GoFundMe Changes Policy to Ban Fundraising for Those Accused of ‘Discriminatory Acts’

GoFundMeThe popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe has changed its policy to ban fundraising for those merely accused of engaging in “discriminatory acts” just days after it shut down two fundraising campaigns for persecuted Christian businesses.

As previously reported, last Friday, GoFundMe removed 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 because of their Christian beliefs.

Administrators had been urged by homosexual advocates to have the campaign removed. A Facebook page surrounding the effort proclaimed, “How fast can we shut this down?”

Within hours, GoFundMe disabled the fundraiser, and in releasing an explanation for pulling the page, officials stated 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.”

Just 48 hours later, the fundraiser for Arlene’s Flowers/Baronelle Stutzman, who is at risk of losing her business, home and/or life savings for declining to use her services for a same-sex “wedding,” was taken down for the same reason. 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.”

Now, GoFundMe has changed its policy to ban fundraisers for those who are merely accused of engaging in “discriminatory acts.” According to reports, its previous policy banned “campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.” The revised policy now prohibits “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Some are now decrying the move, stating that GoFundMe’s actions are a means to justify their capitulation to homosexual advocates.

“GoFundMe may want to appear as if it has a neutral policy prohibiting funds from being raised for certain activities,” Travis Weber of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty told the Washington Post. “But it is apparent that GoFundMe is seeking to slap several words onto their ‘policy’ merely to cover up the reality that they actually dropped the Kleins’ page because they were scared of cranky LGBT activists.”

Weber noted that the first policy, which was used against Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Arlene’s Flowers, dealt with criminal convictions, and neither one of the businesses had faced criminal charges—only civil litigation. The new policy prohibits crowdfunding campaigns for anyone who has even had a “claim” of discrimination leveled against them.

Jim Treacher wrote in the Daily Caller on Friday that he believes that GoFundMe is being discriminatory themselves.

“So GoFundMe is retroactively justifying the decision to discriminate against them. It’s not groveling in front of an angry mob, you guys, honest it isn’t. It’s just policy,” he wrote. “GoFundMe has the right to refuse service to anyone, of course. I just wonder if anyone there can grasp the irony.”

Both Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Arlene’s Flowers regularly serve homosexuals and both cases involve return customers who the business owners had considered their friends.


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
  • FoJC_Forever

    In like manner as the mob outside Lot’s house cried for him to send the Angels, whom they thought were men, out so they could “know them carnally”, homosexual activists are harassing businesses and society to allow them the power to force others to participate in their lust, in one manner or another. This is a step-by-step process. Each step gets America closer to being a full blown Sodom and Gomorrah. They sound reasonable, but under the cheerful reason is anger, rage, and vengeance.

    It’s obvious that gofundme is pro-sin and anti-freedom for everyone.

    • uzza

      If that’s what the homosexuals are doing, then we should be just and righteous like Lot and provide them with a little child rape instead. Follow the Bible, yo. /s

      • Machiavellian

        Actually, if you read the story carefully, it was Lot’s daughters who raped him. Sure, Lot drank the wine willingly but he didn’t consent to “sleep” with his daughters.

        The victim there was the man not the girls. Disturbing, eh?

        • uzza

          And in Phoenix Tuesday a child molester “claimed that the little girl grabbed his hand and forced him to inappropriately touch her private parts, according to the arresting officer’s report.” She was four.
          It’s difficult to imagine anyone naive enough to believe these excuses, but here you are.

          Meanwhile, back on the topic and back before he did it himself, Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped by a mob. To us Pagans that’s a fair bit less moral than baking a cake.

          • Machiavellian

            That story shocked me.

            Now, I don’t like the idea of him giving his daughters to a mob to do to them whatever they want. I think it insane and barbaric. Judges 19:22-30 is another example of the same thing.

            However, it was Lot’s daughters the ones that planned on giving him the wine to make him drunk and then ‘sleeping’ with him when he had no idea what was going on. Nowhere in all translations (Good News, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, Amplified Bible) I’ve read of the Bible so far there is an indication of Lot thinking about ‘sleeping’ with his daughters . There’s no indication of what age Lot’s daughters were but they knew what they doing and they did it to preserve the lineage of their father, even though, they raped him. I’ve had many nonbelievers and believers discuss this story and all of them agree on that, you’re the first one who doesn’t.

            Read the story one more time and you’ll see.

          • uzza

            No matter how many times I read the story it will still say the same thing, the same as a thousand other stories written by molesters who blame their victims. It will employ the same old sorry excuses–he is not to blame because:
            he didn’t know what he was doing;she wanted it; there was a good reason (the ‘lineage’ gambit); it all worked out for the best; no one was hurt by it.

            Anyone who’s ever worked with sexual abuse will recognize every one of these rationalizations, that perpetrators invariably employ when they tell their stories. When the stories are told by the victims they sound quite different. Lot’s tale is just a typical example in a sea of millions.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Well, you’re wrong about the context of the Scriptures, and I doubt you want to be shown the Truth.

            I suppose you think it is impossible for someone to be so drunk they don’t know with whom they are having sex? It can work both ways. For anyone to not recognize this reality is clear evidence of ignorance.

            Salvation doesn’t come from a Savior of Lot’s lineage. Lot was Abraham’s nephew. We are of the Faith of Abraham, which means we believe God when He speaks to us. Our Righteousness is a gift given to us through the living Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ, the Son of God.

          • Levi

            Bringing up Lot’s moral blunders is clearly meant a red herring to distract from the real issue here, I.e. The LGBT’s intolerance of Christians and Gofundme’s stance and discrimination against Christians. This is clearly a Spiritual, cultural and moral war and Gofundme has chosen to back the LGBT while promoting intolerance for Christianity. Gofundme should be ashamed of itself for so blindly backing a minority group who will stop at nothing to have its sexually immoral preferences celebrated.

          • bill2

            how terrible GoFundMe standing against discrimination and bigotry

          • jimshaw54

            Bigot: Hypocrite. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
            Based on Webster’s Dictionary definition of bigot, it seems to me that there is enough bigotry going around. On this issue I have to fall on the side of the businesses people who, according to the article, have served these same customers on other occasions but, because of their personal beliefs, would not do so in this case. To pretty much destroy a person’s business because they refused to perform a service (which most likely could easily be obtained elsewhere) seems pretty “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own belief or opinion” (i.e. bigoted) to me.
            I, personally, see both sides; but given that the services requested could most likely easily be obtained elsewhere I have to fall down on the side of the business.

          • bill2

            there’s lawful and unlawful discrimination and GoFundMe is taking a stand against unlawful

          • Josey

            once again a lack of understanding of that time, but since you are so holy I guess you understand it better than anyone else…lol

          • uzza

            Wait … what? It was just and righteous in those days to rape but in these days it’s immoral? I thought it was the atheists whose morals were relative. I thought the bible crowd followed unchanging absolute morality.

          • finabiscotti

            “Judge Cuts FIFTEEN YEARS off Mandatory Sentence of Man convicted of SODOMIZING TODDLER”!!!!

            From the Fellowship of the Minds website.

            Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly operated to protect the SEX OFFENDER = Kevin Jonas Rojano-Nieto,

            when judge cut Fifteen Years off the Mandatory Sentence = “There was no violence or callous disregard for the VICTIM’s well-being”!

            The toddler was THREE Years old. – and this 20-year-old SCUMBAG put his hand over her mouth to conceal her screams while he was raping/sodimizing the child.

            There is a petition to get this judge removed from the bench.

        • Josey

          once again you don’t understand the reason the daughters did what they did and I am by no means advocating what they did but you don’t understand the time they lived in and to them they thought the end of the world had happened after God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah leaving them no heirs to their father’s name which was important in their belief system, that is why they went into their father like they did, again not an excuse just try to understand the story in context and with understanding of their time.

        • FoJC_Forever

          True, but Lot’s daughters were not girls, they were young women.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Scripture does not state that Lot offering his daughters to the men wanting to rape the Angels was just or righteous, simply that he did it. They were not little children, they were virgins… (follow the Bible, yo).

        Including what Lot did when the homosexuals wanted to rape, who they thought were men, shows it wasn’t just about sex, it was about them wanting to force homosexual sex upon men who had entered their city.

        • James Von Borcke

          “Scripture does not state that Lot offering his daughters to the men
          wanting to rape the Angels was just or righteous, simply that he did it.”
          The Bible describes Lot as both just and righteous; how can he be just and righteous unless his actions are also just and righteous?

          • KenS

            Abram was described as just and righteous, not Lot, and it was for Abram (Abraham’s) benefit that Lot was spared, because of this verse here: Genesis 18:19 “19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.”

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re lost in Sin and groping to understand Truth. I’m certain no explanation I can give you will be comprehended by you.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You’re lost in Sin and groping to understand Truth.”
            Translation:
            “I have no solid counter argument, so I will demonize and belittle you to make myself feel better.”

          • FoJC_Forever

            Ah, you are adept at lying too. You twist words as does your father, the Devil.

          • James Von Borcke

            What have I lied about? Or are you just prone to bearing false witness?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your “translation” of what I wrote and your inferred meaning of the Scripture about not Judging are just two lies.

            No, I am not “bearing false witness”.

            I can see where you would frustrate some by using Biblical phraseology, but I also see a broken person who needs to be set free from Sin. You can call upon Jesus anytime and be saved from your Sin.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You’re lost in Sin and groping to understand Truth.”
            No, wait, I’ve got a better response…
            “Judge not lest ye be judged.” ~Jesus

          • pearl87

            So, why are you judging?

          • James Von Borcke

            Lliving in the physical world, I can judge a person for their actions in the physical world and what the effects of those actions have.

            That is to say, if someone committed a murder right now, I could judge them for being a murderer and accept that such a person requires punishment per our secular laws. If someone is proclaiming themselves a victim when they are really complaining about a loss of privilege, I can judge their justifications for doing so. If someone is spreading ignorance and misinformation, I can judge them as being a liar and unworthy of trust.

            What I ~cannot~ do , however, and presume to speak in God’s place and state that the person is ‘lost in sin’ and or ‘condemned to Hell’. That is not a judgment reserved for Humans, but rather that of the Almighty and the Almighty’s alone (a lesson Jesus teaches in the Gospels ~multiple~ times, such as with the Good Samaritan and the Adulterous Woman). I know better than to have the vanity to speak in God’s name or to claim godly authority (unlike so many others, from preacher to follower alike, whose vanities respect no such boundaries).

            Such as FoJC’s ~opinion~ that I’m ‘lost in sin’. Why? Because ~he~ says so? Because ~he~ doesn’t like what ~he~ is reading? No, the Religious Right is always quick to use terms like “sinner!” and “blasphemer!” and “heretic!” to silence those who would dare question their ‘godly authority’. I recognize ~no one~ as having such authority by their words. Rather, if a person empowered with such authority were to appear, I will know them by their works.

          • pearl87

            So you think you are authorized to judge behavior that you believe violates U.S. law, AND you can also judge that others are NOT authorized to judge behavior that they believe violates God’s law? You are giving yourself carte blanch to judge, and then claiming others must refrain from judging.
            Sounds like a double standard to me.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You are giving yourself carte blanch to judge, and then claiming others must refrain from judging.”

