Florist’s Funding ‘Not Found’: GoFundMe Shuts Down Second Fundraiser for Christian Businesses

StutzmanKENNEWICK, Wash. — After recently shutting down the fundraising page for persecuted Christian bakers in Oregon, the popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe has now removed a page for a Christian florist who is at risk of losing her business, home and/or life savings for declining to use her services for a same-sex “wedding.”

The removal of the fundraising effort for Arlene’s Flowers came just 48 hours after the site had taken down the page for Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which had been ordered to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to two lesbian women that filed a complaint after the owners stated that they could not assist with their ceremony.

As previously reported, Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit in March 2012 by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that she had violated the law by offering a referral rather than servicing the event herself.

Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that may help.

“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.

Weeks later, Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.

In January, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident. The ruling drew concerns that fines could consequently place Stutzman at risk of losing her business, home and/or bank accounts.

  • Connect with Christian News

In February, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. Last month, he ordered her to pay $1,000 to Ferguson as a civil penalty, a punishment that is stated to be “only the first punch” financially against the business owner since Eckstrom found that Stutzman may be required to pay damages and attorney’s fees to Ingersoll and his partner, which will be far more costly.

A GoFundMe page was then created for Stutzman, which before it was taken down, had raised over $174,000. But by Monday, supporters noticed that the page no longer existed.

Just two days before, the popular crowdfunding site had removed the fundraiser for Sweet Cakes by Melissa due to the urging of same-sex advocates. It released an explanation for pulling the page, stating that the fundraising site doesn’t allow crowdfunding campaigns for those who have been found guilty of violating laws.

“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our terms and conditions,” it wrote. “[T]he subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

“The GoFundMe account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of GoFundMe because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose,” Melissa Klein said that she had been told by the outlet. “We have told GoFundMe that the money is simply going to be used to help our family, and there is no legitimate breach of their terms and conditions.”

Not FoundA spokesperson for GoFundMe told the DailySignal that its decision “to remove the ‘Arlene’s Flowers’ campaign was [likewise] based on a violation of GoFundMe’s terms.”

“The same conclusion was recently reached in regards to the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ campaign based on a similar violation of terms,” the spokesperson added.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told the outlet that she believes homosexual activists are seeking to bully and shut down Christians by any means possible.

“It’s not enough to have the government redefine marriage or to punish those who disagree. The opponents of freedom have to ruin every aspect of the lives of those who disagree—denying them a living, the ability to feed their families, and the opportunity to raise money to pay the so-called ‘victims,’” she said. “This type of vindictive, hateful behavior is terrifying.”

“Corporations like Apple, Salesforce, and GoFundMe want to make sure they can live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage, but then deny that same right to people like Barronelle Stutzman who lovingly served her customer for nearly a decade but simply couldn’t participate in the celebration of his same-sex wedding,” Waggoner stated.

Some Christians are now calling for the creation of a Christian crowdfunding site where believers can support each other in their time of need.


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
  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    GoFundMe has very clear terms of service which Arlene’s Flowers agreed to. They are not singling out Christians. Why is this an issue? If we want a crowdfunding site to support our goals we should start one.

  • smbelow

    Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

    Matthew 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

    Yep! Sounds about right; as to what to expect.

    • Paul Hiett

      There isn’t a Christian in America that knows what persecution is.

      • The Last Trump

        You tell ’em Paul!
        You authority on persecution, religion, creation and everything else, you!
        Sock it to all them Christians like a good troll.

        • Paul Hiett

          Yes, tell us all about how persecuted Christians are, who are the majority in the US and have enjoyed the ownership of slaves, genocide of the natives, laws that prevent atheists from holding office, Jim Crow laws to keep the blacks at bay, and special privileges left and right. Go on Trump, give us the examples that show just how “persecuted” you folks really are!

          • The Last Trump

            “Grrrrrrr! Arrrrrrrgggghhhhhh! Christians!
            Grrrrrr! Why won’t you all just stop!
            Why are there so many of you on the CHRISTIAN website!?
            Grrrrrrrrrrr!”

          • Paul Hiett

            So no examples?

            Coward.

          • MisterPine

            Take some Pepto Bismol already, Rumpy.

          • The Last Trump

            “Grrrr….arrrgh….Rumpy drives me crazy! Why is he always right all the time?!…Grrrrrrrrrr!”

          • MisterPine

            “Grrrr….arrrgh….not enough toilet paper! Why is the roll always so short?!…Grrrrrrrrrr! GRUNT! OH THERE IT IS!”

          • Pooua

            Christians are a plurality, if not the majority, but they are not the only force at work in this nation, nor do they all act in agreement. That being so, your comments are just so much broadbrush muttering.

            I’ve seen a lot of people bullying Christians. You, for example. Atheists are the most bitter, but far from the only source.

          • Paul Hiett

            Can you tell me how Christians are suffering from persecution in a country where they are the majority?

          • Pooua

            The majority of people are not muggers, but that doesn’t protect people from being mugged. It does not take a majority to engage in persecution against another person.

          • Kathleen Jones

            You should read the news or watch it not in America so much but look up nigerian Christians and Iran and other middle East countries , then you will see what is happening to Christians

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, I’m aware of what happens in other parts of the world. Are you aware of what’s happening in the Central African Republic?

      • Mark Clayton

        Yeah there is… Oppose GWB at Christian college in 2000 and you were a persecuted Christian by Christians.

    • Peter Leh

      not a self fulfilling prophesy.

      the non believer need not the holy spirit to recognize a jerk.

  • DeEtta Meirose Saunders

    Gofundme is doing exactly the same thing that the florist and bakery are blamed for. Discrimination. It is not about same sex marriage or homosexuality, it is about their religious beliefs and the first amendment. Why do those who feel they were cheated always have to ruin the lives of others? They were still able to get flowers and cakes, so their wedding was not ruined. Why be so vindictive? So when the florist and baker goes to claim bankruptcy, they can say the reason is they did not supply flowers at a wedding or bake a cake, so the suers ruined their lives.

    • Paul Hiett

      Are you not aware that both of these businesses broke the law?

    • Peter Leh

      one is legal the other is illegal discrimination i suppose. but yes both are discriminating, but i could be wrong

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “Gofundme is doing exactly the same thing that the florist and bakery are blamed for. ”

      Uh, no. The florist and the bakery are accused of breaking the law. GoFundMe having policies that do not allow fundraising for legal defense funds, is not a violation of the law.

      “Why do those who feel they were cheated always have to ruin the lives of others?”

      I know, right? The Coloreds and the Jews should just fine places that will serve them and leave the ones who break the law alone.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The site was up for how long before being taken down? Why were both the sites taken down?

    It would still be up and taking donations had the advocates for sexual perversion not complained about it.

    • Paul Hiett

      Maybe you should read up on GoFunMe’s policies. Maybe then you wouldn’t be so ignorant about the situation.

      “Violated the law”

      There, I’ve helped you start your education. Feel free to thank me.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You’re simply a sarcastic, condescending troll, Paul. The only thing you teach people is how to lie and self justify Sin.

        The reality is that the woman didn’t violate the law. She simply expressed her Constitutional Rights concerning her religious belief of Marriage. The state conflicts with the US Constitution, therefore it is breaking the law. So, she didn’t break the law, the judge who rendered the court decision is breaking the law by violating her Constitutional Right concerning freedom of religious expression.

        She never refused to serve homosexuals. She merely refused to participate in their sinful ceremony.

        • Paul Hiett

          How can you possibly claim she didn’t violate the law?

        • misterprecedent

          Did she refuse to participate in the sinful ceremonies of divorced people or couples who had had premarital sex, or does her faith and conscience change, depending upon the sin?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I am not aware that she was present during any instances of the premarital or extramarital sex her customers have engaged in, so I can’t speak to that directly. If she, or anyone, does participate in such, then they are in sin as well.

            As far as providing services for weddings of people who are divorced outside of God’s Will and Word, if she had direct knowledge of such, then she would be participating in a Marriage ceremony, despite it being heterosexual, which is sinful. Again, we have no direct knowledge of whether this is the case, since no one has come forward stating such.

            Your speculation on whether she has participated in heterosexual Marriage ceremonies which are outside of God’s Will and Word doesn’t change the Truth that homosexual activity and “marriage” is against God’s Will and Word, thus a violation of Christian beliefs. Forcing a Christian, by way of punishment for noncompliance, to participate in a homosexual “wedding” in any capacity is a violation of their freedom of religious expression.

  • Barbara Estrada

    It is terrible that the homosexuals have to claim being discriminated against. It is just a way to get money from innocent people. I am sure there were other florists who could accommodate them. Now the florist life is ruined because you people are vengeful

    • Paul Hiett

      If a business tells another human being that they will not provide them the goods/services that they advertise to the general public and claim that the reason is because of the customer sexual orientation, that is, most assuredly, “discrimination”. In some states/cities in the US, that’s a protected status, and such discrimination is illegal.

      • The Last Trump

        Blah, blah, blah.
        Know any other tunes?
        THAT one’s already been refuted a million times over and is gettin’ pretty old there, trollmeister!

        • Paul Hiett

          Refuted? They broke the law. Unless you want to try and prove that the law doesn’t exist and that they didn’t break the law?

          Would you care to tackle that, or will you just call me a troll like the coward you usually are?

          • The Last Trump

            “Yak, yak, yak………yakkity…….yak…..grrrrrr…..Christians!”
            “Arrrrrrgh!!”

          • Paul Hiett

            Coward.

          • The Last Trump

            “Nanny, nanny, boo boo!”
            “Arrrgh….Christians!!……grrrrrr…”

          • Paul Hiett

            You just can’t stand someone with a different opinion than you, can you? You can’t post examples to support your claims, and do nothing on this site other than resort to ad hom attacks, and pointless insults. That’s ok Trump, not everyone has the intellectual capacity to actually engage someone in a debate without lowering themselves to…well…your level.

            Yeah, yeah, I know…”arrgh, blah blah blah, look at me attack the atheist, look how cool I am.”

          • The Last Trump

            “Look at me attack the Christians, look how cool I am….blah, blah, blah, arrrgh!”
            “Boo hoo, hoo! The Christians are too much for me. Boo hoo! Why won’t they just leave me alone so I can continue to harass them daily and comment on every post they make while accusing THEM of not allowing people to live and let live?! Boo hoo!
            Poor me 🙁 ”
            “Now, where was I again? Oh yeah.
            Grrrrrr…..down with Christianity! Down with Creationists! Down with climate change deniers! Down with supporters of traditional marriage and family! Down with ANYONE who doesn’t think like ME! Arrrrgh!!”

          • Paul Hiett

            Thank you for proving exactly what I was saying about you.

            Have a great night, Trump.

          • The Last Trump

            “Arrrgh……..grrrrr………I’m RIGHT and you’re wrong!…..
            Grrrrr….hope you fall off a bridge and break BOTH your legs Trump….arrrrrgh……WHO’S NEXT!?…Grrrrrrrrrrrrr…”

          • Deina

            You should switch to decaf…

          • The Last Trump

            “Arrrgh…”

          • MisterPine

            It’s so cute watching your tantrums when Paul shuts you down.

          • The Last Trump

            HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
            Oh…you were serious?
            Ooops. 😉

          • MisterPine

            Florist’s Funding ‘Not Found’: GoFundMe Shuts Down Second Fundraiser for Christian Businesses

            LOL!

          • Paul Hiett

            They must really hate Christians, eh?

          • MisterPine

            And how. Oboehner can’t even say “Catholics”, he has to say “Marians” or “Mary-worshippers”.

          • The Last Trump

            Pssssst!…..that’s because they worship Mary, silly! Duh!
            You’re welcome, confused and intolerant one.
            Keep coming back now ya hear!
            At least you’ll get an education between your hateful rants.
            🙂

          • MisterPine

            Wow…DO they, Rumpy?
            One thing though, please explain how you posting a hateful rant about Catholics has anything to do with me giving a hateful rant?
            Keep trying, little buddy! Hee, hee!

          • The Last Trump

            Wow! You see HATE in THAT too!?
            That they pray to Mary?!
            !!
            Hee, hee! You leftist liberals are nuts! Pretty hateful stuff there!
            Hate! Hate! Hate!
            The only tune you know. What a sad way to live your life. 🙁

          • MisterPine

            Hate? Well, yes, Rumpy, because they DON’T pray to Mary. They ask Mary to pray for them. Drinking the fundie Kool-aid again?

            Of course, I might be mistaken and you’re not actually HATING on Catholics, you’re just ignorant. Your choice.

            Hee, hee! What a loony!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Pssst!…..We Catholics really don’t worship Our Lady, TLT. Mr. Pine finally got something correct.
            p.s. You do realize that the statue of Christ the Redeemer, in your avatar, was made by Catholics in Rio De Janeiro, don’t you?

          • Crono478

            Don’t forget that you answered earlier today that you would defy government if it violates your conscience.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, I said I wouldn’t bow down to some hypothetical gold statue, which, to be honest, is one of the worst hypothetical situations I’ve ever heard. Your scenario would essentially require the US to cease being the US entirely, and would somehow have to succumb somehow to a tyrannical dictator…no offense, but if you stop and really think about what you proposed, can you honestly say that that’s a realistic scenario here?

          • Crono478

            The fact that you would not fall to your knee and bow down to a gold statue when you would be asked by a leader or government proves that you are willing to stand up to the government. It is because it would be against your conscience.

            This is an extreme example but occurrences like this did occur. The Christian florist declined to do flowers for the homosexual couple’s wedding is not because of discrimination. It is because it is against her conscience. She suffered for this greatly.

            She did flowers for the same couple before because it was not for their wedding. You are stating that the law is about stopping the discrimination against people based on sex orientation. What you completely miss is that we do have our conscience too. It is built in us.

          • Paul Hiett

            I understand that it happened in Germany, but nor did Germany have the kind of government we have, or the kind of laws our Constitution establishes. For the US to have reached that point where we have a tyrannical dictator who demands we worship a gold statue would mean the fight was long over, and those who remain would either capitulate into slavery, or die fighting. I just don’t see the correlation between that and what is happening with businesses who break the law.

            Now, that being said, yes, the Christian florist did refuse based on discrimination of a protected status…sexual orientation in her city/state IS protected, and admitting that the florist based her decision upon that protected status means she did discriminate illegally. You can’t argue that…it’s simply the facts.

