians you think they are

          • MC

            Nothing will happen? Do you think they’ll make the cake for a gay wedding? And if not, are you willing to sue them like the good gay man you are? Will you get mental distress?

          • Bill

            well I’m not gay but if a muslim refused to serve me because i’m an atheist then yes i Would take them to court

          • MC

            No no, go in and tell them you want a cake for a gay wedding, then sue them when they reject you.

          • Bill

            why?

          • MC

            Why not? Are you afraid they’re going to throw you off the roof or something?

          • Paul Hiett

            If sexual orientation is a protected status in the state/city in which that business resides in, they would absolutely lose the lawsuit.

          • MC

            Think so, huh? We’ll see.

          • Paul Hiett

            Obviously they would. Why would you think otherwise?

          • Bill

            I have absolutely no reason to take part in your silly experiment.

          • MC

            You’re afraid of Muslims.

          • Bill

            nope but you are apparently. tell me have you even met one?

          • MC

            You’re afraid of Muslims. Lol!

          • Bill

            no i’m not

          • Paul Hiett

            See above, MC, it’s already happened, but your ignorance of the law is preventing you from understanding why these two instances are different.

          • KenS

            It did not happen, Paul, sexual orientation is not a protected class in Michigan like it is in Oregon, therefore we still need to see it happen in a state that has made it a protected status.

          • Paul Hiett

            It already happened, MC. Deerborn, MI…it’s on youtube. Look it up.
            However, while the Muslim bakery did the same thing, sexual orientation is not a protected status. Learn the law, your ignorance of it is killing you.

          • MC

            I know the law, and I know the video. And when they become a protected class, sue them, please sue them, I want to see what happens. Learn critical thinking skills, your arguments are killing you.

          • Paul Hiett

            If sexual orientation becomes a protected status, and a business refuses to offer their services based on that protected status, then a lawsuit will be incurred, and they will lose. It’s pretty simple stuff, but for some reason, you don’t seem to have the capacity to understand the law. No, you obviously don’t know the law at all, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting this.

          • Paul Hiett

            This is where your ignorance of the facts hurts you. Yes, the bakery advertised that they make wedding cakes for…of all things…weddings!!!!!
            So, when you refuse to bake a wedding cake for a wedding and cite a protected status as the reason, you’re in violation of the law. Why are you incapable of understanding this?

          • MC

            No, this is where you’re obtuse. The bakery doesn’t make cakes of any kind for gay events, they don’t make cakes of any kind that goes against their religious beliefs, to ANYONE, straight or gay. Why are you incapable of understanding something so simple that even a child could understand?

          • cadcoke5

            A wedding cake, by itself, carries the message that it is about a wedding. The company in question had sold cakes to homosexual people before. They had no problem with serving them as customers.

            I general, selling something like a loaf of bread is quite different from selling a product in which you must creatively participate in the design process.

          • Paul Hiett

            A business that offers a service cannot discriminate against sexual orientation if that is a protected status, as it is in the Oregon bakery case. It’s pretty straight forward.

          • magormissabib

            [email protected] will use the arm of the law to persecute Christians , Christ warned us of that, but you will never change God and you will never find the approval you seek. Its still an abomination and it will always be.

          • Crono478

            Are you saying that because one of your daughters is both lesbian and Christian?

          • Paul Hiett

            Citing the law has nothing to do with daughter.

          • Josey

            It’s just not about the message which is enough of itself but a baker who bakes for weddings delivers said cake and usually serves the cake which would be participation in the celebration. what about that can’t you get Paul?

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          The t-shirts had a message printed on them. The cake and flowers do not have messages printed on them. Does that help you understand the difference?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Nope, what did the cake indicate? How did the people know it was a lesbion wedding? What did the card on the flowers say? Do you know all this? You’ve made the assumption you do.

          • Paul Hiett

            It doesn’t matter. The refusal was not to put a message on the cake. The refusal was to bake the cake in the first place citing sexual orientation, a protected status in Oregon, as the reason. That is why they broke the law. Making sense now?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It would matter if that cake were to have conveyed any message that was against the beliefs of the business. And if it is shown that a message was going to be conveyed on the cake, then that whole issue would have to be reconsidered based on this ruling.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            This case dealt strictly with printed words. It would have no bearing on the other case, unless the issue was with the baker refusing to write words on the cake.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            There is no way to know that. If the cake had words, or conveyed a message this decision could have an effect on the other decision based on Oregan’s laws. You at least here are arguing a what if statement.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “If the cake had words, or conveyed a message”

            I’m unsure of your confusion. This case dealt strictly with words being printed on a shirt – not the general concept of conveying a message. It dealt strictly with the right of the printer not to print words that were contrary to his beliefs – religious or not.

            As I have said before, if the only issue with the baker is she refused to write something on a cake, then this case would have relevance. Outside of that, I see no way in which it would.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            We have argued this one into the ground. Meet me on the next article and we will discuss that. We are just going in circles here, we both know what happened.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I agree that we both know what happened. You are simply attempting to attach meaning to a ruling that is not supported by the ruling.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Oh come on. If the cake said nothing, and had nothing representing a G or L then the cake should be made. However if it did, then it conveys a message. Examples of Convey: Conveying a message.

            You can also convey a message or information, which means that you communicate it to someone directly or indirectly through your words or actions. In law, the word convey means to transfer or pass property to someone. This verb is from Middle English conveyen, from Old French conveier, ultimately from the Latin prefix com- “together” plus via “way.”

            Examples: Throughout the actor conveys the troubled decency of a good man driven to self-betrayal Ex. 2 Taken as a still image, it conveys defiance and lack of remorse.

            Ex 3. He smiles easily, looks people in the eye and conveys genuine interest in others without airs or pretense. Ex. 4 The nerves conduct the animal spirits to act upon the muscles, and in their turn convey the impressions of the organs to the brain.