            You ~clearly~ did not understand what I posted, so I’ll try again in as simplistic of terms possible.

            If ~I~ commit a crime, it is for the Court of Law to punish me for my transgression against ~society~. It is not the Court of Law’s job to punish me for my transgression against God if such occurred.

            When we send a convicted murderer to the death chamber, one of the last things said to the murderer usually is, “May God have mercy on your soul.” (Why? Because even though the State has decided that my ~secular~ crimes call for my execution, it is God and God alone that can judge whether or not I am repentant for my actions. So while my crimes may make me fit for execution, I may indeed receive His divine mercy. But only God may make that determination, and no other human that still breathes will know my judgement until after receiving their own. Someone may say, “He’s burning in Hell,” while another might say, “He found Christ and was forgiven,” but ~both~ are making assumptions based on their own feelings and opinions.

            Now that I’ve described this without ~any~ judgement on my part (rather, with me in the place of the one judged), do you understand more clearly what I’m saying?

          • James Von Borcke

            Okay, I posted a reply, but I’m not seeing it… Got an appointment, but if it’s not up when I get back, I’ll address it again.

    • Heil Hitler!

      Reynolds v. United States 1878 already defined marriage as one man and one woman.

    • Andrew Roling

      If you want to live in a country with no freedom and that has religious laws, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

      • William Keeler

        I find it interesting that you named you used devoutly Muslim countries as your examples.
        Christianity is not about a religion, it is about a relationship. Jesus Christ is the bread of life. Without Him, we all will surely die.

    • Peter Leh

      participate in their lust? HA

      integrity.. it still matters.

  • MC

    And the hypocrisy continues.

    • bill2

      How is it hypocrisy?

    • Peter Leh

      yes. but this discrimination is legal.

      the same discrimination available to all businesses. Notice gofundme will not get in trouble with the state like the bakers and florists did becuase the discrimination is different.

      as what have we learned about business?

  • MisterPine

    Good news at last!

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    So the FRC is upset about GoFundMe operating their business as they see fit while at the same time decrying that the florist and the baker are not allowed to operate their business as they see fit.

    Wow. What hypocrites.

    • Jamie Leno

      Umm…you’ve got that backwards. They are pointing out gofundme’s hypocrisy.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        In what way is GoFundMe being hypocritical?

        • Jamie Leno

          Not just gofundme. The progressive left and the gay activists too. They think gofundme can run its business as it wants, but deny that same right to others.
          And (just to nip it in the bud) there wasn’t any discrimination going on anyway. The businesses sold to everyone, exactly the same. It was a particular EVENT that was being declined because of their beliefs. The couple could have been a sister/brother or a man/pet – that “wedding”, that EVENT would have been declined too.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            it is not hypocritical to support a business operating according to the law but not support a business operating outside the law.

            I fully support the baker’s right to make business decisions that are compatible with the law and I fully support GoFundMe’s right to make business decisions that are compatible with the law. No hypocrisy.

            “And (just to nip it in the bud) there wasn’t any discrimination going on anyway.”

            You are mistaken. A product that was offered to others was denied to the couple in question because of their sexual orientation. That is a violation of anti-discrimination laws where the bakery operates.

          • nowonder

            THE BAKERS SHOULD SUE GOFUNDME!BESIDES CLOSING IT DOWN IS A WIN FOR THE BAKERS.THEY DIDNT HAVE TO PAY THEM FROM THE GOFUNDME MONEY!

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What would be the basis for a lawsuit?

            If closing it down was a win for the bakers, there would be no basis for a lawsuit as inherent in a lawsuit is the ability to prove harm.

          • Jamie Leno

            No, I am not “mistaken”. No product was denied because of anyone’s sexual orientation. They declined to participate in an EVENT that went against their religious beliefs. They were being asked to bake for (which means they would be supporting, condoning, participating in) a “wedding” which, according to their religious beliefs a wedding is one man, one woman only. They declined that “wedding”. If the couple was a gay man and a gay woman wanting a cake for their wedding, they would have provided it. One man, one woman wedding. See how that works?
            It’s a huge distinction that the left just can’t seem to grasp. (Or they purposely, conveniently ignore.)

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They were being asked to bake for (which means they would be supporting, condoning, participating in) a “wedding” which, according to their religious beliefs a wedding is one man, one woman only. ”

            So then if they bake a cake for a couple where one or both of the couple have been divorced for reasons other than adultery, they are “supporting, condoning, participating in” adultery, yes?

            If they bake a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother, they are “supporting, condoning, participating in” fornication, yes?

            if they bake a cake for an engagement party for a couple who are having sexual relations, they are “supporting, condoning, participating in” fornication, yes?

            If they bake a cake for a couple who are not Christian, then they are “supporting, condoning, participating in” having putting a God other than the Christian god before the Christian god, yes?

            If they bake a cake for a couple who are estranged from their parents, then they are “supporting, condoning, participating in” not honoring the couples mother and father, yes?

            “Oh- and the Kleins’ First Amendment religious freedom trumps Oregon’s BS “law”.

            Oh – there is no First Amendment right to operate your business outside of the confines of the law based upon religious belief.

          • Jamie Leno

            All those examples you gave are simply a “wedding”, a “baby shower”, an “engagement party”, (why/how would they know or care anything about the participants or their background? Just like they don’t care that each of the couple was gay. It was the gay “wedding”. And being “not a Christian” or “estranged from one’s parents”, just like simply “being gay” (not that they would even know that) is not a very specific CEREMONY that their religion believes is blessed by God, created by God to be one man, one woman.

            You get it- you just refuse to admit it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “(why/how would they know or care anything about the participants or their background?”

            All they need to do is ask. If they don’t want to participate in an event that involves Biblical sin, then they should be asking those questions. Otherwise, it is obviously not very important to them.

            What is a “gay wedding”? If, as you say, they would not have turned down a wedding of two gay people as long as one was a man and the other a woman, then the whole issue becomes one of gender. Gender is protected in anti-discrimination laws.

            “You know, before we have to go underground when you progressives stomp out religious freedom rights.”

            Oh, please. Spare me the hyperbole and false persecution complex.

          • Jamie Leno

            Why would they ask personal questions? Christians don’t go around interrogating people about their sins lol. Christians sin too. It’s part of the human condition and the fall from grace. However, Christians ask forgiveness, repent, and try not to. They don’t justify sin, lobby for laws legalizing it, then demand everyone accept it as perfectly normal and legit.
            However, when a specific EVENT is being asked to be recognized, catered to, condoned, or in any other way the business is asked to partake in that EVENT that goes against their religious beliefs, and actually, their rights as a business owner, they have a right to decline.

            Now, go troll somewhere else.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Why would they ask personal questions? ”

            Why would they not? If not participating in an event that involves Biblical sin is so important to them, then those types of questions are reasonable.

            “Christians don’t go around interrogating people about their sins”

            So not asking personal questions is more important than not violating your religious conscience?

            Well if they find asking questions is too much in order to preserve their religious conscience, they could simply make up some flyers to give to clients:

            “Dear Potential Clients: We don’t want to be intrusive into your life, but we don’t make…..

            Wedding cakes if either of the couple have been divorced for reasons other than adultery, as that would be celebrating adultery.

            Engagement party cakes for couples who are having sexual relations, because that would be celebrating fornication.

            Baby shower cakes for women who are unmarried as that would be celebrating fornication.

            Wedding cakes if the couple are not taking their vows before the Christian God, because that makes them heathens and we are not supposed to associate with heathens in that way.

            Wedding cakes if the parents of either of the couple will not be attending because they are not honored by their children, because that would be participating in the sin of not honoring your mother and father.

            No weddings on Sunday, as that is the Sabbath and I’m not allowed to work.

            Thank you for your understanding. It is very important to us that we do not violate our religious conscience which is based upon Biblical beliefs.”

            That should do it. That way they can let everyone know how important it is to them to not violate their religious conscience but they won’t have to ask any intrusive questions.

            “They don’t justify sin, lobby for laws legalizing it, then demand everyone accept it as perfectly normal and legit.”

            No, they don’t. What they do is worse. They state that because they believe it to be sin, it is sin for everyone, regardless of their belief. They attempt to put laws in place which restrict the rights of citizens from doing things because those people believe it is a sin, and they demand that everyone limit their freedoms to what those folks view as acceptable, and then try to convince people that in a constitutional republic, such actions are normal and legit.

            ” they have a right to decline.”

            Apparently not.

          • Jamie Leno

            Well that was a lot of wasted typing for you as I’ve already explained no Christian cares a rat’s behind what you do on your off time and they’re not going to grill you about it when you buy a cake. No one is “celebrating” you or “condoning” you, what you do, what you believe in when you buy a cake. You’re buying a cake. You can even buy a cake, take it home, then use it in your same sex wedding ceremony. Egads! Imagine that!
            However, when that couple specifically stated they wanted the Kleins to CATER their “wedding”, a wedding which can not exist according to the Kleins’ Christian beliefs, and which they would be designing a cake specifically for, thereby endorsing it, they had to refuse that EVENT.
            Notice how no personal questions were asked? Just “who’s the groom?” They care about what God has ordained as marriage, since WEDDINGS are what they cater to. God has ordained: One man, one woman.

            And they don’t state it to be sin for everyone. They state that THEY believe it is sin so they are declining to participate. Which is their right guaranteed under our Constitution.
            The progressives/gay gestapo screams that declining something because of religious conscience is “shoving your religion down our throat!!”
            Yet they don’t see that sueing, dragging into court, bankrupting, harassing, targeting Christians- “accept our lifestyle or else!” is not “shoving it down OUR throats.”?????
            The outright hypocrisy and blindness from the “tolerant” crowd is astounding.

            They actually DO have the right to decline according to our Constitution.
            That you are on the side of our corrupt administration is no surprise to me.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “No one is “celebrating” you or “condoning” you, what you do, what you believe in when you buy a cake. ”

            Agreed. The Klein’s were asked to bake a cake. They refused. They were not asked to “cater” an event.

            “You can even buy a cake, take it home, then use it in your same sex wedding ceremony.”

            So then as long as the Klien’s weren’t asked to deliver the cake, then it would have been fine.

            “so they are declining to participate.”

            They were asked to bake a cake. You said that was fine.

            “The progressives/gay gestapo screams that declining something because of religious conscience is “shoving your religion down our throat!!””

            No, they said that refusing the couple was a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

            “Yet they don’t see that sueing, dragging into court, bankrupting, harassing, targeting Christians- “accept our lifestyle or else!” is not “shoving it down OUR throats.”?????”

            Holding people accountable to the law is not shoving anything down anyone’s throat.

            “They actually DO have the right to decline according to our Constitution.”

            The courts disagree.

            “That you are on the side of our corrupt administration is no surprise to me.”

            The administration has nothing to do with this. These are local anti-discrimination laws.

          • Peter Leh

            “Christians don’t go around interrogating people about their sins lol.”

            OH DEAR

            “Why would they ask personal questions?”