            What you can argue is that the law is unjust. I would respect your opinion if that was the direction you took the discussion, but you’re claiming that she didn’t discriminate, which has already been established. There is such a thing, though, as “civil disobedience”. If she truly believed that such a law was unjust, then what she did was, while still discriminate and still illegal, could possibly generate discussion about changing the law. However, as Rosa Parks experienced, civil disobediance does not always work out for those who engage in it, and one must accept the judicial consequences of that route.

            Finally, having a conscience does not trump the law. Religious beliefs are secondary to the laws of our country when those beliefs conflict with civil rights.

          • Crono478

            You said that you would join people to go against the government if you are required to bow down to a gold statue.

            How do you reconcile your statement that having a conscience does not trump the laws of our country when these beliefs conflict with civil rights.

          • Paul Hiett

            But again, I point out that your example is so flawed that there’s no comparison. What you’re suggesting is a country that is no longer the US. I’m sorry, but it’s simply an invalid comparison.

          • Crono478

            You are dodging my question. Is it that you don’t want to admit that you will defy any law if your conscience get violated?

          • Paul Hiett

            I confess, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to get at. You presented me with an impossible scenario and then are trying to trap me into something based on what I might do in that impossible scenario. It’s an unfair question to pose to someone.

            Also, no, I won’t violate “any law” just because I feel like my conscience was violated. If I felt strongly enough that suffering the consequences of violating a law was worth engaging in civil disobedience, then yes, I would defy it in that case, but i would also accept the consequences of my actions.

          • Crono478

            Yes, the example I presented you is actually from Daniel 3. Also, it will happen again worldwide in the future (Revelations 13:15). It is at the point where everyone will have to pick God or to worship the image of the beast.

            You are saying you will obey laws even if it violates your conscience unless you suffer consequence from it?

          • Paul Hiett

            The first part of your statement is an opinion…you have the opinion that it will happen again. I disagree and have a differing opinion, so please forgive me if I don’t consider Revelation as a realistic future.

            If a law exists that I feel violates my conscience, I have to make a choice. Violate the law, and risk the consequences in an attempt to change the law…or do nothing. It certainly would depend upon the law itself. A law that says I can’t discriminate against another human being would hardly be something I find unconscionable.

          • Crono478

            I like how you treat prophecies in Bible as my “opinion”. Prophecies has been fulfilled and proved to be 100% accurate. It is because it is His words.

            If you do nothing when your conscience is violated then you will be held accountable for this front of God. I know that you will probably tell me that it is my opinion or that it is my god and it has nothing to do with the Constitution and the law. Remember, conscience is built in us and is what make us accountable for our actions.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, the truth of the stories in the Bible is just an individuals opinion on whether or not they are “true”. Furthermore, Revelation is something that, even in the Bible, hasn’t occurred yet…so to to claim it as factual simply isn’t possible.

            And yes, your choice of a deity is irrelevant when it comes to the law of the land. Mind you, “god’s” law may trump man’s law in Heaven, if that place is real, but here on Earth, we abide by the laws of our country. Our laws may not always be right or just, but when we find them as such, we work to change them.

            There are peaceful means of protesting laws we find unjust, but sometimes that path is difficult. If you truly believe you’re right, then maybe that’s the right path for you.

          • Crono478

            Aye, you just said words that I knew you would say to me next.

            You need to think about this. Why do you have conscience? Where does it comes from and why it is quite a difficult topic for you? It is something you would rather dodge. Especially when it is connected to God, you would deny it outright because you don’t want to be accountable to Him.

          • Paul Hiett

            Whether you predict what I will say or not is moot…the point stands. You can’t claim Revelation as fact when it hasn’t happened…to do so is merely professing your opinion, is it not?

            Claiming “conscience” is part of of a connection to your choice of a deity is, again, your opinion. We don’t know what our conscience is, or where it comes from, or that the the point of it is. If we did, there probably would be only one single religion.

            Ignorance of something is nothing to be ashamed of. Attributing the things we are ignorant of to an invisible deity because you’re ashamed of such ignorance is actually quite dangerous, especially when people start creating laws and consequences that include death for the violation thereof. We don’t know how life started on this planet. We don’t know exactly how the universe began, and we don’t know what happens after death.

            Just because we are ignorant in these areas does not automatically mean that some invisible deity is the cause of it all. It simply means we just don’t know yet.

          • Crono478

            Right because you reject His words, you cannot find any answer that will satisfy you when it comes to the origin of this planet as well as what happens to us after our death.

            What is constantly sticking with you is your conscience. It is what guides you back to Him and His Law. It is what used to show that you have sinned against Him. It does not matter if you will not acknowledge that.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me ask you, from a logical perspective…if you cannot prove that “consciousness” is directly tied to your choice of a deity, doesn’t that then become just your opinion?

          • Crono478

            You are trying to turn it into my choice of a deity. No, it leads us to the true God, only one God. There is no other deity other than Him. It is not matter of whose opinion it is. Our conscience lets us know that we have broken His law. You can deny this all you want. You can chalk it up as my opinion and my god and that you don’t give it any thought.

            You can’t escape your conscience. Do not wait until it is too late to confess your sins to Him and ask for forgiveness and believe in Jesus as Your Savior.

          • Kathleen Jones

            You cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible, the whole of it is truth as it is coming to pass now what is in revelation, read it and you will see!

          • Paul Hiett

            If you can’t “pick and choose” which parts of the Bible you follow, then do you follow 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

          • Kathleen Jones

            Since God is my husband now I do what He tells me

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you or do you not respect that law while in church?

          • misterprecedent

            It’s Revelation. No “s”. If you’d read the entire Bible, you probably would know that.

          • Crono478

            Thanks for the correction. Yes, you are right on this one.

          • misterprecedent

            If she can’t obey the laws she agreed to follow when she applied for a business license, she deserves to lose her business. Maybe she can get a job with an employer who can be trusted to keep his promises.

        • jmichael39

          Leave him alone, Trump…Paul’s just biding his time till he can put a gun to our heads and force us to deny Jesus or die. He’s just happy it’s getting so close to that point.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where could you have ever possibly come to that conclusion?

          • jmichael39

            Just a summation of all your hate-filled posts, Paul. I see you’re not denying it.

          • Paul Hiett

            I believe my incredulous reply of “where could you have ever possibly come to that conclusion” was fairly evident that I was denying it.

            What have I said, specifically, that you feel is a “hate-filled” post?

          • jmichael39

            Actually it was a question, not a denial…not even by implication. And ironically you’re STILL not denying it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Show me one “hate filled” post. Show me one post that proves that i want to put a gun to your head.

            Just one.

          • jmichael39

            You’re still not denying it.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you can provide proof of your irrational claim, we’ll talk.

            Til then, you’re simply lying and making stuff up. Good luck with that.

          • jmichael39

            That’s still not a denial. Funny how difficult it is to make a simple denial.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you still haven’t provided a single quote from me supporting your assertion in this matter. Ergo, you’re lying.

            Also, learn to read and comprehend what you read…”I believe my incredulous reply of “where could you have ever possibly come to that conclusion” was fairly evident that I was denying it.”

          • jmichael39

            No, sweetheart, that’s not a denial…coming lil darling, you can do it….deny it.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s something fundamentally wrong with you.

            Care to provide a quote supporting your lie? No? Didn’t think so.

          • jmichael39

            there is something fundamentally SICK about a man who won’t clearly deny his desire to have the freedom to put a gun to the head of Christians and either shoot them or force them to deny Jesus. It’s a simple thing to do…and here we are nine ways into this and you still won’t deny it. I’m fully expecting you to follow your own advice next and “lie and go home”…that WAS your advice, wasn’t it?

          • Paul Hiett

            Since I never said or insinuated something like that, your claim is bogus. Post a quote from me that supports your claim first. Then I’ll deny it.

            Isn’t there something in the Bible about lying? Some kind of “commandment”???

          • jmichael39

            Then it should be very easy to deny, shouldn’t it, Paul. But you somehow just can’t bring yourself to do that, can you, Paul? I know we’re not quite there yet. You can’t REALLY put a gun to our heads yet. At this point you can merely threaten to take away our livelihood if we don’t deny our faith. But we both know by all these refusals to deny that you really are waiting for the day you can put that gun to our heads. So tell me, Paul…why WON’T you deny it?

          • Paul Hiett

            Because I’m simply not going to play your game or give your claim any credence. If you can’t prove I ever said anything of the sort, then you’re simply a liar, which, as I pointed out, is a sin in the eyes of your deity.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…there’s no game here, Paul. Your obvious refusal to deny it can easily be taken by any number of people to be acceptance. The only ‘game’ being played here is by you…dancing around the issue with all your non-denials. It would have taken any one of several short statements openly denying that you would love to be able to do that. While I made that statement originally in a sarcastic manner, it is actually quite clear now that you actually WOULD like to be able to put a gun to the head of Christians and either shoot for force them to deny their faith. Of course, at this point, as you said, you could always “lie and go home” to get out from under the pressure of admitting the truth.

          • Paul Hiett

            So post my statements that prove your claim. Otherwise, yeah, you’re simply making crap up.

          • jmichael39

            I don’t have to post anything anymore. You’ve more than sufficiently shown that you refuse to deny that you would very much like to be able to legally put a gun to Christians’ heads and force them to recant or die. Thank you for that. You can keep playing your game…but if this really were a game, you lost a while back.

          • MisterPine

            You’ve more than sufficiently shown that you would like to line up every homosexual on earth and shoot them in the head, one by one.

            What the hell, if you can make up crap about other people, I guess you are fair game as well.

          • jmichael39

            HAHA…Great…you get your guns, I’ll get mine and let’s see who’s right.

          • MisterPine

            Believe me, there’s no doubt in my mind the act would bring you tremendous pleasure.

          • jmichael39

            I’m sure you do. Now back to your failure to address the Resurrection challenge. Show us what a superior intellect you are.

          • MisterPine

            I never claimed to be superior. I just don’t hate others based on things they have no control over.

          • jmichael39

            nor do I…but thank you very much. I still don’t see you taking the challenge. But I understand why not.

          • MisterPine

            What challenge would that be?

          • jmichael39

            obviously you haven’t been reading as I gave you credit for doing. Look it up or nevermind.

          • MisterPine

            I see you making reference to something called the resurrection challenge but I see nothing about what that is or what it means. Don’t snark at me for not taking it when I have no idea what it is.

          • jmichael39

            Then I’ll look for your response when you find it.

          • MisterPine

            Not interested.

          • jmichael39

            Of course not, you’re not here to actually discuss things…only to make yourself feel better about your own piss poor pathetic life by pointing out other people’s poor behavior. Nah, that’s not trolling…that’s just being a damned hypocrite. I’m betting one of your favorite things to accuse others of is judging others. LMAO. You’re a peach.

          • MisterPine

            Wow, all that vitriol rather than just explaining what your little challenge was which you mocked me for not taking and which I searched for in vain.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…look in the mirror hypocrite.

          • MisterPine

            Why don’t you go take the angry S.O.B. Challenge? The instructions are in the thread above. Maybe.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…what’s the matter, Piney…you didn’t want to do the challenge in the first place. Now that I won’t kiss your butt and repost it for you, you’ve decided to pretend like you care.

          • MisterPine

            I didn’t want to do the challenge in the first place? I still don’t even know what it is. And when I asked you, you turned the whole thing into a puzzle at which point I lost interest.

            You have a cute way of recollecting things that didn’t happen.

          • jmichael39

            Don’t blame me if you’re too lazy to go back and read. You don’t have trouble interjecting into other conversations I have, just go back to one of them. I’m not here to kiss your lazy behind.

          • MisterPine

            I DID go back, you doofus, I already told you that. there was nothing. Mock me for not taking your challenge and then mock me for trying to take it….awesome. Bet you win over lots of new Christians with your charming ways.

          • jmichael39

            Laughs….since it IS there…you CLEARLY look in the right places.
            Win over new Christians…LMAO…like you would actually ever consider becoming a Christian. You’re the epitome of the Pharaoh Syndrome.

          • MisterPine

            And in going back to look yourself, you didn’t take the 2 seconds it would have taken you to grab the link to send to me so I could know what you’re talking about?

            Why mock me about not doing it, and then mock further when I can’t find the ilnk, no matter how oathetic you find it to be that I was unable to locate it?

          • Kara Connor

            He should try the “Find one single contemporaneous record of the biblical Jesus” challenge. We’ll wait.

          • MisterPine

            Clearly his faith isn’t doing much for him if he’s so crazy angry.

          • MisterPine

            What a shame you can’t accept Jesus and reject hatred and bigotry at the same time. I know lots of Christians who can.

          • jmichael39

            I don’t hate you, piney…I feel sorry for you. You honestly think it makes you into something important to come trolling through a site dedicated to Christian worldviews. You think that you’re going to come on here and dazzle us with your superior intellect, but then can’t even take on a simple intellectual challenge. No, piney, you’re not hated. You’re not honestly worth the effort to do more than get a chuckle from. I’ll be here if you’re ever ready for an actual debate. Until then, go kiss OM…I’m sure he’s got a thrill down his leg that you came to his defense.

          • MisterPine

            “You honestly think it makes you into something important to come trolling through a site dedicated to Christian worldviews.”

            No. I come through here to point out shameful behavior on the part of many “Christians.” How do you account for the fact that I know many, MANY Christians who have no issue with letting homosexuals fall in love, get married, and have the same kind of lives the rest of us have? Why is it the focus of ultra-conservative right wing Christians to deny so many people simple human rights?

            Call me a troll all you like. I don’t deny that I come down hard on some of you. But it’s because you’re unbelievably heartless, cruel people.

            “You think that you’re going to come on here and dazzle us with your superior intellect”

            Wrong again. I don’t claim to be smarter than anyone else. That’s a lot of assumptions on your part. I think you should face facts, you don’t know me from a hole in the wall and your little digs and jabs are just to cover up for the fact that you KNOW you’re discriminating unfairly against homosexuals.

          • jmichael39


            “How do you account for the fact that I know many, MANY Christians who have no issue with letting homosexuals fall in love, get married, and have the same kind of lives the rest of us have? ” You don’t have a damned clue what my views on homosexuality and homosexual marriage are. And you have the balls to accuse ME of being presumptive.