            Constitutional formulae like these, in fact, are nothing more than symbolic expressions of the character of the compounds which they represent, the arrangement of symbols in a certain definite manner being understood to convey certain information with regard to the compounds represented.

            I’ll say this one more time. If a product conveys the message by word, symbol, text, etc. this decision can now be applied to any business that declines a product that would convey a message that would be against the religious beliefs of someone, Christian, Jewish, even atheist to carry it to the extreme, than that business cannot be discriminated against via the FFRF or other entities because of their religious beliefs. You as a “Deist” should recognize this, and pray to God concerning it, to get direction as to who and what you’re willing to support or not support. Am I correct, and if not, explain why I’m not correct, because based on this article, that is the way for a business to seek relief from an unfounded lawsuit.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Oh come on. If the cake said nothing, and had nothing representing a G or L then the cake should be made. ”

            I’m glad we agree.

            I’ve already stated that messages can be conveyed in a number of ways. I’m unclear why, then, you felt it necessary to provide a long-winded explanation of “convey”.

            “If a product conveys the message by word, symbol, text, etc. this decision can now be applied to any business that declines a product that would convey a message”

            You are free to say it as many times as you care to, but the ruling in the case above applied only to printing words, as the examples in the ruling clearly show.

            “via the FFRF or other entities because of their religious beliefs.”

            FFRF’s state that the government may not make a law which unduly infringes upon religious expression without showing that there is a compelling reason for doing so and that the interest achieved by the reasons cannot be achieved through other means. Case, after case, after case have shown that religious belief is not a sufficient reasons for violating anti-discrimination laws.

            “because based on this article, that is the way for a business to seek relief from an unfounded lawsuit.”

            I have explained this over and over. This case applies specifically to a business providing words on a product. Again, ti would support a baker not providing writing on a cake saying, for example, “Gay marriage is good”. It would not provide protection for not baking a cake with no writing on it, as you clearly agreed to in your opening sentence.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            than we agree.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Yah!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Although I won’t agree with the FFRF.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            That seems odd. I would have thought that you would have agreed with the FFRFs.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I don’t agree with anything that atheists stand for to be perfectly honest.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            That’s quite a sweeping statement. Atheists, like other people, stand for many things. I would find it inconceivable that you would not agree with any of them.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It is a sweeping statement. When I say what atheists stand for, usually what I hear from atheists is dissing me or anyone else that believes in God to be “ignorant”, laughed at, etc etc, just look at the comments to me. It’s not that I don’t care about them I do. I just think it’s irrelevant for an atheist to not believe in God but act like they do in the negative. (Read examples from other comments here). So I will temper that statement and say when it comes to God, I do not agree with Atheists. Nor do I agree with the FFRF for putting their nose into everything, correction, most everything that Christians do. You’re always so literal with your conversations, and yet you know my meaning.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So I will temper that statement and say when it comes to God, I do not agree with Atheists.”

            Much better.

            “Nor do I agree with the FFRF for putting their nose into everything, correction, most everything that Christians do.”

            That would be hyperbole. There are very few things that Christians do that the FFRF is involved in. In most cases, that occurs when some Christians decide that they should be able to impose their religious beliefs in settings that are government related. That would certainly not involve “most everything” Christians do. I would venture to say that what composes what Christians do, as most everyone does, is eat, work, shop, take care of kids, go to school, clean house, do yard work, etc., etc., I do not see the FFRF interfering with any of that.

            “You’re always so literal with your conversations”

            Yes, I am. Why? First, I think it is important to be clear in what I am trying to get across. With online communication, tone of voice and body language are not available, so one has to rely on the written word exclusively. Thus, clarity in that written word becomes more vital. Second, and of greater import, is that I believe we do a disservice to ourselves and others when we speak in generalities. Within any group there is great diversity of thought, views, and opinions. When we use language that lumps individuals together in thought based upon their being part of a group, then we create divisions and animosity towards individuals – who may or may not be deserving of animosity – based simply upon a shared trait.

            Although some Christian pastors have called on the government to kill all homosexuals, or put them behind electric fences and be left to die, it would be inappropriate for me to say: “Christians want to all homosexuals to be killed”. That statement is not accurate and only results in misdirected, and often negative, emotions. I do not believe that helps us move forward. On the contrary, I think it pushes us backward.

            So, yes, I am careful with my words. I don’t lump people together. I judge individuals as individuals based upon their individual actions/words not based on their being part of a group. I believe they deserve that and to do otherwise is both unfair and unwise.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I have found that judging anyone is a fallacy since your judgement of me as an example, is only a perspective of what I write with no knowledge of the person I am. You site the worst in Christianity, and yet it seems you ignore the rest. You do lump people together, you just do it one at a time. But that is irrelevant and you will just say you don’t. However, you have no judgemental power over me. That is something you need to recognize when you carry on a discussion because you judge mostly Christians from my observation. I’m bringing this to your attention so you can see yourself in a mirror as well as seeing others through their words. You don’t want to see what the FFRF is attempting to do, because your agree with them, or that is what it seems from your discussions. You’ll next ask me what are they attempting to do. So I will ask that of you first. I assert that you attempt accuracy through the means of questioning, which is often interpreted by me to be a tactic. Such tactics just lead to irrational thought from anyone involved in the conversation including yourself. When I make a statement, I have to think that you understand that statement since I cannot see your expressions and body language. And, I would argue that in most cases you understand exactly what I state even if the wording isn’t literal. So please don’t think I don’t understand what you try to do. It just carries the statement one step further to clarify the statement to satisfy some unknown reasoning you use in discussions. That to me is a waste of time.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I have found that judging anyone is a fallacy since your judgement of me as an example, is only a perspective of what I write with no knowledge of the person I am.”