            IF they are concerned about being part of an “abdominal” service as they claim, don;t you think they WOULD ask to protect their “religious integrity”?

            “their rights as a business owner,”

            the right of the business owner is spelled out on the SOS webpage per the specific state the busienss resides.

            “they have a right to decline.”

            only if the decline in services performed do not violate the registration the business itself set up with the state.

            a person may decline another person for anyr eason. A busienss may only decline per the SOS guides. a business is not a person and person is not a business. apple and oranges with different rules and rights.

          • Jamie Leno

            A person has a right to run their private business according to his values. A business is an extension of that person. Religious freedom means the way one lives one’s life, not just what church they worship in. You need to read my replies to the others. Tired of repeating myself.

            I have no clue what “abdominal” is supposed to refer to.

            I’m done with trolls now and circular arguments.

          • Peter Leh

            “A person has a right to run their private business according to his values.”

            Yes they do. In addition, in order to run said business according to their values (like chickfila or hobby lobby) it is the responsibility of the owner to set up its registration with the stat e to satisfy both the state AND the values of the owner.

            “I have no clue what “abdominal” is supposed to refer to.”

            my bad. “abominable”

            “I’m done with trolls now and circular arguments”

            me too. good thing i am neither. 🙂

          • James Von Borcke

            “why/how would they know or care anything about the participants or their background?”
            Small talk. Example:
            “It’s for a baby shower.”
            “Oh, how delightful. Is your husband excited?”
            “I don’t have a husband.”
            “Oh, well sorry, you dirty little slut… Go somewhere else.”
            That’s how.

          • Jamie Leno

            Lol because Christian business owners give the third degree to their customers…umm nope.

            Cake for baby shower, the EVENT is fine (who cares about the client’s personal life)? YES
            Cake for engagement party, the EVENT is fine (who cares about the client’s personal life)? YES
            Cake for birthday, the EVENT is fine (who cares about the client’s personal life)? YES
            Cake for same sex wedding, the EVENT violates my beliefs (who cares about the client’s personal life)? NOPE

          • James Von Borcke

            Again, it’s just a pale excuse… Just admit that you’re all just a bunch of bigots and get it over with. History will properly identify you, after all, so you should all just accept your fate.

          • Jamie Leno

            As I’ve shown, YOU are a bigot if you won’t accept 3, 4, or however many member marriages. Because why is it only two people in a marriage? Because for millenia, historically, and in this country it’s been only two people? Well, according to the Left’s own argument, that’s not good enough. That makes you a bigot against those who want a group marriage. Why are you such a hateful bigot?

          • James Von Borcke

            “Because for millenia, historically, and in this country it’s been only two people?”

            Your own Bible shows this isn’t true.

            The Native Americans had poly-marriages.

            The Mormons had polygamy as well until they were pressured to give it up (given the choice between retaining the practice or gaining statehood for Utah).

            Currently, I’d say we don’t need to legalize poly-marriage because poly-marriages already have found a means of taking care of their legal assets needs by forming LLCs and various forms of Trusts. In this, a single marriage to a single partner is all that’s necessary to clarify who is charged with making decisions when one of the partners falls ill or dies. In short, those with poly-marriages wouldn’t gain anything through the legalization of poly-marriages that they don’t already have (though being the liberal I am, I’d shift my position should someone show me that I’m wrong in this, which is why I’m not a bigot).

            On the other hand, homosexuals who wish to marry have ~everything~ to gain because without the civil union of marriage, they have no legal protections for their communal property when their partner falls ill or dies (which violates the 14th Amendment) because it is against the religious beliefs of some of our citizens (which violates the 1st Amendment).

          • James Von Borcke

            “No product was denied because of anyone’s sexual orientation. They
            declined to participate in an EVENT that went against their religious
            beliefs.”
            Those religious beliefs, of course, being about the customer’s sexual orientation.

          • Jamie Leno

            Those religious beliefs, of course, were about the fact that the Kleins believe marriage is one man, one woman. The couple’s sexual orientation had nothing to do with it. The couple could have been two straight women wanting to “marry”- the Kleins would have declined.

          • James Von Borcke

            That is the most ignorant defense of bigotry I have ever read. Do you people even listen to yourselves before you go all Palin on everybody?

          • Jamie Leno

            I love how you call it “ignorant” when you have no argument. Funny.

            Why should marriage be limited to two people? Why not a group of three, four loving, consenting adults? Where does the limit of “two” come from?
            If you are against the three, four person groups of loving, consenting adults “marrying”, then you are a hateful bigot. Using your logic.

          • James Von Borcke

            If all you can counter with is a slippery slope, then you truly are ignorant with no argument. After all, we’ve been hearing about this slope since people were allowed to divorce, and we heard it when women were no longer considered chattel to their husbands, and we heard it when bans against interracial marriages were struck down.
            What makes you ignorant? Why, it’s the fact that you ~ignore~ how many times you’ve been wrong before.

          • James Von Borcke

            GoFundMe’s policy is ~clearly~ that it’s services can’t be used for either (A) obtaining a legal defense when charged with a crime or subject of a legal suite or (B) paying the fines resulting from such crimes or suite.

            Consequently, these two sentences contradict each other:

            “The businesses sold to everyone, exactly the same. It was a particular EVENT that was being declined because of their beliefs.”

            By ~declining~ the event, they weren’t selling to everyone exactly the same.

          • Jamie Leno

            Gofundme has hundreds of active campaigns raising funds for bail, legal fees, defense lawyers, fines, you name it.
            By declining an EVENT, a same sex wedding, that is against their religious beliefs and conscience, they were exercising their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

          • James Von Borcke

            Then do what the people who believe in equality did and ~report~ those accounts which are in violation of the terms. All I hear you griping about is that GoFundMe doesn’t monitor their site well enough but did purge the one it was told about, but I’m sure you and everyone else that has noted this problem would be more than happy to bring it to their attention rather than complaining about it endlessly here like a bunch of children denied cookies and milk.

          • Jamie Leno

            Who says we haven’t reported it? I have.

            The only ones I see acting like children are you and the other progressive trolls who come here, to a Christian site, to purposely stir up trouble.

          • James Von Borcke

            As a man of faith, and who’s face includes the spiritual reality of Christ, why would I not come to a Christian site? And when I do come to a Christian site, why would I not point out actions performed for reasons of hate, fear and ignorance, when all of those things are anti-Christ?

          • Jamie Leno

            I have no idea what your faith is, but your words show your denial of God’s Word.

            It is not hate, fear, or ignorance to stand strong for what God has created in marriage and to not support a counterfeit.

          • James Von Borcke

            “…but your words show your denial of God’s Word.”
            If you mean I don’t follow Jewish law, you’re right. For the same reason I don’t follow Sharia: Foreign laws written by primitive savages have no place in a free and democratic society when those laws are contrary to freedom and democracy.
            Think upon the tale of the Good Samaritan… Even if I was an Atheist, so long as I treat people with love and respect (as much as possible), Jesus is cool with me.
            Who’s teachings are you following? The militant priests of Leviticus? The corruptions of Saul? The insane paranoia of St John? Do tell.

          • Jamie Leno

            Why would Christians follow Jewish law? The covenants of rituals, sacrifices have been fulfilled through Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The laws of morality however, which reflect God’s character, remain and are reinforced in the New Testament.
            Jesus absolutely teaches to love people. He also teaches to turn from sin and not be involved with it. Declining to be knowingly involved with something God has declared as sin is not “hating” any person.

            I’m shocked!- we agree on something!
            Sharia has NO place in this country as it does go directly against our Constitution and a free people.

          • James Von Borcke

            “Why would Christians follow Jewish law?”
            Is this not the ‘word’ you were describing? If not, then what is?

            “Sharia has NO place in this country as it does go directly against our Constitution and a free people.”
            Given the 1st Amendment, it would be more factual to say that ~every~ religious law, regardless of the religion, is against our Constitution.
            Including the words of Jesus himself.
            Our government is charged with one task: To tend to the secular needs of our society. Religious belief is ~not~ license to violate our laws, and laws which are designed to circumvent our Constitution are, by definition, unconstitutional. If a person sins, it is for God (not us!) to deal with the matter. If a person breaks the law, it is us (not God!) who will punish the criminal.
            You say it’s not discrimination, but the facts say otherwise… That is, now that homosexuals have gained legal protections, the bigots now seek to make themselves above the law by using foreign law (the Bible) as their justification.

          • Jamie Leno

            Moral law includes the Ten Commandments.
            (To clarify. Thought you were going to go on about the whole shellfish nonsense.)

          • James Von Borcke

            But what does that have to do with the United States of America? How much do the Ten Commandments influence our laws?
            Is it illegal to worship a deity other than the Bible’s god?
            Is it illegal to worship an idol?
            Is it illegal to covet?
            Is it illegal to disrespect your parents?

            Of the ten, only two (theft and murder) bare any relation to our laws. One (baring false witness) is only a crime if you do it under oath or affirmation. One (adultery) only influences divorce trials (and only because it’s viewed as breaking a contract, not because of morality). That leaves a remainder of six which have ~zero influence~ on our government, and the other four are easily dismissed as coincidental (that is, more about maintain a secular nation than about promoting sectarian faith).

            By the way, ever notice that rape, slave ownership and child molestation aren’t mentioned either? How can the Ten Commandments represent moral law when I’m more moral then the Commandments are? And if I’m more moral than Jewish law, then what should I care what Jewish law says about homosexuality?

          • James Von Borcke

            Do you know what it looks like whenever you put the words wedding and marry in quotation marks like that? Google “Interracial Marriage” and flip to Images. See those folks in the Protest category? That. That’s what it looks like.
            And just so you know, that’s how history will remember you, too.

          • Jamie Leno

            Gay “marriage” deserves quotation marks because it isn’t marriage. Never has been, never will be. Doesn’t matter what law man might make.

            So sick of the false comparison to interracial marriages and the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement. Cannot equate the two. Race, skin color, is innate. Sexual behavior is just that- a behavior. A person could live to be 120- they cannot change their race or skin color. But did you know that a person could live to be 120 and actually never even HAVE sex? Wow! Who knew? Or, according to progressives, decide to be male one day, something else another day (what are there now- 58+ genders? It’s laughable. This from the folks who claim ‘science’. You know, that same science which says there are TWO genders, just TWO.)

            Insisting on equating a sex behavior to what a race of people went through because of the color of their skin is despicable, nauseating, and a slap in the face to African-Americans.
            A quote you will hear often in the black community: “Your sin is not my skin.”

            (And those at that time who tried to use the Bible to support keeping races separate had no legitimate argument. When that was talked of in the Bible, it meant believers not mixing with unbelievers. It had nothing to do with skin color.)

          • James Von Borcke

            I’m not really concerned about what ~you~ are sick of. After all, you’re just a bigot.
            Civil rights are defined (by our own Founding Fathers, no less) as those rights which are entrusted to the State for protection in order to safeguard our Human Rights.
            Marriage Equality, therefore, is not a hijacking of the Civil Rights Movement, but is about a ~civil right~ of citizens living within a ~secular~ democracy.
            On the other hand, any effort for a portion of our society to obtain the rights and freedoms that other portions of our society have already enjoyed and taken for granted, is a movement for civil rights. For instance, when women were fighting for their right to vote, that was a civil rights movement ~called~ Women’s Suffrage/Liberation. By the same token, calling the push for racial equality the Civil Rights Movement did not mean it was the be-all end-all of working towards civil rights.