            “But it’s because you’re unbelievably heartless, cruel people” – Heartless and cruel to whom? To whom have I been heartless and cruel to? And for that matter how in the world is it heartless and cruel to want to see a person reject their life of sin against God and find eternal life with Him in Jesus? While you’re happy letting them live in their sin despite what might happen to them in eternity, those on here who would call sin “sin” are ridiculed by you for wanting them to be eternally happy. Must feel nice patting yourself on the back for that one.

            “the fact that you KNOW you’re discriminating unfairly against homosexuals.” – You won’t find a single statement by me on this site that discriminates unfairly against homosexuals. And again, you have the nerve to accuse me of being presumptuous.

          • MisterPine

            Telling Paul that he’s looking forward to the day where he can force you to reject Jesus with a gun to your head or die is one of the nastiest things I’ve ever read here. Paul, like myself, couldn’t care less what belief system you have adopted. Why don’t you let us all decide for ourselves what we want to believe? The heartlessness I’ve read towards homosexuals on this forum has been staggering – your words betray your feelings when you say things like “reject their life of sin” when they’re just living their lives like everyone else. Or trying to.

          • jmichael39

            “Paul, like myself, couldn’t care less what belief system you have adopted. ” – Sure you do…or you wouldn’t be here. You said so yourself. A person who believes homosexuality is a sin and acts upon that belief is unacceptable you. So spare us your vain attempt at standing on the moral high ground. You’re no more tolerant of others’ beliefs than you accuse those people of being.

            “your words betray your feelings when you say things like “reject their life of sin” when they’re just living their lives like everyone else.” – yeah, and everyone else needs to reject the sin they live in. It’s not just homosexuals. And if you understood one iota of what Christians believe you’d see that as the love that it truly is. Are there people on here, as Christians, who have lost sight of the fact that they, too, are sinners in need of repentance? Absolutely. And even the best Christians fall into that trap on occasion. It doesn’t not recuse us from our duty to bring any and all to a saving knowledge of Jesus. You don’t think I am accept that others believe differently? That’s total BS. I understand it and accept it fully. That knowledge and acceptance does not relieve me of my desire to give everyone every chance possible to find a right relationship with God. You don’t want me telling others about God, or giving a “reason for the hope that is in me”? Too bad. I’ll do it till the day I die…even if it’s at the hand a hater of Christianity.

        • Peter Leh

          how is a quote from the law in the state of Washington been refuted?

      • drefasddfff

        yo mayne, hate the sin not the sinner….thats what this is about. It was said in the article that the homosexual was a faithful customer, so how can it be that they are discriminating if they are providing services for that person…

        • Paul Hiett

          They refused service based on sexual orientation, which is a protected status in that particular state. Do you folks even read the articles when they are posted, or do you just automatically hop to the comments?

      • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

        Okay, so there was recently a pastor who was publishing a DVD called “AIDS: The Judgment of God” and one of the companies he was doing business with refused to do business with him on the basis that it went against their beliefs.

        The pastor quietly found another business that would do business with him, but posted the incident on his blog.

        In your opinion, then, this pastor should have sued this business and forced them to pay a few hundred thousand dollars (likely bankrupting them) in “emotional damages”, correct?

        • Paul Hiett

          I need more information on this. What state did it occur in? What was the exact request?

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            Direct quote from the Pastor’s blog:

            “A company called Duplitech has been making DVDs and preaching CDs for us
            over the last few years, but when I sent them over my new film “AIDS: the Judgment of God,”
            they refused to make the DVDs. The thing that was most irritating about
            it was that they strung me along over the course of a week, all the
            while I thought my order was being filled, only to be told a week later
            that they are refusing to make the DVDs. Thankfully I found another
            company in town that is manufacturing the DVDs as we speak.

            So apparently Christians are supposed to put aside their personal views
            and bake cakes for perverts, but liberals can refuse to manufacture a
            DVD based on the Holy Bible because it is anti-homosexual. This
            company’s name would have been nowhere on the product. They are just a
            printing company! I’m giving them money to provide a service. That’s it.

            They definitely have the right not to make these DVDs, although I think
            it is lame of them. I believe that any business should have the right to
            refuse service to anyone. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of our
            society that tries to force Christians to participate in sinful things
            that they don’t believe in and then turns around and discriminates
            against preachers for so-called “hate speech,” which in reality is just
            Bible preaching”

          • Paul Hiett

            I believe this might fall under the same category as the t-shirt company that refused to print tshirts saying “gay pride”.

            Totally legal and not the same issue as the florist and baker who refused services for a wedding.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            What is the difference? Why can one business refuse to do something that violates its conscience, while another cannot?

          • Paul Hiett

            Baking a cake or proving flowers is different than printing messages that support ideologies.

            Look up “Hands On Originals”. Educate yourself on the difference. I wholly support the courts ruling on this.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            A response like “educate yourself” is a rhetorical argument to make me look stupid. I’m asking you, personally, to identify what the difference is, in your opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            You clearly don’t know the law, so yes, suggesting you educate yourself on this issue is the right response.

            Printing a specific message in support of an ideology is different than baking a cake for a wedding. Again, go read the case regarding “Hands On Originals”.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            You are skirting this whole issue. I’m not asking about the law in the least. I’m asking for your opinion. My very first response was asking about your opinion, not what the law was. And the only reason I’m asking about your opinion is that you agree with a lesbian couple being awarded “emotional damages” from a businesses refusal to do business with them. So why do you think the above scenario with the pastor is different?

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, it appears to fall under the same legal umbrella as the t-shirt company. Printing messages does violate the rights of the business owner. Baking a cake does not. I agree with this.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            It’s a pretty thin line because a wedding cake would likely have decorations that depict a groom and a groom or a bride and a bride, which also sends an implicit message that they do not agree with.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Forcing them to bake the cake violates their right to freely contract with whomever they wish, Mr. Hiett.
            Why is morally okay for a private religious school to discriminate in their hiring practices, but, not morally okay for a private business to do the same, again? You never answered, remember?

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        Poor Mr. Hiett.
        Did you forget that we solved this, weeks ago?
        Since, Sweet Cakes By Melissa NEVER advertised that they provide SS counterfeit so-called “wedding” cakes, they didn’t discriminate.
        So…yeah.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      I know, right? Same with the Coloreds and the Jews. They should just find a florist who will accommodate them. Imagine, holding someone accountable for breaking the law. Just terrible!

    • Zasz

      Remember its christians that invented church tax while christian ministries and megachurches dont pay taxes at all. Stop whining about christians that promote discrimination disguised as “religious freedom”. Homophobia isnt religious freedom. Its hatred.

    • Peter Leh

      “Now the florist life is ruined because you people are vengeful”

      IF the florist is “ruined” it is on her own volition. the state only enforced the business registration she herself chose.

      this is all on her.

      ask yourself this: “why has dan cathy of chicklia not been cited by the state if the homosexuals are out to get us?”

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Not only were there other florists, but she gave the “offended” gay man the names of other florists who would accommodate him. AND, he got offers of free flowers from a number of them. It was never about the flowers: it’s about the fact that the Gaystapo cannot allow others to disagree with their “lifestyle” without being punished.

      • Paul Hiett

        So breaking the law is ok as long as you claim your religion allows it?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yes, it is! That was taught to me by my Republican ancestors who broke the law by hiding slaves from your Demon-crat slave-whipping ancestors! And, it was reiterated by MLK, Jr (that’s a Bible he was carrying, you immoral pagan) when he broke the law because his religion demanded it! Gosh, Paul, you really stepped into that one. Thanks for the softball!

          • Paul Hiett

            So let’s see if I have this straight…the Bible belt is in the south. Slaves were owned predominantly in the south.

            So uh, tell me again how it was my ancestors and not yours that owned the slaves?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t be silly, Paul: we ran you Demon-crats out of the South long ago! You guys are running the North, East, and Left coasts now. “Anything goes” Demon-crats (north and south):

            1. Fought a brutal Civil War for the right to own black people.
            2. Fought against 90 years of Civil Rights Acts. (until northern Demon-crats finally grew a conscience and ideologically separated from their Southern counterparts)
            3. Fought against the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
            4. Launched the KKK.
            5. Made baby sacrifice (abortion) your unholy sacrament. (57 million and counting!)
            6. Are now into euthanasia and gay “marriage.”

            You can run, but you cannot hide, from your past.

          • Bill

            and they were punished for it as you should be

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are actually saying that the folks who helped free the slaves and MLK, Jr should have been punished for breaking a immoral laws?!? Gosh, Bill, thank you for showing me how broken your moral compass is! The law is your God! And, if that is true, then why are you trying to overturn the laws of the states for traditional marriage?!? What a hypocrite you are!

          • Bill

            the law must be respected even if you don’t agree with. image how chaotic it would be if every simply refused to follow laws they didn’t agree with

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            There you go again, Bill – throwing all the great reformers in history under the bus – or to the back of the bus. 🙂 Yes, you just spanked Rosa parks – yes you did!

          • Bill

            they acknowledged they broke the law accepted their punishments and they they tried to change the law legally, they didn’t just ignore it

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Precisely what I am doing to stop you baby sacrificers from killing more little ones. Precisely what I will do when SCOTUS legalizes gay “marriage.” And precisely what Barronelle Stutzman is doing by fighting this “legal” travesty in her case. Just like Rosa Parks. Face it, Bill: your side is more KKK than MLK.

          • Bill

            funny. have fun losing

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, Bill, we Christians DO indeed have a tendency to lose in the worldly sense. But, then we get an eternity to rejoice while the worldly winners suffer. Life is short, but eternity is long. God bless you, Sir!

          • misterprecedent

            Pagans aren’t the ones who need a god, book or list to tell them it’s not ok to lie, steal, hurt or kill people. If you do, you are the immoral one.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You, Sir, are an a-theist: you cannot ground objective moral values and duties under your worldview. When you talk about “immoral” in an objective sense, you are stealing from God to do so. Thank you for acknowledging Him! If you disagree, take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals,” who agree with me:

            “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).

      • MisterPine

        How about just providing the service you provide and not worrying about what your customers may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Too hard?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          How about not forcing me to participate in you pagan worship of the anus? Too hard? (pun intended)

          • MisterPine

            Yeah, still hasn’t dawned on you that “anuses” also figure prominently with straight couples, huh? Oh, and practically nil with lesbians. But by all means, milk your hateful language for all it’s worth…what it lacks in logic it makes up for in obnoxiousness.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m the obnoxious one?!? MisterPine, it’s your face that is smacked up between your “partner’s” cheeks.

          • MisterPine

            Do you have a better word than “obnoxious”? I can’t think of one, reducing the relationship of two people to a specific sexual practice doesn’t sound very Christian to me, not to mention well-informed. No really, WorldGoneCrazy, sodomy is practiced by straights, too. Not going to reduce them to anal stereotypes too?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            With all due respect, MisterPine, YOU are the one who brought up the bedroom, not me. It’s kind of like the pro-aborts: they want us out of the uterus when they sacrifice their babies to their pagan “gods,” but right back in when they want their “free” contraception. It’s so confusing. 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Yeah, I brought up the bedroom because you are fixated on what goes on in there (particularly things involving bumsex, which says something VERY interesting about you). And you’re quite content to overlook the straight sexual aberrations that also go on. as long as the couple were married in the church.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, that is not exactly true, MisterPine: I am against all sorts of sexual aberrations, regardless of worldview, but tremendously so against no-fault divorce. I would agree with you that Christians can be hypocritical in this regard. I guess you could call me an 18th century prude. 🙂

          • MisterPine

            It is always the actions of the bedroom that are brought up – no one ever talks about the fact that you have two people just as much in love as any two straight people can be, I assume because so many Christians believe it to be impossible. And yet two straight people in love are almost never judged entirely by their physical relationship.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, I realize that they love each other, just as much as my wife and I love each other. I just don’t believe that is a rational basis for 2 people of the same sex being able to “marry” each other, for a variety of reasons, many secular. This will be difficult for you to follow maybe, but in my worldview, there are many things we are NOT allowed to do in order to be in a loving relationship with our Creator and with our fellow human beings. So, that is why Christians say “no” so much. On the other hand, if there is no God, truly all things are permissible – anything goes. (And I mean anything – rape, murder, etc.)

            And, it’s not just that we can’t do these things because God says “no,” but because in doing them, we are not displaying true Christian love toward our fellow human beings and to our Creator God. That’s why you will see me in front of the abortion mill, even though it is legal. That is where the Wilberforces and Corrie ten Booms come from. If there is no God, what they did was pure foolishness, just like jumping on a hand grenade in a crowded room would be. (And most a-theists have admitted to me that they would be the first ones out the door.) If all we have is 50, 70, 80, 100 years of existence and then, poof, eternal non-existence, there truly are no objective moral values and duties.

          • misterprecedent

            If you actually READ the ENTIRE Bible instead of parroting the propaganda and scripture your church has carefully cherry-picked and candy-coated for you, you’ll see that God repeatedly COMMANDS his followers to kidnap, torture, rape and murder people, and that “Biblical marriage” is NOT between one man and one woman. God also gives INSTRUCTIONS on how PRIESTS should perform abortions on unwanted pregnancies.

            If you can’t figure out that it’s wrong to steal, hurt, and kill people without a bloodthirsty God telling you so and monitoring you 24/7, the one with the morality problem is YOU.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If you can’t figure out that it’s wrong to steal, hurt, and kill people without a bloodthirsty God telling you so and monitoring you 24/7, the one with the morality problem is YOU.”

            There you go again – stealing objective moral laws and duties from God! Thank you for acknowledging Him! You are a survival of the fittest a-theist: anything goes under your worldview. Rape? Happens all the time in the animal kingdom. Murder? Ever see a lion take out a gazelle? Nope, under your worldview, all things are permissible. So anytime you speak about objective morals, you are unwittingly telling us that, deep down, you believe in an objective moral Law Giver, God. 🙂

          • badmammerjammer

            Hi Mr. Precedent: You are reading the Episcopal Bible…and it will be an upcoming NBC special next Easter.

          • Kinsey6

            MisterPine, I commend you for your debate skills. I really don’t like to get too involved myself. I always have this need to take a shower whenever I argue with the Christian bigots & hatemongers. But don’t forget that there are gay men who find anal sex gross and that there are celibate gay people too… Something I’m sure the cuckoo Christians would find hard to believe because they always reduce those born gay down to a specific sex act.