            I have no particular judgement of you. As you stated, I do not know you well enough to come to any particular conclusions about you as a person.

            “You site the worst in Christianity”

            Perhaps the worst in YOUR eyes, but those Christians view themselves as Christians and use Scripture to support their statements. What makes their stance “the worst”? Because in your eyes it is? They would, no doubt, disagree with you.

            “and yet it seems you ignore the rest.”

            Not at all. The example I gave was to illustrate how it would NOT be reasonable for me to use those exceptions to make judgement on the whole. Despite how others (and that includes you, at times) seem to feel completely comfortable taking the actions of an isolated few and painting an entire group as being in sync with those actions.

            The vast majority of those in the US who identify as Christians I have no issue with. There has been, and continue to be, much good done in this world by those whose actions were/are motivated by their faith. The vast majority of those in the US who identify as Christians understand the difference between civil law and religious beliefs. They have no desire to impose upon nor restrict others based upon the Christian belief system. They understand that it is not the function of the government, nor is it reasonable to demand that the government, support or promote ANY religious faith.

            “You do lump people together, you just do it one at a time.”

            That sentence makes no sense. “Lumping together”, by its nature, excludes individual review.

            “You don’t want to see what the FFRF is attempting to do, because your agree with them, or that is what it seems from your discussions.”

            I agree with some of the actions they initiate. Others, I don’t. I do believe, as a majority of people do, that the government should have no role in promoting or favoring ANY religion – Christian or otherwise – and that includes in our public schools.

            “I assert that you attempt accuracy through the means of questioning, which is often interpreted by me to be a tactic.”

            You are free to interpret it anyway you care to. I ask questions to achieve clarity and to determine if an argument put forth stands up to further inquiry outside of a single application, which is a requirement for an argument to be valid.

            “Such tactics just lead to irrational thought from anyone involved in the conversation including yourself.”

            Examples?

            “When I make a statement, I have to think that you understand that statement since I cannot see your expressions and body language.”

            Rather than counting on me to correctly interpret what you mean, I would suggest that spend just a little more time and put a little more effort into ensuring that what you say is clear. If it is not, and clarification is needed, then there is an opportunity for you to apply that to future communications so as to achieve clarity and rational thought the first time around.

            “So please don’t think I don’t understand what you try to do.”

            What is it you believe I try to do? Obtain clarity? Challenge hyperbolic and generalized statements that serve only to be divisive and are seldom accurate? Question the application of arguments put forth outside of a narrow application to determine if they are truly valid?

            If that is what you believe I try to do, then you are correct. If you believe something else, please let me know what that is so I can address it.

            “It just carries the statement one step further to clarify the statement to satisfy some unknown reasoning you use in discussions.”

            But it is not unknown. You included in your statement: clarity.

            “That to me is a waste of time.”

            Why would you believe that clarity is a waste of time? Why do you believe that being defined in our use of words to include statements like “some Christians” versus “Christians” or “some Atheists” versus “Atheists” or “some gays” versus “they all”, etc., is a waste of time?

            Isn’t the latter more accurate? Isn’t the former hyperbolic, derisive, and divisive? Isn’t achieving the former and avoiding the latter a worthwhile goal of civil discourse?

            When others read statements, but have not been part of the conservation and therefore have no context, they may well misinterpret the words they read. That is one of the reasons I strive for accuracy and to ensure that I don’t lump all people who share something together regarding their beliefs, views, opinions, goals, tactics, etc.

            Perhaps that is not important to you. Perhaps you are comfortable making broad statements that paint everyone in a group as being of a hive mind and determining what the mind is by the actions of a few.

            It has been my experience that such actions do not serve me, or others, well nor do they contribute to civil discourse based upon facts, rather than hyperbole.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            This is the thing and we have talked about this before. ex. You made a reference to hell with an inference that I wished someone to hell and put words in my mouth (you do understand the term words in my mouth correct?) You have done this often, and you often make an effort to correct others, or no lets just say me. When you make a statement about judgement, it appears to the reader that you are in some way superior, which really is not a good basis for sincerity. You strive for accuracy and yet once again you become inaccurate. Ex. “When others read statements, but have not been part of the conservation” Now I know what you intended to say there and would normally not bring it up since I understand your statement. The fallacy comes in when you make an effort to correct someone even though you clearly understand the message. That will always come back to haunt you since you cannot correct without being corrected, even though you make the effort. I make the effort for you to understand me, but I look at things conceptually and not literally as you do. When I stated an individual that leads to another individual, and so on, the meaning from a conceptual standpoint is clear. You claim individuality but it’s easy to perceive you hook them all together in a comfortable little group, without stating you do. I believe you know you’re doing it, but will not accept a critique when it comes from your text. You also made an argument for accuracy, and yet there is no way to be totally accurate in a comment. People have to have the ability to interpret the meaning of a text. Most people can, and in your case I know you CAN, but maintain that you cannot since often you try to reframe the text. Accuracy has nothing to do with the text itself. It’s the underlying message from the text that has meaning. Text is just that. That is what I suggest when I say a waste of time. For instance, this text would be a waste of time in the sense that I’m explaining things you already are aware of but I’m put in a position to explain my earlier text based on your questions, and inferences. Then we have the “do you have any evidence” based on a concept presented. The evidence is in the text already, as you know, but you want a continuation of the concept in order to satisfy the appearance of logical thought. We are far passed that, you and I have been in discussion ever since we changed our profiles.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “You made a reference to hell with an inference that I wished someone to hell and put words in my mouth (you do understand the term words in my mouth correct?)”

            I don’t recall that. Can you provide me with what I said. I do recall mentioning at one point that some Christians say that homosexuals will spend eternity in hell, but I do not recall ever suggesting that you wished that nor putting in words in your mouth to that effective.