            Might I suggest reading The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine? It would clear up a lot of this misunderstanding you seem to be having.

          • Jamie Leno

            You seem to be having the misunderstanding. There isn’t any discrimination. Never was.
            (I admit I swiped the following comment because she stated it so much more clearly than I had been able lol)
            “The marital institution recognized by every court in the US, allows for any two consenting, opposite sex people to marry. No homosexual is prevented from entering such a union. One’s choice not to participate in legitimate marriage is not proof of discrimination; it’s simply proof that the individual doesn’t favor the institution of marriage.”

            (Me again) Progressives/gay activists are seeking to CHANGE THE INSTITUTION.

            Can I sue the Boy Scouts for discrimination for not letting me join because I’m a middle-aged female? Or sue them to change their requirements to join?

            Can I sue the NAACP for not letting me join because I’m white or sue them to change their requirements to join?

            My white niece wants to compete in the Miss Black America contest. She can’t. Discrimination!!!

            If you think any of those statements are ridiculous, then by YOUR OWN LOGIC, you are a…bigot, racist, sexist, ageist.

          • James Von Borcke

            That quote you pulled is full of all sorts of weasel words… But that’s about par for the course.
            And your straw men are burning.

            Now, here are just a ~few~ examples of how the ‘institution’ of marriage has changed over the course of American history:
            -When the government recognized marriages not performed by clergy (no longer a religious institution)
            -When Utah became a state, polygamy ended. (Though they still have a few wily coyotes up that way)
            -When Africans were allowed to legally marry. (They were denied this right during slavery)
            -When women won their right to vote (their husbands no longer ‘spoke’ for them in elections, and single women finally had a voice in politics without being married)
            -When ‘interracial’ marriage bans were struck down (gotta keep the white race pure, dontcha know?)
            -When ‘Head and Master’ laws were struck down (women are no longer chattel to their male partners)

            This nation has a 150 year history of changing the definition of marriage. But I’m sure the sky’s gonna crash down on our heads any day now… Just keep waiting for it.

          • James Von Borcke

            Tell you what… Here’s a story I wrote called Religious Freedom Gone Wild:

            “Hello, Sam!”
            “Oh, hello, Chris. Back again?”
            “Yep, got another project to work on.”
            “Awesome. What d’ya need?”
            “Just two planks of wood and a nice finish. Probably should get some sand paper, too; if I’m not running low, I will be soon.”
            “So what’s the project?”
            “I’m building a cross.”
            “Oh.”
            “What?”
            “I’m sorry, but as a Jehovah’s Witness, I’m afraid I can’t sell you these supplies.”
            “Pardon?”
            “Well, as my faith teaches that the cross is an idolic symbol adopted from pagans, I can’t participate in the building of one.”
            “But you’re not building the cross, Sam. I am.”
            “I know. But regardless, by selling you these supplies I would be condoning your sinful behavior and so I cannot do so in good conscious. But do come back next time you want to build a chair. I have no problem with you building a nice chair.”

            Ain’t it grand?

          • Jamie Leno

            When you go to Home Depot to buy paint, do they ask you ” why are you buying that paint?” Certainly, a cashier might in friendly chatter, but you aren’t under any obligation to answer. It’s none of their business. And even if you did answer “I’m buying paint for my orgy”, they might think you rock, they might think you’re weird, they might think that’s despicable and goes against their beliefs, but they would sell you the paint because they are just selling you the paint.
            If the couple in the Sweet Cakes case had walked into the shop, just bought a cake to take home to then USE for a same sex ceremony…so be it. They bought a cake. They could have even chatted with the cashier about the use of the cake. Fine. Use it for your ceremony. Bet there wouldn’t have been a peep from the Kleins.
            The difference is that Sweet Cakes CATERS TO WEDDINGS. The couple didn’t come in to the store, buy a cake, have a convo about what they were going to use the cake for. They expressly sat down to talk about a WEDDING. The Kleins beliefs do not recognize anything but the God ordained, Biblically ordained one man, one woman definition of marriage. They DO NOT have to promote, celebrate, or lend their name to something they oppose. Not only covered under the First Amendment, but Free Exercise in a business.

          • James Von Borcke

            “The difference is that Sweet Cakes CATERS TO WEDDINGS.”
            Now they do… Before, they catered to ~heterosexual~ weddings, which is discriminatory.

            If they are incapable of providing services to ~everybody~ equally, then they are in the wrong business.

            “The Kleins beliefs do not recognize anything but the God ordained,
            Biblically ordained one man, one woman definition of marriage.”
            Again, foreign law does not apply to American law. The Bible does not trump the Constitution anymore than the Quran, Torah or Satanic Bible does.

            If religion allows people to ignore our laws, then we have no laws.

          • Jamie Leno

            They still cater to weddings. A wedding is one man, one woman.
            It is not “discriminatory”. That is their belief. That is their business. We aren’t talking life and death issues here, we are talking about cake, flowers, photography, etc. and rights of conscience. They cannot be FORCED to go against their beliefs.
            Under our Constitution.
            You progressives have made up so many stories about our founding, laws, and history that have infiltrated our society for decades it’s sickening.
            For instance, why was it perfectly Constitutional to have prayer and Bibles in schools for years, DECADES- when the Constitution was WRITTEN, when the Founders were ALIVE?- then suddenly in 1962, whoops, sorry no- prayer in schools is unconstitutional now. Say what?? Prayer and Bibles in schools is as Constitutional today as it was 200+ years ago. Liberal courts, liberal judges pushed it through and society let it happen.
            Contrary to progressive dogma, this country’s founding was centered around the Christian God. Not to be a theocracy, but it’s system of government is based on Christian tenets.
            There is so much progressive propaganda crap floating around on the internet claiming otherwise, brainwashing those who don’t go to the source themselves…
            “Look at this quote from Thomas Jefferson!!”…without ever seeing the context, and that what he meant was quite different from what the cherry-picked quote said.
            ^Rinse, repeat.
            For the millionth time, throw out the infamous Treaty (the ONE document, because that’s ALL you have lol, and never mind WHO they were dealing with, how long, the rush to sign, the missing article, translation issues, etc..), and completely ignore others like say, Treaty of Paris 1783.

            Instead of revising or making up what you THINK our history is, how about writing the Library of Congress or National Archives? (Before that info is unavailable to the public.)

          • James Von Borcke

            Simple, Jamie… Our Founding Fathers ~knew~ it would be a long and uphill battle dealing with the forces of ignorance and irrational belief. They ~knew~ it would be generations of struggle. And they ~knew~ that it was likely that the champions of liberty would shed their blood in that pursuit (the fallen Union Soldiers of the Civil War).

            They laid the groundwork for what was to come, knowing that it would not be fulfilled in their lifetime, perhaps not even many lifetimes.

            The Founders only planted the seeds of liberty. And now, over two and a quarter centuries later, that liberty has spread from not just one group of people (white, male and Christian) to include ~all~ people, regardless of skin color, gender or religion.

            To embrace ~your~ interpretation of the Constitution would require us to either turn-back 200 years of social advancement, or to adopt the Constitution of the Confederate States of America instead.

            I’ll keep marching forward; you can dream about the ‘good old days’ when women and blacks knew their place.

          • Peter Leh

            “Can I sue the Boy Scouts for discrimination for not letting me join
            because I’m a middle-aged female? Or sue them to change their
            requirements to join?”

            the boy scouts are a private organization and can do want they want. They are not a business open to the public

            “Can I sue the NAACP for not letting me join because I’m white or sue them to change their requirements to join?”

            maybe.

            “My white niece wants to compete in the Miss Black America contest. She can’t. Discrimination!!!”

            again … private (most likely, idk so sure)

            “If you think any of those statements are ridiculous, then by YOUR OWN LOGIC, you are a…bigot, racist, sexist, ageist.”

            not ridiculous… just inaccurate. As a christian to you believe integrity is still a virtue? If your statements are inaccurate are you willing to learn and grow?

          • Jamie Leno

            A private business is just that- a private business. It is OPEN to the public, but it is a private business. The public doesn’t get to force their views and values on said business.

            Go take your ridiculous replies to me and pose them to liberal feminists insisting that THEY have a right to exclusively female salons, cruises, colleges, etc. But when men want their exclusive areas…oh, no, that’s sexist!

            Progressives deem everything they want as a “right”. “I don’t have it, it’s not faaaair, I’m gonna sue.”

            No, actually there are few “rights”. (A white person joining the NAACP is certainly not one of them.)

            Our very wise Founders recognized our inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. (Notice “pursuit”, not “happiness”)

            Others are guaranteed in our Constitution.
            The Kleins guaranteed Freedom of Religion was violated.

            Listen up, Progressives-
            There is no right to free birth control. That’s my money, not your “right”.
            No right to free healthcare. (No right to healthcare at all, actually.) That’s my money, not your “right”.
            No right to free education. That’s my money, not your “right”.
            No right to MY money that I’VE worked for.

            So many things you claim as “rights” are not. Something isn’t a right just because you demand it.

            And for such “intellectuals” as you claim you are, you’re sure missing the common sense gene. It’s not “discrimination” for a white not to be let in the NAACP. They don’t fit what the organization is about. If I start a Bible study, and a Satanist wants to come (not because they are searching, but because they want to start trouble), am I going to be SUED for not letting him join?

            Progressives, lawyers, and the lack of common sense…pfft

          • Peter Leh

            i see you went on a lengthy political rant. please note i have pretty much withdrawn from the political rhetoric. I am only quote business rules, regulations and law.

            no emotion, no rhetoric, no lies.

            “The public doesn’t get to force their views and values on said business.”

            you are correct. please note, as i have said before, the citation by the state is based on the registration that the business owner themselves have set up. so any citation from the state is because the owner violated its own registration. 🙂

          • Peter Leh

            “As for the Kleins- By declining an EVENT, a same sex “wedding”, that is
            against their religious beliefs and conscience, they were exercising
            their First Amendment right of freedom of religion”

            jamie this is BUS 101. and a matter of intellectual integrity rather than regurgitating political rhetoric.

            wishing for martyrdom does not mean persecution is upon us….

            if you noticed there is NO mention of religion in the citation from the state (s) in any case mentioned.

          • Jamie Leno

            They weren’t “wishing for martyrdom”. That’s disgusting. They were standing for the convictions of their faith.

            If you can’t see the persecution happening daily in this country, you are blind. No, no one is getting their head chopped off, yet, for being Christian, but persecution none the less.

            Do you really think ‘religion’ is going to be mentioned in the citation? Why highlight religion to bring it to the forefront that the freedom of said religion had been violated?!

          • Peter Leh

            “Do you really think ‘religion’ is going to be mentioned in the citation?”

            no i don;t becasue this is not about religion but public accommodation. I was pointing that out to help you understand the difference.