          • MisterPine

            Thank you. I think the reason they focus on the sexual acts is so they won’t have to acknowledge the love that exists. But I don’t think these people are really Christians, anyway. They are fundies, which is a more political movement than anything else. Thankfully they are rarer where I live. But debating them is still interesting. When you can actually keep them on topic.

          • misterprecedent

            Why do you spend so much time thinking about what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? That seems very perverted.

          • Patti

            It’s comments like that that are causing some gay people to be so hard nosed about this. Yes, I think they just should have found another florist. The only ones that will really make out here are the attorneys. At the same time, when a person has lived their entire life being the subject of hated, ridicule and nasty comments like yours, were you seriously expecting no reaction?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see you don’t respond to the assertion that it was never about the flowers. Nor do your respond to the fact that she served this particular gay customer for years and provided flowers for him, even for his birthday party. But, that when it came to participating in a gay wedding by providing on-site services she could not cross the line.

            Instead, you do a nice job of justifying fascism, and would have made out quite well in 1930’s Germany.

          • Patti

            I agree it was not about the flowers. Nor was I saying this particular florist did or said anything nasty against them or any other gay person. But you did. And so have many other people who call themselves Christian.I mean, “pagan worship of the anus?” You have any more gems to describe a person’s most intimate moments with their significant other? Do you even modify your phrase for lesbians, or are they included via some sort of osmosis?

            What I’m saying is such overt degradation of gay people lays the groundwork for this sort of overreaction. I’ve already said I thought they should have just found another florist. And this woman actually seems to have been pretty decent – very likely the wrong person to punish in the small handful of cases that have been punished. My guess – and it is only a guess – is that they had been pretty good friends which led to a feeling of betrayal. Friendships are tricky. They make life more pleasant, but when they sour they can really turn rotten.

            Back when there were sodomy laws, many Christians defended them stating how seldom they were used. Never mind that they were used to take children away and to keep the threat of jail or at least public disgrace hanging over the gay person’s head. Now that it’s the anti-gay Christians who are often on the wrong side of the law, they want the same sympathy they denied the gays back then. Payback’s a b-tch.

            But no I don’t agree with any of this. This woman like you said was pretty decent and sure seems like the wrong one to punish. She’s getting caught in the cross fire of a wider war. A war that I think should be fought over job protections, housing accommodations, medical care and other general accommodations. Let the fundamentalists sit out the gay weddings if they seriously think serving in them will betray their God. And stop the “pagan worship of the anus” insults that lay the groundwork for this type of nonsense.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I basically agree with you here. But, that comment, tasteless though it was, was in response to MisterPine forcing me into his bedroom. 🙂 And, it is mild in comparison to what is being taught to children these days: “Students Shocked When Anti-Bullying Conference Turns Into Pornographic Gay Sex Tutorial”

          • MisterPine

            It’s not my bedroom I was talking about. Do you wish it was? Sorry, WorldGoneCrazy, I don’t swing that way. But I’m flattered.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And for that great sense of humor, I give you my first up-arrow! 🙂

          • Patti

            I looked back at your exchange with MisterPine and could not find where he forced you into his bedroom. If anything, he seems to think you should stay out of it. But thanks for acknowledging the comment was tasteless and not likely to endear any gay people to Christians.

            Note: Since the system isn’t accepting my links, then I posted all links with a space in front of every period to fool it. Cut & paste the link to your browser, take out the space in front of each period, and they should work.

            I googled the article headline you gave and also googled the incident it referred to. Here’s what I think is the original article by Bob Vander Plaats of the Family Leader, though it’s been reprinted on several right wing sites:

            http://www .thefamilyleader .com/governors-conference-on-lgbtq-youth-not-what-you-think/

            And here’s some info on Bob Vander Plaats from 2012. The guy has a long history of trying to stop gays from ever having sex and had has been trying for years to get this Iowa Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth closed down. So the man does have an agenda which needs to be considered when evaluating his credibility.

            http://www .thenewcivilrightsmovement .com/top_anti_gay_activist_demands_schools_teach_gays_they_can_never_have_sex

            Here are what some of the students who attended are saying about Bob Vander Plaats remarks.

            https://www .indiegogo .com/projects/were-we-at-the-same-conference-bob

            And here’s the Facebook page of the conference where if you scroll down from around April 17 – 19 you’ll see statements and discussions of Bob Vander Plaats remarks.

            https://www .facebook.com/iowasafeschools

            Here’s one statement sample:

            On April 13th, Bob Vander Plaats and The Family Leader sent an email to their followers making absurd accusations regarding the conference.

            What has since followed Vander Plaat’s email to his followers has been a campaign of pure hate. I’m an adult and can handle being called names. But I find it sickening that Iowa Safe Schools and I have been called things like child molesting enablers, fags, dykes, queers, and homos. This language and the response by Vander Plaats only proves the importance of this event and illustrates the grim reality LGBTQ youth face in Iowa. Imagine what LGBTQ youth are called in the hallways in schools they walk into every day? If a supposedly responsible adult can unleash untruths and distort an event like our conference in such a way as to garner such hateful reaction directed at the LGBTQ community, can you imagine what our youth face when bullies hear those same messages?

            Obviously, we have 2 different stories of what happened at that conference. I personally don’t think it would have been allowed to go on all these years if it were anything close to what Bob Vander Plaats is describing. And it is stuff like this that is being used to dehumanize gay people. It causes pretty decent people, like yourself, to think that “worship of the anus” comments to describe someone’s most intimate moments are acceptable since they’re only directed at “those people.” There is a culture war going on, WorldGoneCrazy, so neither side should be taken seriously without checking out what the other side says. And personal experience with gays (not sex – just talking & listening to them) always helps since they’re the ones we’re talking about. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents on the issue.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see nothing in your posts that would even remotely indicate that the position set forth was unreliable from a veracity standpoint.

            “So the man does have an agenda which needs to be considered when evaluating his credibility.”

            Don’t be silly, Patti: everyone has an agenda which needs to be considered when evaluating their credibility.

            “I personally don’t think it would have been allowed to go on all these years if it were anything close to what Bob Vander Plaats is describing. And it is stuff like this that is being used to dehumanize gay people.”

            Patti, you are either naive or intellectually dishonest. We have seen this kind of indoctrination over and over on this and many other issues. Next thing you will tell me is that there is no effort to normalize homosexual behavior (and sexual behavior of all sorts) to children far too young to deal with it in the government schools, child abuse of the worst sort. We don’t have to invent these stories: the folks pushing it admit them and praise them!

            Now, here is how you can discern between truthful sources and untruthful ones: consider which worldview takes truth seriously. Under post-modern liberalism and naturalistic a-theism, all morals and values and duties are relative, not objective. There is no ground for objective moral values and duties. It really is “anything goes,” and this has been the conclusion reached over centuries, not only by theists, but by a-theists.

            “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).

            So, the fact that there are two views on what happened does not in any way logically imply that both views are equally reliable. If such were the case, we would all be saying “Well, Brian Williams COULD have been telling the truth.” And believe me, there are actually people saying that. And guess who they will be voting for next year? 🙂

            Just as an analogy, look at the abortion decision in Roe. We now know that those closest to the “cause” have admitted that they lied their way to that decision, plain and simple. Their justification of this is classic “ends justify the means,” and this is perfectly compatible with survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism. But, even they admit that they were lying. I am not aware of a liberal legal scholar who thinks that decision was even remotely reasonable in a legal sense. 57 million innocent defenseless human beings have paid the price for that lie.

            Under post-modern liberalism or a-theistic materialism there is absolutely no reason NOT to lie and distort, if one accomplishes their goal. Furthermore, those arguing FOR gay “marriage” before SCOTUS have now publicly admitted that religious freedom rights are going to take a back seat to this if it is approved. (And the data in Canada prove it.) All but the most disingenuous admit this. But, let’s face it: an a-theist has no problem whatsoever giving up religious freedom rights. Unless it is their “religion” of intellectually and morally bankrupt Darwinism.

            And one more thing. In a previous post, you wrote “Payback’s a b-tch.” Right there, you have admitted that you are no better whatsoever than any other fascist. Thank you for showing your true colors! God bless!

          • Patti

            In regards to “Payback’s a b-tch,” that has to do with the years of what I regard as religious persecution that gay people have suffered. I have said that I think this florist is the wrong person to be going after and that I personally think bakers, florists, photographers, etc. should be able to sit out gay weddings as long as they’re still providing general services to everybody. However, I did nearly lose a gay daughter to suicide 20 years ago because of the way she was treated by so many people, a mistreatment that was spurred on by religion. So it’s hard for me to be that sympathetic towards Christians claiming persecution when in my mind they’ve done so much of it.

            Here’s what I found to be a pretty good and thorough article about the history of same-sex marriage written by a guy who’s trying to stay neutral, though at the end he admits to being pro gay-marriage. But it’s a well written history and it does talk of the religious persecution I mentioned:

            http://www .huffingtonpost .com/geoffrey-r-stone/getting-to-same-sex-marri_b_7144008 .html [Take out the spaces in front of the 3 periods to get this link to work.]

            I’ll respond to the rest of your post at a later date. I’ve already spent too much time on these boards.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m very sorry about your daughter, but glad she survived the attempt.

            The article you provided is disingenuous at best. The fact that Augustine got the Bible wrong on sexual desire bears no warrant on what it really teaches. Lust is indeed condemned in Christianity, but not healthy sexual desire. Without healthy sexual desire, there is no warrant for “go forth and multiply,” so Augustine’s position on this is self-refuting at best. The imputation of sin is indeed fair game, but that is a consequence not of sexual desire but of sin entering the human condition. The fact that the human condition is propagated as a result of sex is irrelevant to the desire being good or bad. Under Christianity, some desires are good and some are bad, some results are good, some are bad. It should also be noted that because some Christian a couple of centuries ago mis-treated a gay person does not give you the right to do the same to a Christian in retaliation. (Except under a-theism. :-))

            The author says “for Americans viewed communism as atheistic, un-Christian, immoral and degenerate.”

            Well, the Communists themselves instituted the state “religion” of a-theism. Goodness, no one living under Communism thought that the government was indoctrinating a belief in any deity whatsoever! The government was quite clear on this – clear to the point of death. And a-theism is, by definition, a-moral, since objective moral values and duties do not exist in this worldview.

            I could go on and on with this article, but we both know that what liberals call progress, conservatives call regress. The abortion issue should be a tip off on this matter, as the two subject matters are linked via 14th Amendment inventions, the sexual revolution, and the desire, not for freedom, but for autonomy. In short: progress through time is not necessarily “progress” in a moral sense.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I think we can make an excellent secular case against gay “marriage,” obviously. Under Christianity, it is quite unloving to encourage someone into destructive behavior, and I am certain that I do not have to quote the CDC database to convince one that homosexual behavior is destructive at its core – physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Furthermore, we know that a priori denying a child either a mother or a father is demonstrably damaging to the child’s welfare. (I can get you the data, but just think divorce, the no-fault version being particularly reprehensible.) Gay “marriage,” like abortion, places the selfish desires of adults over the serious developmental needs of children. All based on feelings, not facts or truth.

            In addition to the obvious secular evidence against gay “marriage,” (see https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/ as one example), there is absolutely no question as to what happens to religious freedom after gay “marriage” is legalized. The lawyers arguing FOR gay “marriage” right now in front of SCOTUS admit this outright, but we need go no further than Canada to see that these predictions are founded in fact: https://www .lifesitenews .com/opinion/gay-activists-claim-redefining-marriage-wont-hurt-anyone-but-thats-a-lie .-j?utm_source=LifeSiteNews .com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cd27d911da- LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-cd27d911da-397685045

            Now, you may say “I’m an atheist: who cares about freedom of religion?” You should note, however, that secularism has no objective moral grounds without an Objective Moral Law Giver. That’s right: a secular society cannot succeed without a foundation based in the moral law of some Deity, presumably a Judeo-Christian ethic not an Islamic one. 🙂 That’s why America’s founders spent a good deal of time discussing the objective moral (Judeo-Christian) basis (which does not exist under atheism) for the secular government they were putting into place. And, it’s why societies that flourish the most have a high quotient in freedom of religion. I pray I do not need to provide you the data here, but just look at a night time satellite image of North vs South Korea sometime, and you will see all the evidence you need.

            Obviously, one of the more compelling arguments for the state’s interest in marriage of any kind is based on natural law. Homosexual couples are incapable of reproducing in and of themselves. Thus, the state would have no interest in such marriages, as the state’s interest is associated with the offspring produced for the furthering of civil society, not the whimsical feelings of adults. Gay “marriage” even contradicts Darwinism in this natural law regard.

            And just so I don’t get called out on this, regarding divorce, most hardcore Christians DO fight against no-fault divorce. I am one of them. I would agree with those on the other side that Christians who do not speak out against no-fault divorce just as much as they do against gay “marriage” are being hypocritical. God bless!

          • Jim H

            “Under post-modern liberalism or a-theistic materialism there is absolutely no reason NOT to lie and distort, if one accomplishes their goal.”

            That is nonsense. There is a very practical reason one should not lie or distort. It doesn’t work well and If everyone does it society falls apart. People were figuring things like that out long before we had Judeo-Christian values.

            “Unless it is their “religion” of intellectually and morally bankrupt Darwinism.”

            I’m sorry but Darwin only proposed a theory of biological evolution. Defining a biological theory as morally bankrupt, when nothing in it addressed morality, is to be either completely ignorant of the theory, or just downright intellectually dishonest about it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Jim, we are kind of carrying on the same conversation on two sites, so I will briefly repeat a portion of what I wrote on LAN. Thanks and god bless!

            “That is nonsense. There is a very practical reason one should not lie or distort. It doesn’t work well and If everyone does it society falls apart. People were figuring things like that out long before we had Judeo-Christian values.”

            Well, you are more or less confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology here, but let me just say that you are 100% correct that a-theists CAN behave morally. Romans 2:15 confirms this. It’s just that when a-theists behave morally (in an objective sense), they are stealing from the Objective Moral law Giver, God.

            “I’m sorry but Darwin only proposed a theory of biological evolution. Defining a biological theory as morally bankrupt, when nothing in it addressed morality, is to be either completely ignorant of the theory, or just downright intellectually dishonest about it.”