            “When you make a statement about judgement, it appears to the reader that you are in some way superior”

            That would depend on the reader. You are certainly free to view it that way if you care to. With that said, my judging someone or something has nothing to do with superiority. I would judge someone who murders as being a murderer. That does not make me superior to them. It just means that I believe murder is wrong, and judge their actions as being wrong.

            “yet once again you become inaccurate. Ex. “When others read statements, but have not been part of the conservation””

            In what way is what I said inaccurate?

            “That will always come back to haunt you since you cannot correct without being corrected”

            For example?

            “You claim individuality but it’s easy to perceive you hook them all together in a comfortable little group, without stating you do.”

            I most certainly group people together who have the same views, but only after determining those views. I don’t assume that because people have one thing in common and some people who share that commonality have certain views, that everyone in that group has the same views. I base that on each individual.

            “but will not accept a critique when it comes from your text.”

            Please cite when I have not accepted a critique of my text.

            “Accuracy has nothing to do with the text itself.”

            That is nonsensical.

            “It’s the underlying message from the text that has meaning.”

            The text and the underlying message can be the same if the text is composed in a way that does so.

            “I know you CAN, but maintain that you cannot”

            I have never maintained that I “cannot”, I maintained that it would be presumptuous of me to assume that I am in a position to correctly interpret the meaning of what other people say. In order to ensure that I am receiving an accurate understanding of what they are saying, I ask for clarification. I CAN do it – I choose not to.

            “but I’m put in a position”

            I don’t have the ability to put you in a position. Any position you find yourself in is of your own making.

            Since you devoted your post to providing your thoughts on how I post, I’ll ask again:

            What makes their stance “the worst”? Because in your eyes it is?

            “Such tactics just lead to irrational thought from anyone involved in the conversation including yourself.”

            Examples?

            Isn’t the latter more accurate? Isn’t the former hyperbolic, derisive, and divisive? Isn’t achieving the former and avoiding the latter a worthwhile goal of civil discourse?

          • Jim H

            Are you saying you won’t ever agree with FFRF on anything, just as a matter of “principle”, or are you talking more specifically about disagreeing on a particular issue?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Yes that is what I’m saying. I will not support any group that tries to remove God in any way. That should be clear by now.

          • Jim H

            Are you just against removing your own God, or do you think everyone’s God’s should be publically acknowledged? If you think all Gods should be acknowledged, what do we do when they have conflicting opinions? Christians believe Jesus was begotten by God, Muslims and Jews would consider that blasphemy. Hindu’s believe in the trinity, but it is their own consisting of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. How do we decide who is the right incarnation of the second person in the trinity? Is it Jesus or Krishna? Does majority rule?

            I’ll go with separation of church and state, because I really don’t think it is any of my business what you believe as long as you don’t try to push it on me.

            “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

            -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

            Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

            -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            Best comment ever! I always do a face palm, when i see Christians not supporting separation of church and state. Using coercion to submit people into belief is wrong. I feel its fundamental to my own belief, that politics and Jesus don’t mix. It’s also a big cause for conflict in the libertarian community. One of the reasons we cannot agree on a candidate. Although a political candidate for libertarianism is quite ironic.

          • Jim H

            As you probably can tell I really admire Jefferson. He was not perfect by any means, but who is? He valued reason above all else. A favorite quote of mine is the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787:

            “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

            Libertarians are between a rock and a hard place politically. From what I have learned about libertarianism, your positions on personal liberties, including sexual orientation, gender identity, separation of church and state, etc. turn conservatives against you, but your positions on issues like free market capitalism, gun control, social welfare, etc. turn liberals against you.

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            That is one of my favorite quotes. Unfortunately yes and i feel its realistic to say we wont gain a huge following in the near future. Unless philosophy and empathy classes are maybe introduced in schools lol.

          • Jim H

            Thanks for the conversation, I have really enjoyed it. I am sure we don’t agree on everything but it is nice talk about the things we have in common and respect each others views on the things we don’t..

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            Unfortunately most people do not react this way. Everyone seems to have an agenda. Most are easily angered.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m in favor of believing in Christ. I could quote a number of people and I have that believe in Christ that were framers of the constitution. I know what Jefferson said, I posted it earlier on. If you lived my life, walked in my shoes, you would not be able to question, or ask for proof of God or Jesus. It’s really that simple.

          • Jim H

            As I’ve said before, you are entitled to believe anything you want. It is none of my business. I just ask you not to try to force your beliefs on me.

            I personally believe many of the founders were philosophically Deist, although many never formally left their denomination. While George Washington never declared himself a Deist, he refused to receive communion in his adult life, which indicated Deistic belief to many of his pastors and peers.

            Thomas Paine denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” He postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence).

            But, it doesn’t really matter whether some, or even all, of the framers of the constitution were Christian. What matters is, as Jefferson put it, “that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

            The only way to protect all religions, is for the government not to endorse, or give preferential treatment, to any of them. If you truly “will not support any group that tries to remove God in any way” you stand against the constitution, the founders, and (judging from polls) the majority of Americans.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m not trying to force you into believing (I use you as an example here). I just know that I have the freedom of my religious beliefs and have the freedom to share those things Jesus taught to anyone that would like to listen. For those that don’t Jesus said something about that as well. I support the freedom of religion to all those that have faith from the Muslim to the Jew, etc. When you say endorse, this is where the politicians stand on same s_x marriage. If you have something against one because of religion, then you have a choice to vote for someone else. Here is the list.