            “Why highlight religion to bring it to the forefront that the freedom of said religion had been violated?!”

            why bring up religious freedom as a defense when in non of theses cases is freedom of religion the issue?

            “If you can’t see the persecution happening daily in this country, you are blind”

            try me.

            “They weren’t “wishing for martyrdom”. That’s disgusting. They were standing for the convictions of their faith”

            this is more in reference to those christians claiming persecution.. like yourself.

          • Jamie Leno

            Please don’t condescend to me. You don’t need to “help” me with anything. It is you who are not understanding the difference.
            This wasn’t public accommodation. This was a specific EVENT that they did not endorse.
            I’m not going to keep repeating myself, so read my replies to James Von Borcke and that other guy (UgotTwobekiddenme or something…)

            If you truly cannot understand that the Kleins did nothing wrong and under our Constitution, the Law of the Land, are in fact, protected by the First Amendment in that same Constitution, then perhaps you’re suffering from spiritual blindness. It’s quite rampant now.
            2 Corinthians 4:1-6

          • Peter Leh

            “Please don’t condescend to me.”

            my apologies. without taking it personal it is very obvious the level of business knowledge is severely lacking on your side.

            this is rudimentary BUS 101

            “This wasn’t public accommodation.”

            the citation states is was.

            “This was a specific EVENT that they did not endorse. ”

            the business does not have to endorse an event to provide service. However if a business provides a service to the public the it cannot discriminate against protected groups (sex, race, religion, age, and disability) per the SOS guides. The SOS guide are for ALL to read. there are no surprises here.

            “If you truly cannot understand that the Kleins did nothing wrong”

            the Kleins business did. that is why the business was cited. The Kleins still have their constitutional rights. they still believe homosexuality is a sin without penalty from the state. BUT THEIR BUSINESS violated their OWN registration the Kleins set up and promised the state that they would serve all.

            if the Kleins could not or would not serve all in good conscience then the Kleins could have/ should have change their registration (like the hitching post did) or eliminate the service of wedding cakes (like the baker in colorado did)

            you see the Kleins had every opportunity to comply with the state AND their conscience but did not. Therefore any reprimand is totally and completely one THEM.

            ask any business owner. 🙂

          • Jamie Leno

            Actually, your comprehension is severely lacking.

            The Kleins did not discriminate against any “protected group”. The two women could have been straight, for all they cared. Because they didn’t care. The issue was THE WEDDING. The Kleins religious views hold that A WEDDING consists of two participants, one of whom is female, one of whom is male. Two straight women could have requested a cake for their “wedding” and the Kleins would have also declined.
            You DO realize gay people have been getting married for years to people of the opposite sex, and NO CHRISTIAN HAS HAD A PROBLEM BAKING A CAKE FOR THE WEDDING?

            Is the light dawning yet??

          • Peter Leh

            “Actually, your comprehension is severely lacking.”

            😉

          • Peter Leh

            “The Kleins did not discriminate against any “protected group””

            then why were they cited and fined for violating the state of Oregon equal protection and public accommodation statue?

            the state say they did per Sweet Cake own registration that the KLEINS created and agreed to. The state is only enforcing what the KLEINS set up and promised to abide. every business must do this in order to be granted business privileges in that state.

            “The two women could have been straight, for all they cared. Because they
            didn’t care. The issue was THE WEDDING. The Kleins religious views hold
            that A WEDDING consists of two participants, one of whom is female, one
            of whom is male. Two straight women could have requested a cake for
            their “wedding” and the Kleins would have also declined.
            You DO
            realize gay people have been getting married for years to people of the
            opposite sex, and NO CHRISTIAN HAS HAD A PROBLEM BAKING A CAKE FOR THE
            WEDDING?”

            do you think this is just regurgitated political tripe?

            You can argue it all day long. it does not refute the subject. in fact it is off topic.

            when you know the rules you win.

            ask any business owner. i am here at your service

            BTW how many businesses do YOU own, Jamie? 🙂

          • Jamie Leno

            My point in bold type above plainly exposes the “sexual preference discrimination” lie. You just don’t like it.

            The state “cited and fined them for violating…”
            So what? ^^ Do you worship at the altar of the almighty State?
            State, federal laws, ordinances etc. can be wrong, unjust. Judges, courts can be wrong, unjust. And have been found to be over the years.

            Ever heard of slavery?
            You would obviously have been fine with slavery, probably owned some slaves. After all, it was the LAW.

          • Peter Leh

            “So what?”

            so what? that is the subject. that is what we are talking about. otherwise there is no citation and you and i would never know the kleins.

            So What… indeed.

            “State, federal laws, ordinances etc. can be wrong, unjust. Judges,
            courts can be wrong, unjust. And have been found to be over the years.”

            indeed what does that have to do with choices?

            please stay on subject

            “You would obviously have been fine with slavery, probably owned some slaves. After all, it was the LAW”

            is this what we have come to? You can ask me anything, Jaime. no need to assume.

            BTW i noticed you have not answered my questions. 🙂

          • Jamie Leno

            I’ve noticed you completely ignoring that the Kleins declined to endorse an EVENT contrary to their values. They don’t give a hoot what someone does in their personal life, or who with, but when those someone(s) want the Kleins to endorse something, (which the Kleins would be doing by specifically baking a cake FOR an EVENT that goes against their values)…they cannot force them to. Neither can the state. UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You’ve heard of it? The Constitution’s free expression of religion trumps any Oregon law or statute.

            BTW I’ve noticed your deflecting away and brushing off of my very valid point in bold type a few posts above.

            BTW I’ve noticed your circular arguments.

          • Peter Leh

            i have not ignored it at all. the declining of service that the kleins offer to other groups are the very reason for the citation.

          • Peter Leh

            “I’ve noticed you completely ignoring that the Kleins declined to endorse an EVENT contrary to their values.”

            is an “endorsement” required to provide the service Sweet Cake provides to all?

            “BTW I’ve noticed your deflecting away and brushing off of my very valid point in bold type a few posts above.”

            by bold type do you mean CAPS?

            “The Constitution’s free expression of religion trumps any Oregon law or statute.”

            notice the citation was against sweet cakes. Sweet Cakes having full reign of religious expression and discrimination based on this religious policy would most likely require a different registration than an S-corp, perhaps a 501c3? or a religious corp registration?

  • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

    So GoFundMe joins a long list of businesses operating without a backbone. There’s an opening in the market here for competitors that will do what they say, and not abandon their customers to their customers’ competitors illegitimate demands. GoFundMe, GoFundYourself.

    • bill2

      your side seems to have every poor track record with successful boycotts. I think GoFundme will be just fine without you

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      What a great point! You should start such a business. No doubt there is incredible demand for a business that would allow for people to donate money to help people who violate anti-discrimination laws. There’s been, what, 5 cases or so?

      Talk about an untapped market!

    • nowonder

      A WIN FOR THE BAKERS THEY DIDNT PAY THOSE SUING WITH THE GOFUNDME MONEY!

    • James Von Borcke

      “So GoFundMe joins a long list of businesses operating without a backbone.”
      During my childhood, the good ol’ 70s, if you believed in racial equality in my neighborhood, you got labeled an ‘n-lover’. You were easily the subject of attack, and your property would get stolen or damaged, and some businesses would screw you over because they knew no one (from neighbors to the police) had your back.
      But now it’s no longer like that, with the younger generations supplanting the older ones, and racists know better than to display their bigotry openly.
      So why am I telling you this? Two reasons. First, to allow you to understand that it’s the people who stand for equality that have ~grown~ the backbone. And second, to make you aware of your unavoidable fate as a closeted bigot.

      • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

        Ah, the sweet smell of name-calling! And is that a whiff of a threat I spy – “your fate”? And what a masterful change of topic from free commerce to racism! If only everyone could dish it out like you do! Imagine the level of debate we could achieve! Just think who we could target next!

        • James Von Borcke

          Just pointing out that history will remember you simply for who you chose to be, just as it has for every strain of bigotry that’s been torn down as the cause of freedom and liberty for ~all~ continues to advance.

          Besides, how the hell am I supposed to threaten someone over the internet? That’s a special kinda stupid you’ve got going on over there.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            It’s not about bakers being forced to do stuff against their conscience? You want to change topic? Okay: Liberty should not be used for evil. Men want the knowledge of good and evil, but are not content to confine liberty to the good – things like the baking of cakes for the simple purpose of eating, without the corruption of evil motives.
            As to how you threaten hell over the internet: At the end of history, the Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. Meanwhile, in the name of “freedom and liberty” you encourage the promotion of evil, while you know that it will end badly. Both your pretense of being a defender of the helpless while abusing the innocent, and your mumbo jumbo pentagrams amply qualify as the special kind of stupid that deserves this end.

          • James Von Borcke

            “As to how you threaten hell over the internet…”
            I don’t believe in Hell in that sense. And if my avatar disturbs you, that’s because of your own superstitious fear (it doesn’t mean to me what it means to you, and what it means to you is irrelevant). You may want to seek counseling to correct that sort of damaged psyche.
            Question: Do you really think that, on my day of judgement, the Lord is going to condemn me for not hating enough? If so, then you need to go reread the Gospels.
            Y’know, the part that tells you about Jesus.

  • The Last Trump

    I was going to say that the gay community must have just been all over GoFundMe with their hate and intolerance.
    And then I read, “Administrators had been “urged” by homosexual advocates to have the campaign removed”
    Nuff said. The “tolerant” strike again.
    It’s not enough for these hateful bigots to just destroy people.
    They have to deny them any help as well.
    LGBT for you. Just plain UGLY.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “They have to deny them any help as well. ”

      Oh yes. Because goodness knows there would be no way for people to financially support Elaine without GoFundMe.

      Oh, wait, no, the postal service is still operating. Never mind.

    • Jamie Leno

      Cupcake Jones owner Lisa Watson (Portland, OR) led the charge to have the Kleins’ funding campaign shut down. They’ve since removed their review section on their FB page because they were getting so many negative comments. You can still post to their page, but good luck having it stay there. They delete anything they don’t like. If you keep trying, they block you.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “They’ve since removed their review section on their FB page because they were getting so many negative comments.”

        Really? Where did you hear that?

      • Peter Leh

        same as the kleins and Sturztman.

        • Jamie Leno

          You’re kidding, right? Have you SEEN the Klein’s page? Thousands and thousands of hateful, vicious comments from the “tolerant” ones. They aren’t blocking anything.
          I haven’t been to Barronelle’s page, so don’t know there.

          • Peter Leh

            Yes they do.

            i have been blocked. 🙂

          • Jamie Leno

            Barronelle’s page still has their review section up with all the vitriol spewed from the “loving” progressives. Unlike Cupcake Jones, who has hidden theirs.

          • Peter Leh

            Barronelle do have have the reviews up. however i have been part of whole conversation that have been deleted.

          • Jamie Leno

            If you’ve been blocked from Sweet Cakes, you must have been particularly vile because anyone can see the thousands of comments attacking them. From repeat harassers too.