            Your “pope” and “cardinals” strongly disagree with you here. You may wish to take it up their “intellectual dishonesty” with them :-):

            “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).

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, one thing I will agree with you on: my comment was offensive and has been edited out. My apologies to you and everyone else on this site. Totally wrong. I was behaving in my former a-theist instincts when I wrote that. 42 years of cussing and a-theism has a tendency to ingrain poor taste in one. So, it is fixed, as they say, and I beg forgiveness. Very un-Christian of me.

          • Patti

            Well my “paybacks a b-tch” comment wasn’t too cool either. It’s a heated topic.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, your comment was MUCH more civilized than mine. Mostly because it’s true, and mine was not. 🙂

          • Kara Connor

            Why do you need to perform anal sex to prepare flowers? You’re a pervert.

          • Patti

            He’s also a prime example of why a lot of gay people are being so hard nosed about this. They’re reacting to their Christian treatment over the years.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice name-calling – thank you! Bring on that gay “love” and “tolerance.” 🙂

          • Kara Connor

            You brought up anus worship, Christian boy.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That was in response to MisterPine forcing me into his bedroom. 🙂 Besides, your side is forcing kids into your bedroom now, so “anus worship” is pretty mild compared with what you guys are teaching elementary age kids: “Students Shocked When Anti-Bullying Conference Turns Into Pornographic Gay Sex Tutorial”

          • Kara Connor

            Please show, with supporting evidence, what you believe is being taught to children?

          • Patti

            Think he means for us to Google the phrase. I did and there was one very strange case recently that’s pretty much what the phrase describes, but I couldn’t find the other side of what happened at the event. I’ll try again tomorrow to see if I can find the event on a politically neutral site.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s not my job to teach you how to Google search. I gave you the full article title. Surely even an a-theist knows how to cut and paste in this day and age?

          • Kara Connor

            So you actually have nothing to back up your claims about actual curriculums in real schools. Got it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Google “Ontario’s Radical Sex Ed Curriculum”

            Don’t be so daft. Do I have to do all of your research for you?!? I praise God that you are not in a technical field. You appear to be another blind faith “see no evil” a-theist.

          • Kara Connor

            You’re making the claim, show us evidence of this. If it is as widespread as you claim this will present no difficulty.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here is some more from a separate article on Ontario’s “program”:

            “Though homosexual activists claim their efforts in the schools are a way of combatting bullying, a number of homosexual activists have highlighted that the movement’s goal is in fact to “indoctrinate” children into accepting the normalcy of the homosexual lifestyle.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And:

            “I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn’t indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie,” wrote Canadian gay activist Sason Bear Bergman, a woman who identifies as a transgender man, in a March 2015 piece titled “I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry).” Bergman holds nothing back, stating she wants to make children “like us” even if that “goes against the way you have interpreted the teachings of your religion.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And:

            Homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote in 1987 in the Gay Community News that school children would become explicit targets for homosexual indoctrination. “We shall seduce them in your schools…They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us,” he wrote at the time.

          • Kara Connor

            What is sanctioned and taught in schools? Answer the question.

          • Patti

            The first part of Mr. Swift’s tirade is always omitted by the right-wing crowd:

            This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

            It sets the tone for the entire paper. It’s satire.

          • Patti

            The first part of Mr. Swift’s tirade is always omitted by the right-wing crowd:

            This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

            It sets the tone for the entire paper. It’s satire.

            I’m having trouble posting links here, but the below is the link after you take out the spaces in front of the 3 periods:

            http://legacy .fordham .edu/halsall/pwh/swift1 .asp

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And:

            In 2011 U.S. gay activist Daniel Villarreal penned a column for — stating that the time had come for the homosexual lobby to admit to “indoctrinating” schoolchildren to accept homosexuality.

            “Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

            “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he added.

          • Kara Connor

            I asked you what was being taught, not what one lunatic said. Does the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians? What do you believe is being sanctioned and taught on schools?

          • MisterPine

            If that is the kind of “indoctrination” you are worried about, I would say so what? Accepting that there are homosexuals in this world SHOULD be taught, because they ARE. What is the worry here, that people will be teaching children how to BECOME homosexual? That is just ridiculous because it doesn’t work that way. Homosexuals don’t “recruit”. If you are homosexual then you are homosexual. But if you aren’t no one is going to teach you to be one!

          • Bill

            how about do what you’re payed to do?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s “paid,” Bill. She wasn’t “paid” to do anything for him, since she declined performing the onsite participatory services. Every other time she served him by selling him flowers and even providing the floral arrangements for his birthday party, she did exactly what she was “paid” to do. And, he must have liked her services, because he kept coming back for more! It was never about the flowers, Bill: it is about forcing Christians to set aside their consciences to satisfy the Gay Mafia. And, you are part of it: embrace your Italian, Bill!

          • Bill

            it doesn’t matter, if you provide services to wedding then you provide them to all weddings

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Except that a gay “wedding” isn’t a wedding in the Christian view. And it is a deeply held view. Admit it, Bill: even the folks arguing FOR gay “marriage” in front of SCOTUS admit that 1st Amendment rights are gonna be trumped by this immoral law. And then there is always empirical proof up north in Canada: “Gay activists claim redefining marriage won’t hurt anyone, but that’s a lie. Just ask Canadians.”

          • MisterPine

            Canada and every other country that accepts gay marriage is doing just fine. There have been no plagues of locusts, no disease, no famine, no fire, no brimstone.

            Just as it will be in your country soon.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Just persecution of Christians. I am sure you read the link – the thought police are alive and well in Canada – a once moral nation. Even an a-theist can’t like that too much. Heaven forbid you ever find yourself on the wrong side of political correctness.

          • MisterPine

            No Christians in this country complain of persecution, but that’s because they generally don’t persecute others. They might grumble amongst themselves about gay marriage but they don’t, generally speaking, get involved with GoFundMe accounts or scream that the next thing you know people will want to marry their house plants. If I saw signs of unrest I’d tell you but honestly they just aren’t there.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Dude, that is because if they say anything, the Thought Police come along and fine them! Google: “Gay activists claim redefining marriage won’t hurt anyone, but that’s a lie. Just ask Canadians.”

            My goodness! Jews didn’t complain much in Nazi Germany either – what a poor argument for a guy with such a good sense of humor! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Hmmm, thought police, eh? (Excuse me: Thought Police, capitalized, because of course it is a real organization). Not sure what to tell you, I live here and see no evidence of people being fined. I don’t see people afraid to speak out, I don’t see anyone feeling oppressed. And while it’s true we have a Conservative government, by our standards, that’s still considerably left of your Democrats. Google “Canada happy” and you’ll see we’re one of the more contented nations. Not getting in each other’s faces about things like this is probably a big factor.

          • Patti

            My husband and I make frequent trips to Canada and have never heard a single Canadian complaining about any thought police. And polls in Canada have shown support for gay marriage steadily increasing both before and after it’s legalization, so most people there don’t seem to see a problem.

            There are controversial hate speech laws in Canada that have been used to prosecute critics of homosexuality whom the authorities think are too inflammatory. And there are critics who think Canada’s gone too far. But as far as I know, neither gay marriage nor gay activists got these laws passed. They seem to have more to do with inflammatory language against Jews, Muslims and other religious or ethnic minorities. Anyway, here’s some info on them:

            http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada [Take out the 1 space in front of the period for this link to work.]

        • Isabella1709

          That is not the point…since you don’t understand the point stay out of the conversation.

          • MisterPine

            All right, I’ll play..what IS the point?

          • Kara Connor

            I don’t know about him, but I, and the courts, apparently, think the point is that they must obey the same laws as everyone else if they wish to run a business which is a public accommodation.

        • Wheeler

          How about saying we don’t do weddings, period. Many such businesses are doing just that and will be forced to continue doing just that as long as this vendetta of the gaystupo continues. A few states are even considering stopping doing any marriage licenses at all going forward rather then be forced to comply with amoral laws being forced on them by activist courts. Once marriage is fundametally destroyed and redefined, so to will religious ceremonies soon to be “holy unions” that are in church only with no legal benifits what so ever. Put it simply if the federal government destroys marriage through redefinition of the precepts founded many thousands of years ago then it’s on them to issue a license not states, cause states will just save the money and tax everyone equally by not issuing any marriage licenses at all nor granting a single benifit for it.

          • MisterPine

            You expect to be taken seriously when you use eye-rollingly corny insults like “gaystupo”? I think it’s great that LGBT people are standing up to faith-based bigotry and hatred rather than letting themselves be steamrolled by religious bullies.

        • badmammerjammer

          As I understand it, the wedding was not in anyone’s bedroom…

          • MisterPine

            The perfectly legal wedding was not in a bedroom, correct. The denial of service, however, was because of what goes on there.

  • Zasz

    The bible does not say to stop gay marriage. It says you should kill them (Lev 20:13). If you are not willing to do that, then stop using the bible to justify your discrimination because you arent even following it.

    • The Last Trump

      So….you want them to be killed?
      Wow. That’s harsh, dude. Relax. We’re all friends here.
      Well, mostly. There are exceptions…Paul, Pinemeister, SfBruce, Weasel…

      • Zasz

        I dont want them to be killed. Christians want that. They oppose gays because… well… the bible says so. But the same bible also says to kill gays but christians ignore that part. Its called “cherry picking”.

        • The Last Trump

          Hmmm….that’s funny. Before we just very recently started to mess with the definition of marriage and change hundreds of years of standing laws regarding marriage and family, I just can’t seem to remember all the killings perpetrated by Christians against gays.
          Can you?
          Exactly.

          • Zasz

            Guess what happens if believers get their way in politics? A democracy turns into a theocracy. There are two occurences in the last 2k years of that: The dark ages in europe and arabia which is ruled by the islamic religion.
            To prevent that, the constitution clearly states that america is secular. Everyone is equal! Yet christians want the right to discriminate. If any president agrees with that, welcome to american theocracy.

            Isnt the bible the proof that christians killed gays? You know, the book that is divinely inspired? It still happens in islamic countries. Maybe christians feel more comfortable in those countries.
            And american christians want that back. Today. The results are vilification of homosexuality, discrimination of homosexuals, parents disowning their children and suicidal homosexuals because of all the persecution by christian zealots.

            Why all the hate against homosexuals? Because:
            “Homosexuality is unnatural”…
            It says so in this book with talking snakes, people coming back from the dead, a guy walks on water and a virgin has a baby!!

            Homosexuality exists in over 1500 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which seems unnatural now?

            The truth is that the christian right and the muslim right share a great deal in common, in ideology if not (yet, or anymore) in tactics. Here are some of the tenets of sharia law:
            – government based on religious doctrine
            – non-christians/homosexuals have fewer rights than christians
            – homosexuality is outlawed
            – rejecting science in favor of religious doctrine
            – no seperation between church and state
            – religion is taught in school as fact
            – abortion is illegal
            Curiously, these are the same beliefs of american christians.

            Thats not funny at all.

      • MisterPine

        Yep. Call me crazy, but I like to see hate and bigotry punished.

        • The Last Trump

          Hey Crazy!

          I think you meant, “I like to see hate and bigotry PROMOTED”.
          You forgot about your little hate machine website of bigotry and intolerance, huh? You know, the one you’re always going on about and quoting here because nobody actually goes there? The one with all the twelve year old geeks (at least two anyway) with anger issues? Yeah, yeah, THAT one!

          FSTDT dot com. “Where haters go to hate!” Remember?
          Be sure to check it out folks! Nothing says hate and intolerance quite like MisterPine’s website of discrimination and bullying.

          Punished! Too funny, Pinemeister! Your sarcastic sense of humour is second only to your extreme hate and intolerance.
          Thanks for the laugh, you Christian stalking hater of freedom, you!

          • MisterPine

            Oh no, Rumpy, as usual you have it completely wrong: it’s FSTDT dot com, where fundie bigotry is put on parade and laughed at daily. Have you seen your latest entries? Fascinating stuff, you’re managing to get atheists AND Christians (ACTUAL Christians) annoyed in equal measure!

            Hee, hee! Oh, Rumpy! You try so hard, you silly little pile of crap!

          • MisterPine

            Here are the newest highlights, in response to your AWESOME post about pedophilia and necrophilia being “sexual orientations”:

            (Some of this won’t be new to you, I’ve been trying to tell you the same thing for months):

            Senomaros

            Why are fundies so woefully incapable of
            understanding the very simple concept of sexual orientation? It’s not a
            hard concept to understand.

            There’s no excuse for people being this stupid in the age of the
            internet where libraries of information are right at your fingertips.

            SnowyGlaceon

            Someone doesn’t understand informed consent. A corpse and a child cannot consent, an adult of the opposite sex can.

            And this is a slippery slope argument, as well.

            shy

            “Both would assure you that they were “born that way”. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?”

            Ignoring the obvious slippery slope, if somebody says something
            that “sounds familiar” compared to something else that somebody else
            said, that doesn’t make it automatically true or even relevant,
            dumbf***.

            And the rest of your wharrgarbl still failed to address the OP’s
            remark. Literally nothing in your response was actually relevant to the
            topic at hand.

            Kanna

            Pleasure, you may be startled to know, is pretty popular with normal people. (Perhaps not with Anna Diehl and others of her ilk who act as if they’d sucked lemons for breakfast.) Some things are legal, and none of your business to criticize. Some things are against the law, for good reasons. And some things are against only archaic, religion-based laws, and we are trying to fix that. I’ve kept this explanation really, really simple, because I don’t think you are ready for an advanced course.

    • Kathleen Jones

      That is the old law for the Jewish people, Jesus fulfilled the law and if you try to follow it you are cursed, but He gave a new covenant, also there are sins that are an abomination to God, Homosexuality is one of them, Revelation 22.v15

      • Paul Hiett

        So when Jesus said “I have not come to abolish the law”, what part of that suggests that the laws were abolished?

        • Kathleen Jones

          How come you know so much about the Bible? Read Hebrews and you would see For everyone who depends on legalistic observance of Law commands lives under a curse, since it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the Scroll of the Law, The Messiah redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the law by becoming cursed on our behalf; for the Tanakh says, “Everyone who hangs from a stake comes under a curse.” Gal.3, and read Hebrews 7.

          • Paul Hiett

            But does not Matt 5:17-20 say that “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ?

            Is that not saying that the OT laws are still in effect?