            Texas Sen. Ted Cruz

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Unclear

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            Florida Sen. Marco Rubio

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Yes

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? He has been to a reception

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Unclear

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed, but open to granting legal rights for same-sex couples

            Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Doesn’t sound like it

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            Jeb Bush, former Florida governor

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Unclear

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Unclear

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed

            Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Unclear

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed to changing definition of marriage, but open to granting legal rights to same-sex couples

            Rick Perry, former Texas governor

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? “Probably”

            • Position on gay marriage: Opposed, but it’s a “secondary or tertiary” issue

            Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Yes

            • Position on gay marriage: Supports

            Lincoln Chafee, former Rhode Island governor

            • Would he attend a same-sex wedding? Yes

            • Position on gay marriage: Supports

            Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state

            • Would she attend a same-sex wedding? Most likely

            • Position on gay marriage: Supports, says it should be a constitutional right

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Here we go again!!!!! WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — An atheist group has sued a transit system in Pennsylvania for refusing to run a bus ad that expressly sought to connect with other atheists.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Here we go again, what?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Nope, what did the cake indicate? ”

            Nothing. They were not allowed to order a cake. No mention was made that the bakers were asked to include a message, nor was any objection regarding a message raised. Typically, wedding cakes do not include text. If the clients wanted certain text that was against the owner’s beliefs, then I would support the owner not being compelled to write that text.

            ” How did the people know it was a lesbion wedding?”

            Because they were told by the client that it was.

            “What did the card on the flowers say?”

            There was no card. They were not allowed to order flowers. No mention was made that the florist was asked to include a message, nor was any objection regarding a message raised.Typically, wedding flowers do not include cards. If the clients asked the florist to write a card, and the message was contrary to the florists beliefs, I would support the florists right to not write that message.

            “You’ve made the assumption you do.”

            Neither story included any mention of specific messages being requested. Given the these types of stories typically include all the ways in which the owner was imposed upon, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that such requests were not made. I cannot, however, say that with 100% certainty.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            So if that were to be the case, then it did not fit this ruling. However, if any product conveys a message that is against (in this case with T-shirts) against and I’ll say specifically against the Christian faith, they can (and will) deny that product to a customer. Fair enough?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “conveys” a message would be outside the scope of this ruling. “States” a message would be the issue in this case.

            Let’s use a baker as an example. Same-gender couples orders “Cake #4” from the bakers offerings of wedding cakes. Can’t turn that down. The couple then asks that the baker write on the cake: “Gay Marriage Is Good” – that writing can be turned down.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It specifically states “conveys a message” does it or does it not?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            And the method of conveyance was words, was it not?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Not only words, there are more ways to convey a message than words, would you agree?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            There are many ways to convey a message. This case, however, dealt strictly with words.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            You say strictly. But you didn’t agree on the meaning of conveying a message? So I would like to ask, would you agree that conveying a message could be by other means, such as a topor for instance?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I said strictly because that is the reality of the case.

            Assuming you mean “topper”, as in a topper on a cake, a bakery is free not to offer toppers of two men or two women.

      • FoJC_Forever

        There is not. One forced compliance is the same as the other.

        • Paul Hiett

          By all means, go on believing that.

          • Oboehner

            There’s more truth to that than believing gay is anywhere close to normal or genetic.

          • MisterPine

            Sure, if you want to go on denying science and mental health organizations worldwide.

          • Oboehner

            Health organizations who changed their tune after being pressured by gay groups – real scientific.

          • MisterPine

            You cannot “pressure” science-based organizations. Facts are facts. Don’t like facts? Then adopt fundamentalist religion so you can go through life with blinders on.

          • Oboehner

            Talk about blinders…

          • MisterPine

            Yes, let’s. Still denying evolution?

          • Oboehner

            That would be like denying unicorns.

          • MisterPine

            Not to the rest of the world who accepted it long ago and move on without you while you cling to Bronze Age superstition.

          • Oboehner

            The rest of the world now clings to pseudo-science superstitions, nice.
            BTW you still can’t prove your religious belief by attacking another’s.

          • MisterPine

            I would never do that. Fortunately evolution is science and iron clad science at that.

            I wonder how loud the roar of laughter would be if you called evolution “pseudo science” in a non-crazy environment.

          • Oboehner

            Iron clad… ROFL. Good one, LOL.

          • MisterPine

            Thanks, I’m here all week. Try the veal, it’s delicious.

          • Oboehner

            I don’t know if the veal is evolved enough, LOL.

          • MisterPine

            It’s had several million years to do that, so it should be fine.

          • Oboehner

            With unicorns and pixie dust.

          • MisterPine

            Says the guy with the magic sky daddy.

          • Oboehner

            Ok exploding dot boy. Don’t forget to send a mother’s day card to the rock you evolved from.

          • MisterPine

            Still with the exploding dots. You really love beating the living hell out of that strawman, don’t you?

          • Oboehner

            If that’s not the beginning what is?

          • KenS

            unicorn: one horned animal, not one horned horse, just animal, there are plenty of examples of one horned animals in nature.

          • Oboehner

            Post a picture of a unicorn – undoctored.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Health organizations who changed their tune after being pressured by gay groups”

            Proof?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I will believe the Truth for Eternity.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          There is no “forced” compliance. If they person doesn’t want to comply with the law they are free to make decisions that would keep them from having to do so.

          • KenS

            So, they are free to be unemployed because they have to go out of business because society has decided to redefine marriage. That is what enrages me the most about this whole situation.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So, they are free to be unemployed because they have to go out of business”

            Please, spare me the hyperbole. They are free to operate a bakery that does not offer wedding cakes. They do not “have” to go out of business. Further, not owning a business does not mean that one cannot find employment.

            “because society has decided to redefine marriage.”

            That has nothing to do with it. Anti-discrimination laws are distinct and separate from marriage laws. Several cases occurred in states where sexuality was covered under anti-discrimination laws, but same-gender marriage was not legal. That continues in the opposite way now. In Oklahoma, two citizens of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage, while at the same time, businesses in Oklahoma are free to turn away customers based upon their being gay.