          • Peter Leh

            you know what they say about assumptions…… 🙂

    • MisterPine

      I thought it was cute how you thumbed up your own hateful, vitriolic post, Rumpy. That’s a surefire way to generate all the hatred you’re hoping for from the Christian Right.

    • Heil Hitler!

      jewish mammonism = baphomet = mahomet = muslim brotherhood

      It is the same two-faced hermaphrodite devil.

      The gaytheists and fágnostics of Al Qúeerda…

    • Andrew Roling

      If gofundme does not want to support those who break the law, good for them.

    • Emma

      Actually, they themselves are discriminating by denying service.
      I cannot see that they can have it both ways.
      Seems to me Gofundme should be sued under antidiscrimination laws.
      This foolishness has really go.e too far

      • Peter Leh

        “Actually, they themselves are discriminating by denying service.
        I cannot see that they can have it both ways.
        Seems to me Gofundme should be sued under antidiscrimination laws.
        This foolishness has really go.e too far ”

        BUS 101.

        a business may discriminate, just not against “protected groups”:

        age, sex, religion, disability or sexual orientation.

        • Emma

          Why can these folks not sue then?
          They are Christian & following their moral, Christian beliefs?
          Why is one segment of the population more important than another?
          That is discrimination.
          I think the squeaky wheel gets the grease , coupled, of course with all this PC foolishness.

          • Peter Leh

            wishing martyrdom… not based in reality

            The discrimination is based on religion, as you say. if it were then indeed gofundme could be sued if they allow one religious group and not another.

            like i said this is BUS 101. Education liberates. 🙂

        • FoJC_Forever

          BUS 102.

          Integrity, it still matters.

          Go back to school, Peter Leh.

          • Peter Leh

            “BUS 102.

            Integrity, it still matters.”

            sorry that is not BUS 102 but Christianity 101

            BTW i am open to correction, sir. For integrity’s sake of course. 😉

    • Peter Leh

      it is similar to having a gofundme account for members of the kkk business opposing equal protection and ignoring public accommodation laws.

      gofundme is well within their rights to eliminate “discriminatory groups” as they are not a protected class. What they cannot do is discriminate based on religion, age, sex, disability or sexual orientation.

      in other words, gofundme is under the same rules a regulations as theses florists and bakers and yet have not broken the law.

      so what have we learned about business, today?

      • The Last Trump

        That BEFORE the LGBT crowd put pressure on GoFundMe it was absolutely fine and all legal like, BUT NOT AFTER.
        They totally caved to the pressure.
        Thanks for clearing that up Pete! Double standards and hypocrisy.
        I have to agree with you there.

        • Peter Leh

          “Double standards and hypocrisy.”

          indeed. we all do it. Just do it legally

  • nowonder

    THANK YOU ALL THE GAY PEOPLE FOR BLOCKING PAYMENT TO YOUR GAY FRIENDS!

  • Eddie85

    GoFundMe Double Standards, Deception and Lies. . . . . .

    GoFundMe has numerous fundraisers for convicted criminals. Including those convicted of murder.

    A minute in Google took me to a fundraiser for a woman convicted of grand theft, two child molesters and a murderer. If I can find them that quickly in Google, GoFundMe employees could find them a lot faster.

    Boycott GoFundMe

    • Jamie Leno

      Yup. I put “jail” in their search bar…over 800 campaigns came up. Fundraising for bail, legal fees, fines, you name it.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Did you report your findings to GoFundMe?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      You should report your findings to GoFundMe.

  • Josey

    If this is how gofundme operates, I wouldn’t want their help anyway. I believe the baker and the florist are trusting in God to meet their needs anyway and He will do so.

  • shebird71

    I WILL NEVER USE OR RECOMMEND GO FUND ME AGAIN EVER!!!!!! HYPOCRISY AT IT’S BEST!!!!

  • nycmcmike

    Right wing Christians… being persecuted for being total [email protected]

  • RedRider67

    Boo-hoo. Pay your own way. Pass around those collection plates. Or….just pray. That’s it! Just….pray….

  • John Mark IB

    signs of the times when a group decides to take a stand for righteousness and is being persecuted for it they won’t be happy until they are laying our heads on the guillotine and having public Christian executions so the haters can satisfy their bloodlust!! and indeed time will come when they will do just that in the name of their god the anti Christ
    and so it begins we as true born again minority Christians now need to stand together more than ever and start our own groups and organizations to support those who dare stand for truth and are themselves discriminated for their religious freedom as Christians, funny how today the world is going back to hating the Jews and it’s all good and the Christians who stand for truth and against sin!! and are persecuted for it but they don’t dare go after the muslims…here’s hope for the homosexuals and friends dare to care give them the truth they need not the lies they want!! and may GOD have mercy on the USA for our many and horrible sins, dare to care pass this onto your homosexual friends who need to hear the truth of the gospel message!! absolute truth in Jesus alone!!
    http:// faith saves. net/ truth – for- gay-friends/

  • BCVB

    Here is the solution. Actively promote the numerous competitors to GoFundMe. Do a web search on competitors to GoFundMe. There are at least ten and a couple of them are outright Christian. GiveForward is one such site that advertises. See a social media post with a GoFundMe campaign link? Let the campaign creator know that as a Christian you cannot donate through GoFundMe but you absolutely will donate through one of their competitors. Invite them to research competitors, set up a parallel campaign on a competitor and let you know the alternate site. Then absolutely donate through that site. Promote their cause at that alternative site on your own social media feed.

    Christians give a lot. Let GoFundMe see if the LGBTQ people who demanded they take these campaigns down can make up for an exodus of Christians.

    • James Von Borcke

      Not all Christians will be ditching GoFundMe… Just the bigots. And that’s a dwindling minority. GoFundMe knows this, and played the hand they were dealt correctly.

      • BCVB

        James, there have been some homosexuals who have contributed to the Kleins. They believe that people have a right to practice their beliefs. Here’s the deal: In 8 hours, they got $109,000. In about 28 hours, Memories Pizza got $842,000. Both of these amounts were due to bullying and harassment by extreme wings of the LGBTQ movement and the government in the case of the Kleins. Those kinds of quick campaigns don’t happen often on GoFundMe. Memories Pizza had roughly 30,000 individual donors.

        You can try to make yourself feel better all you want and say it’s just the “bigots” or whatever. Live in a fantasy world all you want if it makes you feel good.

        The fact of the matter is that GoFundMe is going to lose money over this and Christians are free to spread word that they will not provide money to campaigns on GoFundMe, but WILL donate through competitors. There are people who simply don’t like harassment and intimidation against people of faith and that includes some homosexuals who simply want to live and let live. Word is getting out about how GoFundMe just changes its rules when the extreme wing of the LGBTQ movement issues an order.

        The fact of the matter is that rather than just let the free market work, the LGBTQ movement had to resort to pressure tactics to get the campaign removed. They TRIED many times to have competitive campaigns raising money for their cause. Guess what? They couldn’t possibly approach the amount of money generated for Memories Pizza at the speed they got it.

        Just as the homosexuals who didn’t get a cake from the Kleins ended up getting a FREE cake from a celebrity chef (saving hundreds of dollars), Christians can and will take their business elsewhere. There are many more Christians than there are extremist LGBTQs who try to shut these kinds of things down.

        • James Von Borcke

          You keep using the generic term ‘Christian’… Not all Christians share your bigoted views, nor do they share your persecution complex or sense of righteous entitlement. Every time you use the word ‘Christian’ instead of ‘bigot’, you are insulting me and my faith. Stop doing that. I’m tired of having to tell people, “I’m a Christian, but not on of ~those~ Christians.” Getting very tiring.
          Second, yes, it was because bigots claiming persecution is red meat for the other bigots (whether they claim the Bible, the Quran, or Homer’s Illiad for their justification is irrelevant). It’s always a money maker. Hell, just look at the Bundy Ranch (right down the road from me here in Nevada)… For a brief short time, he was a hero and icon. Now, no one cares about him anymore and, being abandoned by those who exploited his anti-government position, he’s finally paying the legal cost of his actions.
          That’s exactly what’s going to happen with this bakery… They’re heroes-of-the-moment for the Extreme Sectarian Right to raise up as their Golden Calf of the Month, but they’ll be forgotten in a short while after y’all have moved on to your next fake outrage.
          Meanwhile, the rest of the nation moves on.

          • BCVB

            Hi again James! James, first I am so sorry (not really) that I just don’t take orders from people who call themselves “Christian” yet attack other Christians who have sincerely held beliefs and call them names. But, Obama calls himself “Christian” and has been known to insult and attack the Bible. Yup, I don’t take Obama’s claim about being “Christian” any more seriously than I do yours. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, Kathleen Sebelius, and a host of others claim to be “Catholic” yet support abortion. I am Catholic myself and you better believe I don’t take those politicians’ claims of being “Catholic” seriously either.

            Speaking of Catholicism, look up paragraph 1868 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would provide a link but it seems things fall into pending status if I do. In that paragraph, Catholics are required to avoid willful participation in sinful activities or else they become accomplices and are just as guilty. They must not praise or support sinful acts in any way. And yes, James, you guessed it, homosexual ACTIONS (but not persons) are considered sinful in the Catholic Church. So, James, you have just told me to refer to Pope Francis and the world’s 1 BILLION Catholics as “bigots”. Well, maybe less because there are a lot of Pelosi/Biden “Catholics” out there who just believe in an “anything goes” society’s whim of the day thing.

            VERY offensive comments on your part, James. Very offensive. Anti-Catholic bigotry there. Why, if I behaved like the extreme homosexuals I might tell some government bureaucrat that your statement causped “loss of apetite” AND “weight gain” (LOL!) and “lack of confidence” and a whole laundry list of supposed maladies without any medical proof of same, and demand that the government fine you $135,000. But then, I feel you have a right to free speech and free practice of the religion of watered down “society’s whim of the day Christianity”. So sorry that your posts don’t seem to support the notion of freedom of religion for OTHERS though.

            Here is the issue with Bundy. He said something that was racist. Conservatives dropped him real fast. Comparing Bundy to the Kleins is like, well, comparing Nancy Pelosi to Pope Benedict XVI. Totally, totally, totally different.

            Conservatives are a lot bigger than you might think. And, conservatives have been floating a number of solutions to this mess around the blogosphere. Suggestions have been made to be VERY open with one’s faith, put religious symbols and Bible quotes on cake boxes for EVERYONE (no claims that anyone is not being treated the same way), have uniforms with the Holy Family, and generally be “out of the closet” with our faith. We do it for everyone this way so nobody can claim they’re getting a different level of service. And, of course, if the homosexual couple still want a service performed with that in mind, the service provider lets them know that a donation will be made to a charity supporting biblical marriage for the exact amount of the fee charged for the service.

            James, by the time it is done, those who want to sting Christian wedding service providers will long for the days when there was a simple polite decline. Some have even proposed that service providers take it to the next step: when the homosexual couple finds a flimsy excuse to not buy the Christian service provider’s services because they are too overt with their faith, the Christian provider turns the tables and accuses the homosexuals of not choosing their service because they don’t like Christianity!