          • Zasz

            Masses of well-documented self-contradiction have never harmed the bible’s popularity.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            First of all, get a real Bible. The KJV is the only one that came entirely from the Textus Receptus, and was not influenced by the Catholic Church. You have to read the right words, first. Second of all, you need to be saved to understand the Bible, as the Bible is a spiritual book written to people who are saved.

            The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The law of the Lord is perfect, and it points out the need for a savior. And while Christians SHOULD keep the law as best as possible they cannot keep it perfectly, and that’s what God requires. Jesus did that for us, and then paid the penalty for our sins in full. Following the Bible is not the plan of salvation, believing on Jesus Christ is. And notice that someone who breaks the commandments is called “least” in the kingdom of heaven–but is still in the kingdom of heaven.

            The OT laws are still in effect, except the ones that have been specifically repealed in the NT, and there are several. The laws on carrying out justice (such as putting homosexuals to death) are obviously laws that are supposed to be carried out by the government. (Romans 13) As individuals, we do not have the right or authority to go and start putting homosexuals or adulterers to death.

            Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
            Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

            Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

            Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

            Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
            Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
            Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

            Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

        • Kathleen Jones

          And also Hebrews 8 v.13 and Hebrews 9

      • Zasz

        Old law? You probably realize that the 10 commandmends are in the old testament too, right? RIGHT? So having a book with all those “old laws” and claiming “they are no longer valid” but cherry picking specific parts of verses and dismissing the rest is dishonest.

        And if your god has a problem with homosexuals, then he should stop making so many of them.

        • Paul Hiett

          FYI, be prepared to be told that you simply aren’t interpreting the Bible the right way.

        • Kathleen Jones

          Number one God does not make homosexuals, the sin in the world and the devil has made everything cursed and upset Gods plans for the world, he still loves them, but knows the consequences of their sexual union will kill them in the end, by the way my ex husband is one and I did not know until we were married, and we are still friends, I do not hate them but I must abide by the word of God not to condone what they do.

          • Zasz

            So the devil is more powerfull than god because he can interfere with gods plan, the allmighty, allpowerfull, allknowing jerk of the universe?
            Its definately not “love” to tell people they must endure eternal torment for having sex.
            The “word of god” actually says that you must kill them. Not to whine all day about things that have zero affect on your pityfull existance. Its hatred and bigotry.

          • Kathleen Jones

            No God is the all powerful one , He cannot look on sin, His ways are higher than our ways, that is why He sent Jesus so that we could be forgiven, God only tells us not to do these things things because He knows that we will get sick and die, if people choose to go against His will and not accept what Jesus has done for us then it is their choice , same as when you discipline children, you tell them not to do things that will hurt them and that IS love. Also the devil will soon be in the lake of fire. God is only allowing him to do what he does now as the devil thinks he can do better than God, but very soon he will be where he should be.

          • Kinsey6

            You’re wrong. Of course God makes homosexuals (assuming he exists). People are gay from birth.

          • Kathleen Jones

            No you are wrong you do not know God!

          • Kinsey6

            No, you are wrong. You do not know science!

          • Kinsey6

            No you’re wrong. You do not know science!

          • Kathleen Jones

            God did not choose them to be homosexual, bi-sexual, etc, H e created man and then woman for the man, no other way

          • Kinsey6

            You need to take a college-level course in human sexuality and stop relying on an ancient, outdated, dusty, bronze-age book of lies, fables, fairy tales and myths written by a bunch of ignorant men who thought the earth was flat. That’s just plain dumb. Don’t be a brainwashed lemming and so obstinate… think for yourself. Study science not hateful bigoted lies if you want to find answers in life. Then you will find that being born gay is perfectly normal for some people.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Your knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures is severely lacking, Zasz.
      Besides, haven’t you heard the latest liberal theology that supports homosexual perversion? The Bible doesn’t have anything bad to say about homosexuality, according to these biblical illiterates. You’re way behind the liberal times, I’m afraid. God Bless!

  • TheBBP

    It appears that all you need is a terms of service in order to secure the right to do business as per your personal beliefs.

  • Kathleen Jones

    yes we should have a Christian Crowd funding site

    • Zasz

      Yes please. A website for christians to make eachother rich not the poor people that really need help, to jerk off to their own bigotry. You would do every credible crowdfunding website a big favour.

      • Kathleen Jones

        No not that at all I am not rich and would not use it for that purpose, I am disabled and retired too. I do not believe in getting rich thingy, Just to help those who need help, there are plenty of Christian charities that help others even those who are not Christians without discrimination, but we have to please God in our beliefs and He said to love our neighbour as ourselves BUT most people forget the first part of Jesus commandments of the new covenant which is : to Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength, this means not to go against His word.

        • Paul Hiett

          Kathleen, what does his “word” say about how you should treat those who lay with men as they lay with women?

          • The Last Trump

            We give up.
            What does it say, trollmeister? Please be verrry specific.
            Many of “your kind” have been here before claiming the Bible doesn’t actually say what we all know that it clearly does about this topic. Help out all the Christians here Paul, and let’s put THAT ridiculous claim to rest once and for all.
            Go on……

          • MisterPine

            Oh this is rich! Rich, rich, rich! More of your “there are no Bible interpretations, only mine which is the right one out of thousands” crapola again, Rumpy?

        • Zasz

          ” He said to love our neighbour as ourselves BUT most people forget the
          first part of Jesus commandments of the new covenant which is : to Love
          the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength, this means not
          to go against His word.”

          You must really hate yourself because of the constant promotion of harm against your neighbors. And by not doing what your god commands you pretend to follow the words of your god. Hypocracy at its best.
          Maybe you should write a new bible that doesnt contain “invalid laws”.

          • Kathleen Jones

            You do not know what you are talking about and I never said I have any hate against my neighbour! Read what I said. God is my judge not any man or woman.

  • dawnrosanne

    I can’t believe Gofundme would shut her down. They obviously are showing which side of this debate they are on.

    • Paul Hiett

      GoFundMe has a policy of not allowing their site to be used for those who have broken the law. They don’t care about the issue one way or another, and they certainly don’t care about religion. Simply put, the account violated their policy, and therefore they enforced it. There was absolutely no “Christian persecution” in this.

      • dawnrosanne

        Sorry Paul. I don’t believe that for a second.

        • Paul Hiett

          You don’t believe that GoFunMe has that policy? Did you read the whole article?

          “It released an explanation for pulling the page, stating that the fundraising site doesn’t allow crowdfunding campaigns for those who have been found guilty of violating laws.”

          “A spokesperson for GoFundMe told the DailySignal that its decision “to remove the ‘Arlene’s Flowers’ campaign was [likewise] based on a violation of GoFundMe’s terms.”

          • dawnrosanne

            Answer me this. How long as Go Fund Me had this policy? Why didn’t they shut down Barronnelle’s Go Fund Me page when she set it up back in February? Why did they allow her to fundraise for 3 months? So, now all of a sudden, Go Fund Me decides to enforce their “policy” after allowing Barronnelle to fundraise for 3 months? Nah….I’m not buying it. They are shutting her down cause they just invited their policy now or they are just now choosing to enforce their policy. Why? Cause they are afraid of the glbtq BACKLASH.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok, so just to be clear, without any supporting evidence, and contrary to the companies own statements and policy, you’re just going to go with your opinion and claim they’re lying.

            Also, from their easily found “terms and conditions” page on things NOT allowed:

            Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts”

            So…you’re just going to claim they’re lying?

          • dawnrosanne

            Many corporations do lie now and then to suit their own purposes and to keep the lawyers away. Yeah, liar liar pants on fire. I don’t buy it for a second. Second point: who is being discriminated against? Barronnelle isn’t doing gay weddings. The government is trying to shut her down and take everything she has. She is the one being discriminated against for her religious beliefs. She sold flowers to her gay friends. She just refused to do a wedding. So, Go Fund Me is picking sides. In my mind, she may be violating the “law” there in Oregon, but it’s a bad law that discriminates against the rights of religious people. I know, I know, you’re gonna say, “She is discriminating against gay people.” And around and around it goes. Gay rights vs. religious rights. Go Fund Me has picked the side they are on.

          • Paul Hiett

            First, the Go Fund Me terms and conditions have been in place for some time. Your claim that they are lying is completely unfounded and entirely your own personal opinion obviously not shared with anyone else.

            Second, “sexual orientation” is a protected status where these incidents have occurred. Because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, businesses may not discriminate against customers based on age, gender, race, and religion. Some states/cities have added “sexual orientation” as a protected status. The owners of the businesses willingly chose to break the law. Sorry, but religious beliefs do not trump the laws of this country.

            If you advertise to the public that you make wedding cakes or provide flowers for weddings, but then refuse based on a protected status, you are in violation of the law, and you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your own actions.

        • Rebecca Spellmeyer

          I have to agree with Dawn. There was no fuss about violations of the policy when her account was set up. The gay rights people got all upset over the amount of money Memories Pizza raised. There whole deal is about ruining that’s person way of life as punishment for their hate speech. I am sure they got together and figured out that policy then when the Sweets Cake page was set up and then they pounced contacting GoFundMe in mass in order to get the account pulled. Once theirs was pulled the florist was next. These fines are so large that it would force them to sell their homes and businesses, empty their savings and basically be homeless which is what they want. The irony of that is the argument they made about memories pizza was how horrible the Christians are for giving the money to bigots over starving kids yet they have no problem making sure the Klein’s children starve. The policy is not always followed as another story found multiple accounts that supported criminals including a child molester. They pulled the account because they are Christians and religion is supposed to be a protected class.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you have any evidence to support what you just claimed? Everything you just said appears to be your opinion, and not rooted in anything factual.

    • misterprecedent

      Why don’t you support GoFundMe’s right to refuse service to certain customers, just like the florist did?

  • disqus_bDYEptNH5o

    Please list the alternatives to GoFundMe.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      Envelope and a stamp.

    • Faithwalker

      As I stated in the post above, her church can serve as a depository for private contributions. The church can set up a benevolent fund for her.

  • John Munro

    They decided to be homosexuals not one forced them !

  • Amanda Richards

    A Christian printing business recently won an appeal after they were sued for refusing to print t-shirts for a gay pride parade. It was determined by the courts that their refusal wasn’t based on the fact that the customer was homosexual, but because what they wanted printed on the shirts went against their beliefs. The fact that they had done work for homosexuals before, and that they had refused other work because of their Christian beliefs (such as refusing to print t-shirts for a strip club) showed that it was not based on discrimination due to the customers being gay.
    All that being said, why isn’t the same logic being applied here? The homosexual in question, who was “a faithful customer”, wasn’t being denied her service because he was gay (since she obviously didn’t have a problem serving gay people) but because their “same sex union” went against her beliefs. That’s not discrimination. Discrimination would be if she were to say, “Bugger off, I don’t serve gay people at all”.

    • Bill

      nope. no message was requested the couple asked for a wedding cake that bakery sells to everyone

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “All that being said, why isn’t the same logic being applied here?”

      Because the florist wasn’t asked to spell out any message with the flowers. The baker was not asked to write a message on the cake.

    • Rebecca Spellmeyer

      It should be and hopefully the SCOTUS will make that ruling. The assumption is that a circle with a line though it is not a message but the words do not enter is. The problem is we don’t know what the shirt design was. If it is a logo then it is symbol just as flowers and a cake are a symbol.

    • Zasz

      “That’s not discrimination. Discrimination would be if she were to say, “Bugger off, I don’t serve gay people at all”.”
      Its exactly the same and that is discrimination. Using your religion as an excuse makes it even worse.

    • misterprecedent

      Did she also refuse to provide cakes for wedding receptions for divorced people, or those who had had premarital sex or did her conscience only apply to homosexual sinners?

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    That’s terrible. I can’t believe that GoFundMe took down this page because it violates how they want to run their business when the purpose of the page was to support someone who wants to run her business as she wants. Especially considering that GoFundMe is the only way for people to donate money to Arlene.

    • misterprecedent

      You want a business to NOT discriminate against a business that DID discriminate? Why do you think it is ok for the baker but not for GoFundMe?

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Sorry if you missed the sarcasm.

  • Faithwalker

    Since the terms and conditions of go fund me are allegedly being violated, contributions of private donations leave no room for protests. I would suggest that her church become the depository for contributions. Satan is forever up to his shenanigans, but ultimately God is still in control and pouring out blessings to the faithful.

  • bowie1

    She is now filing an appeal in her case so let’s hope this decision can be reversed.

    • Faithwalker

      In the name of Jesus, I pray victory for all of the Christian businesses who are being persecuted for their faith.

      • Paul Hiett

        How is it that a Christian business is being “persecuted” when they were the ones who broke the law?

        • Faithwalker

          Notice how I pointed out the distinction between God’s law and man’s law.

          • Paul Hiett

            But they’re still not being persecuted.

          • Faithwalker

            The term “persecution” in my statement is contextually based from a biblical perspective. Your perspective is based on a secular viewpoint. So I understand the disconnect.

          • Paul Hiett

            There is no disconnect. The lawsuit did not care about the bakers religion. The customer was not suing the bakery because the owner was Christian. The baker decided to break the law, willingly. The lawsuit was because of violation of the law; the owners religion had nothing to do with it.

        • Crono478

          Paul, don’t forget that we had this discussion last night. They had their conscience violated and defied the law. I’ll quote what you told me below:

          “If a law exists that I feel violates my conscience, I have to make a choice. Violate the law, and risk the consequences in an attempt to change the law…or do nothing. It certainly would depend upon the law itself.”

          • Paul Hiett

            That doesn’t qualify as persecution though, does it?

          • Crono478

            You’d technically get persecuted if you suffered the consequence for defying the law that is against your conscience.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Crono, that is entirely untrue. She was the one that persecuted, not the other way around. She offered goods/services to the general public, and then decided to refuse service to a customer based on the customers sexual orientation.
            In no way, shape, or form, was the business owner ever “persecuted”.

          • Crono478

            Paul, she served them many times, and knew that they were homosexuals. She did not discriminate them based on sex orientation. It was all until she was asked to provide service for their wedding. She declined because it violated her conscience, not because she discriminated against them.

            Puritans and protestants emigrated to America because they were persecuted for not obeying laws that were against their conscience. We are starting to see this all again in U.S.

          • Paul Hiett

            Here’s a simple question. What reason did the baker give for not providing a wedding cake, something she advertised to the general public for?