            “That is what enrages me the most about this whole situation.”

            I’m sorry you are enraged that sexuality is covered under anti-discrimination laws. If it bothers you that much, perhaps you should be working to get those laws changed.

            “this is why I say there should be a grandfather clause”

            Probably not, but you could certainly work on that. Too bad you weren’t around in 1964, you could have pushed for a “grandfather clause” for businesses that only served whites because they believed that the Bible said that the races shouldn’t mix. Or in 1973, when interracial marriage was legalized nationwide. Perhaps a grandfather clause for those bakers who only did “white weddings”.

            “heterosexual wedding cakes only.”

            What is a heterosexual wedding cake? Is that a cake that is attracted to other cakes of opposite gender?

            “How would that be any different than a gay bar or gay dating website offering services to gays only.”

            It wouldn’t. They would both be illegal.

          • KenS

            Are you that obtuse that you do not see that when same sex marriage became legal in states that do not allow sexual orientation to be discriminated against that it opened up the door to discrimination cases in bakers of wedding cakes, florists, photographers, etc, that have been providing services to heterosexual weddings only before the legalization of the same sex marriage, whom would have never have thought of doing a same sex marriage before because their religion has always been against said marriage and the law was on their side before the law decided to change the definition of marriage.!!!

            “What is a heterosexual wedding cake? Is that a cake that is attracted to other cakes of opposite gender?” You know very well that I meant a cake that was baked for a heterosexual wedding., Quit being stupid! or trying to be funny, it only makes you look ignorant!

            Learn English Grammar skills, it is clear by my context to what I was referring to.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “when same sex marriage became legal in states that do not allow sexual orientation to be discriminated against that it opened up the door to discrimination cases in bakers of wedding cakes, florists, photographers, etc,”

            People were free to have weddings before the state recognized the marriage. People are free now to have a wedding, regardless of whether they choose to enter into a civil marriage or not. The majority of these cases occurred at a time when same-gender marriage was NOT legal in the respective states.

            “and the law was on their side before the law decided to change the definition of marriage.!!!”

            If sexuality was part of anti-discrimination laws, it matters not if same-gender civil marriage is legal. Any couple is free to hold a wedding ceremony. The legalization of same-gender marriage did not change anti-discrimination laws. Nor was the law on the side of someone turning down a wedding prior to same-gender marriage being legal, as most of these cases clearly show.

            “trying to be funny”

            Only insecure people are unable to laugh at themselves.

            “it only makes you look ignorant!”

            I’m pretty sure that you misuse of grammar doesn’t make me look ignorant. On the contrary.

            “Learn English Grammar skills”

            Interesting comment from someone who uses the adjective “heterosexual” to describe a cake. It appears you are the one who would benefit from a grammar refresher.

        • FoJC_Forever

          The law is wrong and should be changed to allow people to exercise their Constitutional Rights. Homosexuals don’t have the Constitutional Right to force individuals or businesses to participate in their celebrations which violate the Christian Faith.

      • Heather

        No there’s not. My religion has nothing to do with your sexuality. Get over it!!!

        • Paul Hiett

          My “sexuality”??? What on earth are you talking about?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “It’s not discriminatory to base your decision on not supporting a cause you are forced to support.”

      That was not the ruling. The ruling involved, specifically, printing words that the owner took exception to. It was not a ruling which provided the general ability to not provide products based upon a business owner’s religious beliefs.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Not just words, words that were against their beliefs. Exactly my point words that the owner took exception to, why, because he is a Christian.

  • Kevin Jansen

    Its just sad that these people force Christian Companies to make or do stuff that isnt in line with our believe and then sue us for not doing us.
    And the really sad part is that more and more of these cases being made on purpose by atheists or the gay community.

    • Paul Hiett

      There’s actually quite a difference between this and the other cases, which is why myself, and others I see who are also atheist, agree with this decision.

    • FoJC_Forever

      Correct. Maybe this decision will act as a Precedence for others and Christians won’t be forced to give up their livelihood over being forced to participate in what is considered an abomination by God.

  • Frank

    Let us pray the Supreme Court has as much sense.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court is hearing a case about printing messages on t-shirts. Are they?

  • Guest

    Seems to me that there is no such thing as religious freedom, there are laws that obstruct this right. And Homo, sodomites, are eager to disrupt healthy business, which are clearly Christian. To which I dare them to go pick on Muslims!

    • mark

      Once the Muslim presence is big enough here, trust me we will

  • LuciusFargos112

    Seems to me that there is no such thing as religious freedom, there are laws that obstruct this right. And Homo, sodomites, are eager to disrupt healthy business, which are clearly Christian. To which I dare them to go pick on Muslims!

    • Paul Hiett

      You’ve created two accounts on here? That’s sad.

    • mark

      Ummm how is going to your business and asking for the service you provide disrupting your business? Lol

      • Josey

        It disrupted their business when they were told NO we can’t disobey our God and participate by baking a cake for your union, then those who were told No went and filed a court case against them and trumped up all kinds of mental distress over being told NO when they should have just found another bakery who agrees with celebrating with them. It was vindictive.

  • Brian Schaefer

    Just happy to hear of a win for the “home team”. Guess there’s one judge with grey matter between the ears.

    • mark

      “The home team?” Really?

    • Josey

      Ditto Brian, am glad too!

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    And this case had to go to an appeals court because … “tolerance.”

    • Bill

      any case can be appealed.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Yes, any case can be appealed, but this case should never have had to be appealed, because the Inhuman Wrongs Commission (IWC) filed false charges and ordered false penalties against this company. Where does this company go to get back the time and treasure it used to fight this false ruling by the IWC? Will the IWC pay for the resources that were necessary to fight them in their overreach? Will the IWC have their funding cut and have to go to “sensitivity” training so that they do not behave like totalitarians against Christians the next time around? Finally, what safeguards are being put into place so that this does not have a chilling effect on other Christian companies going forward?