            THANK YOU James and people like yourself for inspiring Christians to “come out of the closet” with their faith. Since homosexuals have “come out of the closet” it is high time Christians “come out” too and stop hiding their faith just because the mainstream media frowns on it. We have needed a revival for a long time. Why, we can even look at the early efforts by homosexual activists and adapt their techniques. We won’t get into the draconian laws and $135,000 fines and all that. But we will look at how they changed the language and developed all sorts of media and the like.

            Homosexuals are seeking out Christian businesses. This means they want the light of Christianity so much that they will demand fines and punishments for Christians who fail to provide it. It is wonderful that they are so hungry for the Christian faith. Around the conservative blogosphere, Christian service providers are being encouraged to provide that light to all customers. Hey, it’s a great way to build a niche and stand out from the rest of the sterile, boring competitors who believe in conformity.

            Oh and James, make sure that all the gay-only bars and gay-only restaurants know that they must serve heterosexuals as well. They are public accommodations. They must serve anyone that walks in and can pay for their services. They cannot discriminate. Homosexuals have said that is a no no. There will come a point when Christians will deliberately go to them and ask to be served.

            See, James, there is going to come a point when people will get creative and work within the law to turn the tables. You want Christians to cater gay weddings? They will as they have no choice. But it will be in an overtly Christian manner and it will be that way for everyone.

          • James Von Borcke

            ” In that paragraph, Catholics are required to avoid willful
            participation in sinful activities or else they become accomplices and
            are just as guilty.”
            A nation of laws doesn’t practice Guilt by Association. But if you think you’re above the law, then go ahead and wave that flag for all it’s worth.
            As for what you believe or don’t believe, I don’t really care. See, regardless of your religion (or the religion you claim to justify being a bigot), this is a nation of laws, dedicated to the premise that ~all people~ (not just the ones that tickle God’s fancy) are equal under the law. As such, law abiding citizens (including homosexuals) are entitled to all of the rights and privilages granted to every other citizens, while criminals (ie, those who break the law and violate the Constitution) are deserving of the punishments due.
            “This means they want the light of Christianity so much that they will
            demand fines and punishments for Christians who fail to provide it.”
            No, they want to be able to walk into ~any~ lawfully licensed business are receive the same goods and services as any other citizen. The law doesn’t care about your religion, nor does the Constitution.
            “…make sure that all the gay-only bars and gay-only restaurants know that they must serve heterosexuals as well.”
            Having numerous homosexual friends (including the nice couple I live with and whose wedding I officiated over), I’ve had chance to patron a myriad of gay establishments; I have never been made to feel unwanted or unwelcome at any one of them.
            If you’ve experienced the opposite, then it might have something to do with your attitude.

          • BCVB

            “A nation of laws doesn’t practice Guilt by Association. But if you think
            you’re above the law, then go ahead and wave that flag for all it’s
            worth.”

            The First Amendment states that there is a right to the free practice of religion. Oh wait, did you go to a government school? I’m going to take a guess and say yes. No wonder you don’t understand the First Amendment and feel it is inconvenient.

            Again, your statement is calling the world’s Catholics (at least the serious ones) “bigots”.

            And actually, guilt by association does indeed have some basis in secular law. Ever hear of people being punished for providing the getaway car in a robbery? Every hear of people’s houses being searched because they are suspected of being an accomplice to a crime? Oh yeah, I am going to guess you DID go to government school!

            “No, they want to be able to walk into ~any~ lawfully licensed business
            are receive the same goods and services as any other citizen.”

            Oh and they will. Overt Christianity will be a freebie bonus provided to all customers to provide an equal level of service for all. Homosexual activists asked for it and they will get it. It’s just the kind of service provided. This is the way things are done in the new reality demanded by homosexual activists.

            Again, THANK YOU James for being one of the many who are helping Christians to realize they need to come out of the closet. Being Christian is who they are they need to be who they are. In public. For all to see.

            Like I said, Jesus ate with a tax collector who then converted. A victim of Saul’s persecution asked that people pray for him. Saul became Paul and added much to the New Testament. So, if homosexuals want overt Christians (who provide the same Christian based service to all) at their GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED wedding, maybe the seed will be planted and the Holy Spirit will work on them for conversion too.

            As to gay bars and restaurants, I have heard many cases of hetero-sexual couples being turned away. In the new world ruled over by activist homosexuals, this is not allowed. Public accommodations, you know. If you went with a homosexual couple, maybe you weren’t turned away because they thought you were one of them. You know, they are known to have lots and lots and lots of partners each year.

            As to me, I don’t go into gay bars or restaurants. There are plenty of other restaurants I can go to which do not focus specifically on homosexuals. But then, I believe in the free market. Homosexuals get their own and other people are free to choose something different. Too bad radical homosexuals who specifically seek out serious Christians to force them to be involved in their ceremonies don’t believe in a free market.

            As to a claim about attitude, that’s a thinly veiled excuse for discrimination. We are in the new world dictated to by extreme homosexuals. Public accommodation. You can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Don’t cloak discrimination, James. That’s hateful and bigoted and not at all tolerant. For shame!

            But like I said, the answer is to simply provide very overt Christian services to anyone, heterosexual or homosexual alike. And, be up front that services for homosexual weddings will result in an equivalent donation to charities promoting biblical marriage.

            Oh and James, bear in mind that Christians will become more and more creative. There has been at least one Mormon blogger discussing the fact that the United States is one of only a minority of countries that allows the pastor/other religious person to provide a witness to a civil marriage. Marriage licenses are a little over 100 years old in this country at best. Most countries require a separate government ceremony for the civil portion of “marriage”. If homosexuals push too hard, churches that do not believe in homosexual “marriage” will eventually amend their rules to make marriage in the church an exclusively religious ceremony, like baptism. That means that the couple that WANTS a civil marriage in addition to their church religious-only marriage will have to go to the government for a ceremony.

            But you know what else could happen? Since things like the marriage penalty tax make it easier to NOT be civilly married what might evolve is the idea of people being married in a religious-only ceremony according to the rules of their religion and simply SKIP the civil marriage! Lots of tax revenue lost there. Imagine, James, all the money that governments will lose by not selling marriage licenses and losing the marriage penalty tax! All on account of the extremist homosexual lobby pushing so much! If a county charges a fee for a pastor to be able to solemnize a marriage and churches begin to get out of the civil marriage business, imagine the loss of revenue there.

            Separation of church and state, James. Conservatives need to provide the left with what they always wanted. Sorry it will result in loss of revenue too, but that’s the way the gay wedding cake crumbles….

          • James Von Borcke

            “The First Amendment states that there is a right to the free practice of religion. Oh wait, did you go to a government school? I’m going to take a guess and say yes. No wonder you don’t understand the First Amendment and feel it is inconvenient.”

            See, I don’t really get what you’re saying here. I mean, the first statement is correct (despite being just half of it), but then you go on to state that I don’t understand it. But from where did you get this impression? Because I don’t hold your religious views as being immune to the law? What if your religion said it was okay to murder or rape or molest children? Are we infringing on your First Amendment rights when you are arrested and charged with the crime?

            In a nation of equals, discrimination is an act of propagating one group (usually the group to which the discriminator belongs) above another. This isn’t just bad theology, it’s anti-American.

            “I have heard many cases of hetero-sexual couples being turned away.”

            When I was a pre-teen, I heard that the negros were coming to take “our” women away. Bigots always hear things, and bigots always say things, and bigots always believe exactly what they want to believe.

            “This is the way things are done in the new reality demanded by homosexual activists.”

            No, this is a bunch of arrogant puritans upset that they can’t burn non-believers (including the non-belief of not believing properly) anymore. I mean, you ~do~ remember learning about that, yes? Inquisitions and witch trials, burning at the stake and lynch mobs? Any of this ringing a bell? See, that’s what the puritans (your brand of Christianity) used to do to the rest of us. Today, all you need to do is make a cake, but ~that~ is being persecuted in your mind.

            Too bad you missed the Dark Ages; it would have been a great time for you to shine.

            “Saul became Paul and added much to the New Testament.”

            According to your faith; mine rejects Saul as a false teacher who corrupted Christ’s teachings to better fit his perception of how it should be and all he had to do was claim to have gotten a headache to convince people he was right.

            “There are plenty of other restaurants I can go to which do not focus specifically on homosexuals.”

            I’ve never found a place that ‘specifically’ focuses on homosexuals; but I have found many establishments, run by straights and gays alike, who present an open atmosphere where everyone is free to be themselves. Granted, for the longest time the ~majority~ of patrons were predominately homosexual, but as the younger generations followed and the judgement against homosexuality became recognized as the ‘little brother’ of sexism and racism, that predomination has become more of a 30/40/30 mix, with the 40 representing bisexuals.

            Being that you intentionally avoid such places, and have ‘heard’ things, you probably didn’t know that.

            “We are in the new world dictated to by extreme homosexuals.”

            I heard this back in the 70s… Except it was blacks and Mexicans. Come up with something new.

            No, make that ‘come up with something better.’ No point bringing something new if it’s just as dumb as what you’ve already brought.

            “Oh and James, bear in mind that Christians will become more and more creative.”

            Stop using the generic “Christians”… I’m tired of you bigots insulting ~my~ faith by using it to justify and reinforce your bigotry.

            “If homosexuals push too hard, churches that do not believe in homosexual “marriage” will eventually amend their rules to make marriage in the church an exclusively religious ceremony, like baptism.”

            I have no problem with this… After all, just wait until one of these ‘exclusively religious’ spouses is denied hospital visitation or being consulted on end-of-life matters (as they won’t be legally next-of-kin). Or when their property is taxed at a higher rate following said death because there is no recognized familial relationship.

            Y’know, all that legal civil stuff that recognized marriages give but have been denied homosexual couples as it was once denied to interracial couples.

            And while I doubt it will have the financial hit you claim it will (after all, support for your bigotry is dwindling by the day, and those laws regarding spousal rights are just so gosh darn desirable), there is always a good fix standing by: Revoke the special privilege churches and preachers have enjoyed of being exempt from taxes for their property and income. Hell, we’d acquire more revenue doing that than we currently do from the fees and taxes you’re mock-threatening to boycott.

            So… We tax the churches, and people still get civil marriages for the legal benefits.

            You didn’t really think that through at all, did you?

          • BCVB

            Wow, James, you are really a hoot! It’s a lot of fun debating a guy who claims he’s for “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” and then calls people who don’t agree with him to the letter a “bigot” and now you’re saying people want to burn others at the stake? My gosh! Way to go in putting words in other people’s mouths AND exposing total and complete ignorance! Did you learn that in government indoctrination centers, aka “school” too?

            Hey, when you didn’t get the latest video game, did you call your parents “bigots” and “haters” and all the rest? Were they “intolerant” for not indulging you in the latest whim?

            “but then you go on to state that I don’t understand it. But from where did you get this impression?”

            Um, gee whiz, with numerous comments that you post. And when you equate not baking a cake to murder and rape. I mean, seriously??? Are you THAT clouded?