            Is that reason a protected status in that state?

            What happens to people who willingly break the law, regardless if they feel the law “violates their conscience”?

          • Crono478

            She told the homosexual couple that she cannot bake cake for their same sex wedding because it violates their belief. The state law forbids discrimination based on basis of race, sex orientation and so on. Because of the baker’s faith, she could not obey the law and experienced the consequence for it.

            “What happens to people who willingly break the law, regardless if they feel the law “violates their conscience”?”

            You already answered your own question with answer you gave me: “If a law exists that I feel violates my conscience, I have to make a choice. Violate the law, and risk the consequences in an attempt to change the law…or do nothing. It certainly would depend upon the law itself.”

            Please think about your own answer you gave me. Do not be disconnected on this one.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s right, ergo she discriminated…or “persecuted”, if you will…against the customer. That’s illegal. Her faith does not trump the law, and that is why she was sued and lost. She broke the law.

            I was asking you what happens to them, not me. Keep focused here.

            Also, yes, it’s a choice people have to make. If you feel the law is unjust and violates your conscience, well…you can break the law, but don’t complain when you’re caught doing it and suffer the consequences. Apparently, the baker felt that breaking the law was worth it.

          • Crono478

            Paul, the law conflicts with 1st Amendment. She got convicted by the law for discriminating against homosexual couple based on sex orientation. At the same time, she suffered because she and her business suffered because she was exercising her freedom of religion.

            The 1st amendment should be trumping any law when it causes people to violate their beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            Crono, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 puts religious beliefs underneath civil rights, as it should be. Freedom of religion does not grant the right to discriminate when it comes to businesses. You can’t, as a Christian (or any other religion) discriminate against a person of another religion. Can you imagine the uproar you’d have if you walked into a Muslim store and were refused service because you’re a Christian?

            This is what the CRA protects us against…illegal discrimination. Some states now include sexual orientation in that list. As many have pointed out, your religious “rights” end where others begin. She only “suffered” because she willingly and knowingly broke the law.

          • Crono478

            You asked me this question and the answer is wrong. A Christian business should be in trouble IF they refuse to serve people simply because they are homosexuals. These businesses have served homosexuals many times without any problem. There is nothing discriminatory about this. Business owners declined business with them ONLY when it causes conflict with their religious belief. (that is, to provide product or service for something that is sinful such as same-sex marriage).

          • Paul Hiett

            The business owner refused to serve the customer because they were homosexual. That’s exactly what they did!

            Why on earth would you claim they didn’t?

          • Crono478

            Paul, the business owner has served them many times. She never refused them because they are homosexual.

            She refused to provide cake for the homosexual couple’s wedding because it conflicts with her belief. This is two entirely different matter.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can’t discriminate on sexual orientation! Calling it a conflict of her beliefs doesn’t detract from the fact that she discriminated. You’re just putting lipstick on a pig here.

          • Crono478

            You have missed the point, these businesses have served homosexual customers many many many times.

            Now, we get to this discussion again. If you are a business owner, will you be okay with providing product or service if your conscience get violated in any way?

          • Paul Hiett

            My conscience doesn’t not overrule the law, Crono. No matter how many times we discuss this, that part does not change. The business owner used her religion as a base to discriminate against a homosexual person, which is illegal in that state.

            No amount of posturing on your part can change the facts.

            1. The business owner advertised wedding cakes for weddings.

            2. Customer wanted to purchase a wedding cake.

            3. Business owner refused on the grounds that the customer was a homosexual.

            4. Business owner broke the law.

            Those are the facts, and the facts prove the business owner is in the wrong.

          • Crono478

            Let me correct you

            1. The business owner advertised wedding cakes for weddings.
            2. Customer wanted to purchase a wedding cake.
            3. Business owner refused on the grounds that it was for same sex marriage, which is against her belief
            4. Business owner did not break the law and was wrongly convicted of it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh sweet jeezus, now you’re simply being obtuse.

            The business owner can’t cite homosexuality as a reason to refuse service, regardless of her religious beliefs.

            Why you can’t understand this is amazing…

          • Crono478

            Paul, I could say same thing about you too. You would let your conscience be violated in honor of the law of the land.

          • Paul Hiett

            Answer this simple question please:

            Regardless of ones religious beliefs, can a business owner refuse service to a customer based on a protected status?

          • Crono478

            No, because we have our conscience. It is built in us. It is something that nags us all the time. It reminds us what is wrong and what is right. It can be quite powerful to compel you to the point that you may disobey even if it’s law.

          • Paul Hiett

            And when you willingly choose to break the law, what then happens? And when that something happens, who’s fault is it?

            Obviously rhetorical questions.

            Your claim that the business owner did not break the law is incorrect, since the law clearly shows that she did.

          • Crono478

            Paul, you continue to dodge me on conscience part and focus on the law itself. You are obviously uncomfortable with this. Our conscience is what remind us what is right and what is wrong. It reminds us of wrongdoings we have committed.

            Have you ever think about doing something wrong but you would feel guilty if you do this?

          • Paul Hiett

            What are you looking for here in your questioning? I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself. If a law exists that someone feels (even myself) is unjust, then we all have a choice to make. Either we disobey the law based on how we feel, and accept the consequences, or we abide by the law and work to get it changed.

            Dislike of a law will never excuse you from the consequences of breaking the law.

          • Crono478

            Yes, Christian businesses chose to disobey the law and accepted the consequence. They would never abide by the law and work to get it changed because of their conscience.

            You are willing to follow law if it violates your conscience and we Christians are not wiling to. This a big difference. The reason is, we have fear of God.

          • misterprecedent

            Cake isn’t eaten at a wedding. It’s eaten at a reception. Did she ask all homosexual customers the purpose of every other celebration before agreeing to sell them a cake?

          • Crono478

            Thanks for being technical with me. The point remains same, she could not provide the cake at the reception where people celebrate the marriage between a homosexual couple.

            It is the homosexual couple that told her what it is for. That is why she declined to do that for them.

          • misterprecedent

            If her faith is so important to her, why did she ever serve gay people at all? Is she a lukewarm Christian? What exactly is her conscience based on?

          • Crono478

            No, she is not a lukewarm Christian. It is not wrong to serve sinners. Gay people is of no exception. Jesus did not avoid sinners. Rather, he went to them and served them in many different ways. There is a reason why He did do this. It is because His kindness is meant to lead them to their repentance (Romans 2:4).

            What we need to do is not to partake in any activities that are sinful ( 1 Tim 5:22). Jesus never sinned at all and bore all of our sins on the Cross for us. This is the example He gave us to follow.

            If anyone is a lukewarm Christian, then it means they would serve sinners and partake in sinful activities with them. It is sickening to the Lord.

  • Faithwalker

    Since the terms and conditions of the go fund me site are allegedly being violated, private donations by Christians for Christians would leave no room for protests. The article states “Some Christians are now calling for the creation of a Christian crowdfunding site where believers can support each other in their time of need.” I would say to this, that the site would still have to abide by the laws of the land. Which btw, as we on a daily basis, the laws of the land are not compatible with God’s law. I would suggest that her church become the depository for contributions. Satan is forever up to his shenanigans, but ultimately God is still in control and pouring out blessings to the faithful.

  • Webb

    GoFundMe is obviously a leftist front that needs to be boycotted.

    • Paul Hiett

      GoFundMe doesn’t care about the issue. Their policy clearly states that they don’t allow their site to be used to support someone who broke the law.

      Why would you think that has anything to do with being “left” or “right”?

  • Steven J Button

    Oh, boo hoo. Law breakers get no sympathy from me.

  • Kinsey6

    GoFundMe did the right and moral thing. This has nothing to do with living and working in a manner that’s consistent with so-called “Christians” beliefs about marriage. This is about discrimination and marginalization of innocent GLBT people to keep them as second-class citizens with fewer rights than the ones that these kkkristians gladly take for granted. The religious reich doesn’t want equality though. They’re so scared that equality for others means marginalization for them that they’ll cry “PERSECUTION!” at the drop of a hat. If they can’t discriminate, then they say they’re being “persecuted”. That’s what this comes down to. Such absolute hypocrites they are! Of course, being a hypocrite is certainly nothing new for kkkristians. How many times have we heard of a “pastor” or “priest” who is secretly diddling other men on the down low (or even children!), or beating his wife while preaching against the “sin” of being gay the next day in church, or “Christian” congressmen who vote against pro-equality GLBT measures while posting pictures of his penis for other men on gay dating sites? The list of kkkristian hypocrisy is literally endless. But their belief system makes is way too easy for them to act in deplorable ways then just ask for forgiveness the next day and all is forgiven. In this respect, atheists and free-thinkers are far, far more moral people than Christians are.

    What’s sad is that the people screaming the loudest about their made up “religious freedom” argument are also the ones who are the most hateful, hypocritical, immoral, evil, discriminatory, and least Christlike. If they’re supposed to love their neighbors, or “love the sinner, but hate the (so-called) ‘sin’,” then the most vocal among the religious activists are utter failures as Christians.

    These cuckoo-for-crazy-puffs kkkristians who discriminate against innocent GLBT people are bad, bad people… evil to the core… and they absolutely deserve to lose their businesses over their immoral acts.

  • MisterPine

    Perhaps there should be a website for fundamentalists called “GoFundie” which will allow faith-based bigotry to be rewarded with cash donations.

    • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

      It sounds like perhaps you are a bit bigoted against fundamentalists.

      • MisterPine

        Not bigoted…realistic.

        • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

          You are expressing your disdain for an entire group of people; in a mocking and derogatory fashion, this fits in pretty much with the definition of bigotry. You even made the effort to come on a website specifically geared towards the group you disdain. I can say I have never gone on a gay website and made a derogatory post there.

          Oh well, I guess I’m still the one that hates people, and you’re just perfectly unbiased and realistic.

          • MisterPine

            Well, let me clarify then. If you are a Christian who believes that your faith gives you the right to deny service to someone based on what you are imagining is going on in their bedrooms, then you subscribe to faith-based bigotry.

            Going to try to tell me there are no people like that on this forum? Do you think perhaps that if they didn’t discriminate in that way, they wouldn’t be accused of faith-based hatred?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It’s not our faith that gives us this right, Mr. Pine. It’s a right protected by the U.S. Constitution, the right to contract.
            How many times do I have to explain this to you? Sheesh!

          • MisterPine

            You haven’t “explained” ANYTHING to me, Nick from Detroit. All you’ve done is shown a lack of education regarding the Constitution. Unless you’d like to tell me where the Constitution gives you the right to use your faith to treat others like garbage. Which of course you can’t.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Of course I’ve explained these simple issues to you, many, many times before. You just don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand them, Mr. Pine.
            And, since I don’t “treat others like garbage,” this is just another of your repeated straw men.
            But, the Constitution does prohibit the several States from interfering with the right to contract. Which I’ve explained to you, ad nauseam.

          • MisterPine

            No, Nick from Detroit, you don’t treat others like garbage. That’s why you call them things like “homo-fascists,” that’s just your cute little pet name for the people you love so much. Strawman, eh? Do tell.

            “the Constitution does prohibit the several States from interfering with the right to contract. Which I’ve explained to you, ad nauseam.”

            It’s ad nauseum. And no you haven’t. And no it doesn’t. Link please.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “[T]hat’s just your cute little pet name for the people you love so much.”
            Well, I don’t call people homo-fascists. I call the actual homo-fascists…homo-fascists. See the difference, Mr. Pine?

            “It’s ad nauseum.”
            Umm…no, it’s not, Einstein. It’s ad nauseam. You should really double-check these things first, before being so emphatic.
            So as not to look so foolish, as you have continued to do, just about every time you reply to me. I’m pretty sure that I’ve also explained this to you, repeatedly.
            Oh well. You might learn, someday.

            How would a Canuck, like yourself, know what the U.S. Constitution says, Mr. Pine?
            Since too much Labatts has obviously killed your memory cells, I’ll tell you, again, that the right to contract is found in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1:
            “No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Con-tracts….”

            This is above the comprehension level of most hosers, Mr. Pine.

          • MisterPine

            “Well, I don’t call people homo-fascists. I call the actual homo-fascists…homo-fascists. See the difference, Mr. Pine?”

            Nope. All I see is a lot of hate. Not surprised at your reasoning, though. Because you’re seeing “actual homo-fascists” where there are none.

            “Umm…no, it’s not, Einstein. It’s ad nauseam. You should really double-check these things first, before being so emphatic.”

            It appears to be both.

            “No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Con-tracts….”

            And what does that mean to you, Nick from Detroit? What do you think it really, actually means? Specifically, contract rights? Let’s find out who’s talking out his behind.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “Nope. All I see is a lot of hate.”
            Well, that’s because you’re a hate-filled and hate-ful person, Mr. Pine. All you do all day is troll Christian blogs and spew your anti-Christian bigotry. You project your hatred on loving, God-fearing Christians, like myself, in a failed attempt to make yourself feel better. It’s rather sad, really.

            “It appears to be both.”
            It appears that you’re a twit, Mr. Pine. And, a liar, too. Plug in “ad nauseum [sic]” into google, and it only gives results for ad nauseam. The first is from wiki, and the second from Merriam-Webster. It is Latin, ya’ know?
            I know google is made for at least 9-year-olds to use, so, maybe you’re out of your skill level, eh?

            “What do you think it really, actually means?”
            I think it means exactly what the founders said it means. Since, thanks to all of the anti-Christian bigots, like you, we can’t seem to post links here anymore; here’s a quote:

            Article I, Section 10, contains a list of prohibitions concerning the role of the states in political, monetary, and economic affairs. As the Constitutional Convention was completing its work on prohibiting states from issuing paper money as legal tender, Rufus King of Massachusetts rose to propose “a prohibition on the States to interfere in private contracts.” King relied on a central provision of the Northwest Ordinance:
            [I]n the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

            Not that you’ll understand any of that, of course. Maybe you can get Paul to help you out?

          • MisterPine

            “Well, that’s because you’re a hate-filled and hate-ful person, Mr. Pine.”

            Cheap insults may be all you have, Nick from Detroit, but they pale in the absence of facts and data, which I know are not your strong suit. So, here are some indisputable facts.