        • Bill

          you’re paranoid idiot with no understanding of how the law works

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice name-calling! Thank you so much for conceding the intellectual debate! 🙂 And, thank you also for showing that the “tolerant” ones are the true bullies. God bless you, Bill – you made my night! 🙂

          • Bill

            tolerance of intolerance is cowardice . I have noreason to show your ville beliefs any kind of respect so piss off pig

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, thank you again for proving my point! Where is UmustBKiddnMe to see how “nice” the Gaystapo is?!? 🙂

            “tolerance of intolerance is cowardice”

            So, are you saying that we should not be tolerant of intolerance?

          • Bill

            you are the intolerant one seeking to deny people their rights

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You did not answer my question – how come?

          • Bill

            because that’s the same crap they used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. there’s no reason that marriage shouldn’t extend to gay couples.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            False. Any person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex – independent of race. You have to re-define “marriage” in your case. And, once you do, you will put limits on it: two consenting adults is unfair to pedophiles, polyamorists, bestiality, etc, which using your own words would make you a bigot with respect to these relationships. 🙂

          • Bill

            nope. marriage requires consent to be valid so pedophilia and bestiality will never be legal and as for polygamy I really don’t care

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “marriage requires consent to be valid so pedophilia and bestiality will never be legal ”

            There you go again, Bill – adding a discriminatory qualifier to marriage (consent). Consent-phobe! Pedophilia-phobe! Bestio-phobe! 🙂

          • Bill

            do you even understand the arguments that the gay right advocates are making? homophobia is bigotry because it’s hatred of something that causes no real harm to anybody.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The arguments are that the definition of marriage should be relaxed to include same sex couples. Then I see that you lock the barn door behind you to leave out other situations involving “love.” That is hypocritical of you guys.

            On “no real harm,” do I really need to quote the CDC statistics on the physical and psychological harm done to those involved in homosexual behavior?!? I am really tired of picking up the newspaper and seeing another “man active in the LGBT community” dead at 45. It is not loving to not warn those who are engaging in destructive behavior.

          • Bill

            STDs are cause by promiscuity not sexual orientation and it’s not about love it’s that there’s no reason that marriage shouldn’t extend to gay couples since they’re consenting adults

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “STDs are cause by promiscuity not sexual orientation ”

            It is a known fact that gays are significantly more promiscuous than the population at large. Furthermore, I am referring to much more than STD’s. Who REALLY loves gays in this conversation: the one who is concerned about the proven destructive nature of homosexual behavior or the one who says “Go right ahead and jump off the bridge?”

            “since they’re consenting adults”

            Consento-phobe! Child-a-phobe! There you go discriminating against non-consensual and adult-child relationships, you hater! 🙂

          • Bill

            the one who respect their righs and leave them alone. so not you. and Consento-phobe isn’t a word idiot

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Would you leave alone a person about to jump off of a bridge? How “compassionate” of you. 🙂 Thanks for calling me names again – makes me remember how “tolerant” the homofascists are. 🙂

          • Bill

            they aren’t jumping off a bridge. they aren’t breaking any laws so it doesn’t concern me, and you are an idiot that has no understanding of consent or why homosexual is OK but pedophilia or bestiality isn’t

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            More name-calling – I love it! Thanks for making my case! Are you sure you aren’t a pedophile in search of the slippery slope? 🙂

          • Bill

            no but I’m starting to think you are why else would you argue that is be allowed? and i have no reason to tolerate your bigoted views so why shoulden’t I insult you?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, more hate from the “tolerant” one – thank you! 🙂 Pour it on! If you get a little more creative, you might graduate to the hate levels of the baby sacrificers at the abortuaries. 🙂

            Indeed, there is no reason NOT to insult under a-theism. Furthermore, because a-theists cannot ground objective moral values and duties, they cannot even condemn slavery, gassing Jews, or abortion (which is approved by 97% of a-theists). You are nothing more than an animal satisfying your base animal instincts:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”– A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

          • Bill

            that’s their view, I can condemn whatever the hell I want

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Actually, you can’t Bill – not without stealing from God anyway. You are tied to survival-of-the-fittest, and that means that abortion, Jew gassing, slavery, etc are all products of this worldview. You cannot condemn any of those things, because “all things are permissible” without God and might makes right. When you DO condemn such atrocities, you are acknowledging the existence of God, whether you realize it or not. So, thank you again – and God bless!

          • Bill

            survival of the fittest is just social darwinist bullshit. and as I said I can condemn who ever and what ever i want, just because you’re a psychopath doesn’t mean everyone else is

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Psychopath – yes! Keep that gay “love” coming, Bill! 🙂 But, seriously, if you want to compete with the baby sacrificers, you are going to have to throw in a lot more cuss words and describe some impossible-to-achieve physical acts. 🙂 You are way too nice. 🙂 God bless you, Bill – I love you, man!

          • Bill

            If the only reason you aren’t killing stealing and rapeing is because you fear god then you aren’t a moral person you’re just a asshole

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s better, Bill – let’s get some good cussing going! I love my new name – but you can do better than that. You might have to add some @’s and &’s and stuff. 🙂

            Your comment reflects a gross misunderstanding of the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology. Now, this is deep stuff, so let me just say, if you don’t agree with me on this, then please take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals” Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse. If you can prove a grounding for objective moral claims and duties under a-theism, you will collect a Nobel Prize and they will build statues to you.