            Posting on this board does not automatically make a person that you disagree with, no matter how fundamentally, a “troll”. A troll would be posting things to get a rise out of you and wouldn’t return to engage with you over and over. That should suggest to you that I’m actually making an attempt at penetrating your thick skull.

            Point two, “loving, God-fearing Christians” don’t hate homosexuals, don’t deny service to homosexuals, don’t judge homosexuals, and don’t break the law to cause further grief to homosexuals. So if you see yourself as the very model of a modern major Christian, you have lots of work to do.

            “interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements”

            That is the line I want you to focus on, Nick from Detroit. Now think very carefully about what you THINK that means. Don’t give me any more definitions from other sources. Tell me what YOU think that phrase means.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re the king of the cheap insult, Mr. Pine. And, yes, disagreeing doesn’t make one a troll. Insulting Christians, on a Christian site, day after day after day, with anti-Christian bigotry, does make one a troll.
            Own your trolliness, Mr. Pine. Don’t try to slither out of it like a snake.

            I don’t hate homosexuals, nor, do I judge and condemn them, or, break the law to cause them grief. If I had a dime for every straw man you’ve constructed in your lame, bigoted arguments, I’d be rich by now!
            However, Christians believe that there are justified reasons to discriminate against sinful behavior. Homosexual acts fall into that criteria. Which is why Memories Pizza, Arlene’s Floweres, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, etc., have done nothing immoral.

            Umm…where’s your proof that “ad nauseum [sic]” is used along with ad nauseam? Can’t you admit that you’re a liar, Mr. Pine?

            “Don’t give me any more definitions from other sources.”

            You asked me for a source, brainiac! Now, you don’t want one? Why? Because it’ll make you look even more foolish, Mr. Pine?
            It means exactly what the Northwest Ordinance said it did. Is English your second language? Is this why you have no opinion on bilingual laws? Are you part Frog?

          • MisterPine

            “You’re the king of the cheap insult, Mr. Pine”

            Excuse me Nick from Detroit, but when a person uses their religion for purposes of persecution and hatred toward others and is called out, they are not cheap insults. But when the same fundamentalist bigot throws around phrases like “homo-fascists”, clearly cheap insults are the order of the day.

            You have been caught in more lies than practically anyone else on this forum. It’s clear from your behavior that you’re a troll par excellence. The irony of you calling ME a troll is delicious.

            “I don’t hate homosexuals, nor, do I judge and condemn them, or, break the law to cause them grief.”

            That’s some BS right there, because you DO do those things. You openly applaud Christian bigots who use their faith to illegally shut out homosexuals from shopping.

            “However, Christians believe that there are justified reasons to
            discriminate against sinful behavior. Homosexual acts fall into that criteria.”

            If the actions are not illegal, then no you don’t. And you are a hypocrite of the highest order for not feeling the same way towards other behavior equally referred to as “sinful” in the Bible. You have no issue, for example providing services to divorcees.

            “Umm…where’s your proof that “ad nauseum [sic]” is used along with ad nauseam? Can’t you admit that you’re a liar, Mr. Pine?”

            Both uses are acceptable.

            “You asked me for a source, brainiac!”

            No I didn’t, Nick from Detroit. You complete and utter doofus – you PROVIDED the source, which is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. Now I want to make sure you understand the words of what you’re reading in it, so I don’t want you tap dancing around the issue anymore, TELL ME what YOU think “interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements” means. This is the second time I am asking you, and I’m sure I will be asking many more times because you never, ever provide a straight answer.

            “Are you part Frog?”

            That you are also a racist among your other talents comes as no surprise, Nick from Detroit.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else is imagining is going on in their bedroom. If they kept it in the bedroom, Christian business owners would probably have no problem serving them.

            When you come in and announce you are marrying someone of the same gender, you kind of take all the imagination out of things. Or when you ask someone to print slogans that go against what you believe, etc.

            The florist mentioned here did not say “get out of here, I hate you”. She took the person’s hand and politely apologized and said she could not do this based on her beliefs. Then the people sued her. It sounds like the hatred was against the florist…she never tried to sue anyone or run anyone out of business.

            It’s not hatred to follow what you believe. Everyone has faith in
            something….Atheists by and large have faith in the big bang and
            evolution, there is no scientific proof of any of that, it is just what
            they believe. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. By the way, it doesn’t stop there. Divorce is a major sin, and a person who gets divorced is an adulterer according to the Bible, and also deserving of the death penalty. It’s not hatred, it’s morality. And we all come short of God’s standards.

          • MisterPine

            “If they kept it in the bedroom, Christian business owners would probably have no problem serving them.” Maybe you live on a different planet than I do, but gay people deep it in the bedroom just as much as straight people do.

            “When you come in and announce you are marrying someone of the same gender, you kind of take all the imagination out of things.” Which is unlike straight couples HOW, exactly?

            “She took the person’s hand and politely apologized and said she could not do this based on her beliefs. Then the people sued her.” Yes. As they should. What if it was a business owner who refused service to a fundamentalist Christian based on the business owner’s beliefs? Some of the twisted beliefs of fundamentalists are pretty offensive too. But you can’t do THAT, either.

            “It’s not hatred to follow what you believe.” Depends on the belief. Many Christians think that people choose to be gay, and that gay people are deliberately slapping God across the face, when I’m sure most gay people don’t consider what they do being offensive to God in any way, if they believe in God. But if in your state gay marriage is legal and two gay people get married, they haven’t broken any laws so what’s the basis for denying service to them? See now why it comes across hateful?

            And yes, you mentioned divorce too. Has there ever been a case of someone denying service to someone because they were divorced? I don’t think so.

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            Actually, a pastor WAS recently denied business because he was a fundamentalist. A pastor was publishing a DVD called “AIDS: The Judgment of God” and a DVD company refused to publish them. The pastor did not take them to court and sue them for emotional damages; instead he went to another business that did publish them. He even stated in his blog he supported the business’s right to do that. There’s quite a difference of reactions to being refused service there. My reaction would be the same. I was once refused service on totally different grounds. You know what? I didn’t lawyer up. I went somewhere that would serve me. That’s called living in a civil society.

            And I’m not sure how old you are, but divorce used to be a very shameful act even among NON-Christians. My grandparents practically disowned my Dad for getting a divorce., and that was only 30 years ago. I’m sure if you went back far enough you would find a Christian business refusing to do business with someone divorced.

  • Reason2012

    Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” celebration? No.

    And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No.

    The only bigotry here is those of homosexual activists towards Christians.

  • Gauy

    Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person to get to heaven. Obviously, she wont’ have a hard time going through the gate.

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    So, all of the homo-fascists, like Washington’s [email protected] General Bob Ferguson, aren’t satisfied with destroying the lives of these poor business owners and depriving them of their livelihoods and ability to feed their children, now, these anti-Christian bigots have bullied GoFundMe into shutting down their donation pages.
    Well, it’s not going to work, homo-fascists.

    People can still donate at Franklin Graham’s site (son of Reverend Billy Graham), SamaritanPurse DOT Org.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

    If I were a Christian baker ,florist ,photographer …as of this moment I would stop servicing all weddings …christian ,secular and gay…. …other occasions ..fine …. just not weddings … discrimination is then not a issue …. this whole issue is being driven via activist that want evangelical Christians to bow and submit to their creed and go against principles in scripture ….its not like there are no secular proprietors that would be more than willing ..there is tons of them .

  • Patti

    Some Christians are now calling for the creation of a Christian crowdfunding site where believers can support each other in their time of need.

    That’s actually a good idea of you’re determined to keep fighting these battles. Surely some of you must have some programming skills. It would make more sense than depending on gay friendly Silicon Valley to bail you out. Though a better idea might be to treat gay people better and quit pretending you know more about their lives than they do. I’ve read one mean thing after another on these boards from Christians who feel a religious obligation to denigrate gay people. And it’s been largely Christians who want to deny gay families the protections of marriage, deny gay step parents the right to adopt their partner’s children, and in years past championed sodomy laws (which were only enforced against gays). And now you’re complaining about persecution, the same thing many of you have been doing for years.

    Pogo: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

  • Peter Leh

    ““After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet
    Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our terms and
    conditions,”

    sweet cakes seems to have a pattern of violating terms and conditions both with the state AND gofundme.

    that is not persecution, folks. that is poor character.

  • Titan000

    Samaritans purse

  • Patti

    Newsweek just came out with a good article on this topic:

    Blaming People for Being Gay is Like Blaming Them for Being Left-Handed
    BY KURT EICHENWALD 5/5/15 AT 6:23 AM

    Isn’t it awful how often gay people just flat-out lie?

    Hundreds of thousands of them say they didn’t choose to be gay. Didn’t choose to risk being beaten by some passing yahoo. Didn’t choose to risk being cut off from their families. Didn’t choose to be in a society where strangers decide what rights they have, what jobs they can keep, where they can live, whether they can marry, whether they can adopt the children they raise or be at the bedside of a dying loved one.

    What a bunch of frauds. In fact, why should anyone trust homosexuals to explain their personal realities when there are heterosexuals readily available to educate the world on the choice of being gay? I often wonder what it was like when former GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum confronted his temptation to be in a passionate relationship with a man and then rejected it. Same with Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, conservative darling and another “it’s all a choice” advocate—imagine the time he pondered whether to be sexually aroused by the caress of a man or by the touch of a woman. Decisions, decisions.

    Setting sarcasm aside, who can still believe being gay is a choice? You can’tchoose the reactions of your autonomic nervous system—which governs involuntary bodily functions like heart rate and sexual arousal. For the religious, that is how God made things function. And who are you to question his handiwork?

    Unfortunately, bias has long been allowed to deny the brain’s role in determining who we are. When my grandfather was a boy, his teachers slapped his hand whenever he wrote lefty. Being left-handed, they told him, was obviously a choice since the Bible made it clear that left was the side of Satan. The right hand of God was glorious in power, reads Exodus; God sends the blessed to his right and the damned to his left. So deciding to use his left hand meant my grandfather had aligned himself with Beelzebub, and needed to feel the pain of a loving God through the smack of a ruler. When that didn’t work, his left hand was tied down. As a result, my grandfather was forced to use his right hand, which our family believes led to neurological problems later in life.

    We now look back at those times with pity. If only those teachers had known that left-handedness is almost always determined before birth. How would they feel confronting the fact that the God whom they thought hated the left had, by their own beliefs, created left-handedness? That they beat and bound children for being the way nature made them?

    In that case, science overcame superstition and forced an acceptance that left-handers have no choice. We still don’t know how it happens—scientists are only now finding a link between gene PCSK6 and handedness, but no educated person of any Western nation denies anymore that being a lefty is the consequence of biology.

    So, as willfully ignorant Americans blather on about the unnatural choice of being left-handed—I mean, homosexual—let’s look at what the science says. Hundreds of species engage in homosexual behavior—swans, elephants, bison, apes. For example, about 8 percent of rams exhibit sexual preference for males; researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University discovered a cell group called the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus is twice as large in rams that prefer ewes compared with those that prefer other rams.

    There are genetic differences between gay and straight people as well. The May 2015 issue of Psychological Medicine found significant linkage between gay sexual orientation and genes on the pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28. Plenty of studies that have found other correlations.

    Still—biology, neurochemicals, chromosomes—throw it all aside. Here are the facts that matter most: The vast majority of homosexuals know they were born gay. Large numbers report they had same-sex attractions when in middle school, some before they even knew homosexuality was a thing. Go to YouTube and search “my coming out story” and listen to a few of the people who agonized over their sexuality, told friends and family and were greeted either with love or scorn.

    Many of the heterosexuals who insist homosexuality is a choice are basing that judgment on a few sentences in the Bible, a 2,000-year-old book that most of them never bother to read. I’ve already written about cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they consider worthy of their rage—for example, homosexuality is referenced as a sin in the same chapter that condemns gossips, the haughty, the foolish, and so on. (And all of those types deserve to die, it says—check out Romans 1:29-32.) Contrary to what biblical frauds claim, homosexuality is not given highlighted significance over other sins. In fact, all you women who attend church in your Sunday best, bedizened in jewels and pearls while listening to sermons vomiting hellfire about homosexuals? You’re sinners condemned to hell (1 Timothy 2:9), and I won’t bake you a cake.

    Which brings us to gay marriage, a topic that has generated some of history’s most ridiculous legal arguments by those fighting it. Opponents who can’t argue religion in the courtroom claim that, once gay marriage is legal, people like Santorum and Carson—you know, straight guys—will abandon their families, become drug addicts, and stop doing hobbies.

    Exposing the silliness of these legal arguments misses the real point: It is obscene that our society thinks it has the right to dictate whether consenting adults can lawfully marry. The question should not be how the Supreme Court will rule on whether gays have the right to wed; the true issue, the true measure of our hard-heartedness and hypocrisy, is that this has been placed before acourt at all. Politicians, judges, voters, you, me—none of us has the moral right to decide which adult should love whom when there is no true societal interest. Most living Americans—including me—owe a collective apology that it took us decades to recognize the indecency of blithely ignoring the desire of loving gay couples to marry and our continuing belief that we should have any input into this.

    Gay marriage opponents must argue that being gay is a choice—against all evidence, science and logic—because otherwise they have to confront this: Either God is a monster, condemning people to eternal torture for being what he made them, or the Bible—with its endless contradictions, its magicians turning sticks into snakes, its celebration of slavery and genocide—was not handed down by a deity. Or, most likely, they avoid reading the Bible and proclaim themselves righteous. Too many pick option three, then whine about how they are religiously oppressed because they might have to cater a gay wedding (Imagine how these crybabies would have handled real Christian persecution in the early fourth century, when the faithful were burned alive rather than just required to put a dessert in the oven?)

    There is a simple solution for Christians and other religious sects who feel oppressed by gay marriage: If they want to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding—or for gays at all—let them. Except first, they have to take a quiz about their religion and then deny services to every sinner identified in their Holy Scriptures—otherwise, they are using faith as a front for bigotry.

    Don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Then no cakes for second marriages of divorced women (Matthew 5:32); or for weddings where people get drunk (1 Peter 4:3); or banquets where the hosts failed to invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind (Luke 14:13); or for women who prayed at a religious ceremony without their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11:6).

    In other words, these bakers have to close their businesses since, by their own scriptures, everyone is a sinner. Or they can admit their hypocrisy—which the Bible says repeatedly is a huge sin.

    And they don’t get any cake either