            BTW, fearing God is not such a bad reason to behave nicely. After all, we are talking about the One Who spoke 100 billion galaxies into existence, so He might just be a “teeny tiny” bit awesome in power. 🙂

            Now, keep those gay “love” cusswords coming, Bill, and add in some anatomical gymnastics or something next time! 🙂 God bless!

          • Jim H

            Actually, what social Darwinists believed was more like what God fearing conservatives advocate
            A social Darwinist would be opposed to welfare, food stamps, equal access to healthcare for the poor, and pretty much anything that conservatives define as “entitlement programs or government handouts.
            Such programs help the less capable, like “welfare moms” continue to survive and reproduce.

  • Liz Litts

    Love it!!!!!

  • MC

    This is great news and it will be used as an example in court for other Christian businesses who are also falsely accused of discrimination. Awesome!

    • Bill

      no it won’t. the case simply hold up what has already been established. that a request can be rejected because of the message. however if you provide services to weddings then you provide those services to anyone who can afford them

      • MC

        Yes it will. It has and will be established again that they served gay people every day all day, they have not rejected gay people from buying their tasty treats. It will also be established that they don’t provide services for gay celebrations to anyone, straight OR gay. The lesbians who sued the bakery, Melissa’s, over their trumped up 88 separate symptoms of, “mental distress”, will get overturned on appeal. But they really made the gay community look like vindictive predators. They claim “weight gain” as one of their symptoms, but they were obese to begin with. Maybe cake is the last thing they should be eating.

        • Bill

          if you don’t provide services to a even that involve homosexuals then yo are discriminating against homosexuals which is a crime.

          • MC

            Again, you can’t force a business to provide a service for you that they don’t provide to anyone, straight or gay. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why don’t you force a gay baker to make treats for a Westboro Baptist church celebration? Why don’t you force a black baker to provide services to a KKK rally? Why don’t you force a gay bakery to make celebration cakes for Muslims every time a Muslim throws a gay person off a roof to his death?

          • Bill

            yes I would If those thing were protected like sexual orientation. and they sell wedding cakes and under the law they must sells them to anyone who can afford them gay or straight

  • Jacqueline E. Irons

    Why were those Christian bakery operators fined 135,000 for not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. State by state????????????

  • mark

    I envision all the Christians chanting with joy patting each other on the back about this.. Sad how denying services make people so happy.

  • Josey

    There are plenty of businesses that cater to whatever one needs, all this commotion is just homosexuals trying to shove their perversion down the throats of those who disagree with their lifestyle. If I want a Bible I go to a Bible book store and so on. I for one have had enough of this gay agenda thrown at us, they say they want to just live in peace and yet they go to extreme law suits because for example someone won’t participate by baking a cake for their unholy union or supply flowers for their unholy union, sound like a bunch of whiny cry babies to me and they seem to have a need to have Bible Christian believers to say their perversion is ok, why do they need this? I am not ever going to say it is ok because God says it isn’t and in my heart I believe God that marriage is between male and female.

  • Josey

    Now, with what I posted below, I should also add I do not hate homosexuals, just the act of it, they are people that God loves and sent His Son to redeem and I don’t think that sin is any worse than other sexual sins such as fornication, adultery, etc. We are all guilty of death for the sins we commit but thankfully the gospel message is a message that redeems and sets one free from the bondage of sin and from the death we deserve for committing them. There are those who use to practice homosexuality that are freed from it’s bondage today and they give testimony and glory to Jesus Christ for their freedom and they are out there helping to free others of the lie and bondage. I do hate satan and how he has so deluded homosexuals into thinking they were born this way so as to convince them there is no other way to live and I hate the promotion of it to our young people who are struggling in their consciences with this and many are being lost to it because of the promoted lie they simply were born like this so they are being convinced not to seek deliverance from it and it breaks my heart that they die lost when they give themselves over to satan’s lie about not seeking freedom from the perversion of it, that is what makes it more detestable than the other sexual sins in my opinion because they are believing the lie there is no need to be freed from something and that they can’t help it because they were born like they are, that is a lie from Hell! We don’t tell the adulterer, “hey keep committing adultery because you can’t help it, you were born that way or the fornicator, etc.” No, their conscience tells them what they are doing is wrong but with homosexuality the lie is being told that “you can’t help it, you were born this way.” same as with a trans gender and yet homosexuality is a sexual sin and as far a trans gender, God says a man is not to dress as a woman or vice versa. It’s better to obey God who is perfect in all His ways than to obey man who falls short in all areas.

  • Peter Leh

    this is an appeals court decision.

    you have to let it play out

  • Josey

    During a hearing regarding the matter last June, GSLO representative Aaron Baker admitted to the commission that his desire to force Christians to print pro-homosexual messages works both ways, and that the homosexual companies could be forced to print messages that are against homosexuality. “I believe that a gay printer would have to print a t-shirt for the Westboro Baptist Church,” he stated, referring to the controversial organization whose messages express a desire for Americans to burn in Hell rather than repent and be saved. “And if the Westboro Baptist Church were to say, ‘Look, we’re a church; we’re promoting our church values by having our name on a T-shirt,’ I don’t see how you could refuse that.”

    I am sure homosexual businesses would not want to be forced by courts for Christians to come in and demand to have the word of God that speaks against homosexuality that they would have to print or decorate on a cake, etc…you get the point. Not that a Christian would have any association with the unfruitful works of darkness anyway but it is a great point. The homosexual community wouldn’t want anything to do with Christians coming into their businesses demanding they print slogans against homosexuality on cakes or shirts or whatever and then to have their businesses fined and put out of business for refusing to comply. That’s evident at homosexual rallies where Christians show up to preach the gospel, homosexuals have been know to rage against preachers, spit on the Christians which is against the law, throw things at them and so forth. You don’t see the president speaking out about that kind of hate. The law must apply to all.

  • Rebecca

    Just another story of the gay agenda bullying a known religious business.