            To actually equate not wanting to participate in what one deems as a sin with rape, murder, or molestation shows a total hatred for religion. The latter three are public safety issues. The former is an issue of inconvenience and where there is a free market solution (e.g. go elsewhere and in the case of the Kleins, the “victims” got a FREE cake from a celebrity chef!). The latter three involve the perpetrator engaging in acts of physical violence. The former has nothing to do with that……well, that is except when the radical homosexual extremists vandalize Christian owned businesses and intimidate Christians. The whole thing that started the Memories Pizza thing was when a GOVERNMENT FUNDED SCHOOL EMPLOYEE suggested committing a criminal act against the property of this business. Do you find that okay because this woman was “offended”?

            “In a nation of equals, discrimination is an act of propagating one group
            (usually the group to which the discriminator belongs) above another.”

            Precisely. Like the practitioners of a sex act asking people to violate their religious faith and involuntarily serve at their GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED wedding or fork over $135,000. Indeed. Homosexuals like that engage in discrimination. Or like when a government employee goes on Twitter and says she wants to commit an illegal act against the property of the owners of a pizzeria. Indeed, radical homosexuals like that do discriminate. They make their group seem above others and punish any form of disagreement over their views. You are indeed correct that such things are discriminatory. I am so sorry that radical homosexuals and their supporters agree with this kind of discriminatory behavior.

            “Inquisitions and witch trials, burning at the stake…”

            Ah, the typical leftist response. You had to reach back hundreds of years while ignoring the fact that this is basically happening now to Christians. They face inquisitions and figurative burning at the stake for heresy to the religion of leftism. What’s the matter? Guilty conscience?

            Don’t worry…..when people discussed the atrocities committed by ISIS, Obama changed the subject by reaching back hundreds of years to these kinds of things. So in other words, in the hive mind of the left, what ISIS is doing today is justified because of something evil done HUNDREDS OF YEARS in the past by certain Christian groups.

            “When I was a pre-teen”

            You write that as if it’s past tense. Your wild accusations and intolerance towards people who disagree with you make me wonder why you use past tense. Of course, there are many who might physically be a certain age and lack the maturity of that age…

            “So… We tax the churches, and people still get civil marriages for the legal benefits.

            You didn’t really think that through at all, did you?”

            Oh actually I did. See, whether or not churches bow to the homosexual agenda, the left is drooling at the idea of taxing them anyway. Guess what? It will accomplish this: It will weed out the big mega-churches with the private jets for the pastors. Wonderful! Those are not good examples of Christianity. As to the rest, they don’t make enough to worry about it.

            You want to treat them like businesses? Great. Go right ahead. Businesses deduct their expenses. Most churches barely make it as is. So, they will either break even or run in the red as far as taxes go.

            But here is the most enjoyable part of removing their tax exempt status: No more “gag order”. Pastors hide behind the rules about non-profits not being able to endorse candidates as an excuse not to criticize politicians in general from the pulpit. No more excuses if the tax exempt status is removed. And for those pastors who are happy to give their opinion they can outright endorse candidates from the pulpit if the tax exempt status is removed.

            Think of the bishop in charge of the Catholic diocese of San Francisco. Imagine him asking the pastor of the church Pelosi attends to highlight the fact that she is a public figure who gives great scandal to the Catholic faith. Yeah, THAT is what can happen when you remove tax exempt status. It’s WELL worth it!

            Maybe it is YOU who didn’t think it all through…

            ” being consulted on end-of-life matters (as they won’t be legally next-of-kin)”

            That really doesn’t matter, actually. Those who believe in euthanasia are pushing to ignore the spouse’s input if they support anything that keeps a person alive.

            As to the race stuff, it’s really offensive that you would equate the choice to engage in a sex act with people’s skin color. As one who has a significant portion of Native American blood and look it, I find your comments utterly offensive. Even IF someone is “born with a same sex attraction” it is a CHOICE as to whether to engage in sexual acts or not. It is a CHOICE for heterosexuals as well. Your comments are insensitive, offensive, intolerant, politically incorrect, non-diverse, racially insensitive, a microaggression AND a macroaggression, and you should be ordered by a government bureaucrat to attend ten weeks of diversity and sensitivity training. Oh and your comments are causing me to suffer “lack of appetite” AND “weight gain” and a laundry list of other alleged maladies……because I said so, not because I have any medical proof.

            “Stop using the generic “Christians”… I’m tired of you bigots insulting ~my~ faith by using it to justify and reinforce your bigotry.”

            More insensitive and hateful remarks for people who disagree with you. Gosh it must be awful inside your brain. It must be so terrible that you have to face a world that you do not rule as a dictator where everyone just does whatever it is you want. Here’s a clue, James: You do not get to dictate to other people what they will and will not say. If you wanted to do that, then go build a time machine and switch with Adolf Hitler.

            “According to your faith; mine rejects Saul as a false teacher who corrupted Christ’s teachings to better fit his perception of how it should be and all he had to do was claim to have gotten a headache to convince people he was right.”

            That’s how Cafeteria Christianity works, James. It doesn’t mean one is truly a “Christian”. Your posts imply that you just go with the whims of the day and ignore anything in the Bible that is inconvenient. But then that’s the same as your interpretation of the Constitution. Annoying things like prohibition of involuntary servitude and free practice of one’s religious faith are to be ignored in the world dictated to by James.

            Question: When the forces of sexual “freedom” start demanding a “right” to beastiality, will you be for it if the mainstream media declares it good?

            Hey James, seeing you all over here flinging ignorance, intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry, do you ever go outside and enjoy God’s beautiful creation? Since your posts expose so much hate, it must really be horrible inside your head. You have my pity. I’ll pray for you. Do you not have any kind of job? Well, that’s understandable. The Obama economy stinks and many people are out of jobs and have fallen off the unemployment roles. So, they just discover a “disability” as a way to get money from the government.

            Or, considering the intensity of the hateful and bigoted anti-Christian comments you post, are you paid to do this? There are a lot of people who are paid by leftist groups to post comments that imply that a great number of people agree with a particular leftist viewpoint… Rest assured, many conservatives know this game and are not deterred…

          • James Von Borcke

            “It’s a lot of fun debating a guy who claims he’s for “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” and then calls people who don’t agree with him to the letter a “bigot”…”

            You judge your neighbor to live a sinful life and thus change your behavior rather than treating them just like everybody else. What else is that called if not bigotry?

            “Did you learn that in government indoctrination centers, aka “school” too?”

            Your constant displays of paranoid fear regarding the government (which I served in uniform and am a proud and patriotic citizen of) are doing little to suggest you’re all that rational.

            “And when you equate not baking a cake to murder and rape. I mean, seriously??? Are you THAT clouded?”

            I just want to know where ~you~ draw the line on religious freedom. Okay, perhaps rape and murder was extreme, and probably came across like a slippery slope fallacy, so let me ask you this: What if I thought clothes were invented because the Devil taught us to be ashamed of our bodies, and so it is my religious expression to be naked… 24/7, no matter where I am. Would arresting me for indecent exposure (a law that exists ~solely~ because the Devil made us ashamed of nakedness) be a violation of my 1st Amendment rights?

            Is that a little easier to stomach?

            “To actually equate not wanting to participate in what one deems as a sin with rape, murder, or molestation shows a total hatred for religion”

            Actually, I have a total hatred of this concept called ‘sin’. It leads people into believing in all sorts of weird things and has justified uncounted cruelties and social injustice.

            “The latter three are public safety issues.”

            So you agree that rape, murder and molestation are illegal for (gasp!) secular reasons? WOW! How about that.

            Then again, it’s a good thing our laws are secular, else rape and molestation would be legal. (A good number of Catholic priests still seem to think molestation is a-o-k, I’ve noticed.)

            “The former is an issue of inconvenience…”

            Because of what you’ve chosen to believe, not because of anything the customer has done.

            “…and where there is a free market solution…”

            That’s funny, given that when someone started that blue-sticker “We Don’t Discriminate” campaign, you ‘free market solution’ folks were actually quite upset. Suddenly the bigots didn’t want to stand out and take pride in their good works.

            Imagine that.

            “…that is except when the radical homosexual extremists vandalize Christian owned businesses and intimidate Christians.”

            Bigot-owned business and intimidating bigots, you mean. As a Christian, I have no fear that me or mine are in danger from ‘homosexual extremists’. That surety, of course, comes from not being a bigot.

            “The whole thing that started the Memories Pizza thing was when a GOVERNMENT FUNDED SCHOOL EMPLOYEE suggested committing a criminal act against the property of this business.”

            The Religious Right (Dixiecrats/Teabaggers) have been threatening violence since the election of President Obama… If you think ~suggesting~ a violent act is a problem, then you’ve chosen to go after a very small fish.

            “Like the practitioners of a sex act asking people to violate their religious faith and involuntarily serve at their GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED wedding or fork over $135,000”

            What I do with my penis with other consenting adult (or adults) does not change the color of my money nor my status as a citizen. I ~would~ understand if you didn’t want to ~watch~ what I do with my penis; I’m rather civilized that way. But what you imagine, fear or fantasize about what my penis has done before or will do later should not in any way influence my ability to engage in free commerce when I am ~not~ using my penis.

            On the other hand, what you imagine, fear or fantasize about my penis clearly prohibits ~your~ ability to do the job you’ve set as your life’s pursuit, and for that I suggest counseling. Would you like me to suggest a skilled sex surrogate in your area? I’m sure I know a gal that knows a gal… Or a guy. Whatever.

            “Homosexuals like that engage in discrimination.”

            By your reasoning, the Greensboro Sit-Ins were discriminatory towards whites.

            “Or like when a government employee goes on Twitter and says she wants to commit an illegal act against the property of the owners of a pizzeria.”

            Again, if this ~one~ instance bothers you, go take a look at the Teabaggers. That ~should~ really offend you. If it doesn’t, then you outrage is completely one-sided.

            “You had to reach back hundreds of years while ignoring the fact that this is basically happening now to Christians.”

            Oh, get off the persecution complex. It’s just sad and pathetic.

            As for this being from ~hundreds~ of years ago, yes, it is. And thank the ‘typical leftist’ for making that be from hundreds of years ago, given that ‘righties’ have ever been the loadstone slowing down our advancement in human rights. In short, if you’re glad you don’t live in those barbaric times, it is ~despite~ your views, not because of them, that you don’t.

            Second, my point (which you chose to dodge in such a sloppy manner) is that you perceive ~baking a cake~ to be persecution, when in fact you have ~no idea whatsoever~ what persecution is. Which, again, you can thank the ‘leftists’ for.

            And third, NO, I do ~not~ have to go back that far. I need only point to the KKK here in America, the Protestant/Catholic feuds in Ireland, the witch trials Christians are currently committing in Africa, and the Holocaust for examples of ~modern~ Christian atrocities.

            And before you come up with Stalin again… Yes, he was a monster. A monster of the Atheist Right. Which is no better than the Christian Right. Which is no better then the Muslim Right. Which is no better than the Jewish Right.

            See the pattern emerging?

            “Think of the bishop in charge of the Catholic diocese of San Francisco.”

            Didn’t he just get pulled?

            “Those who believe in euthanasia are pushing to ignore the spouse’s input if they support anything that keeps a person alive.”

            More paranoia. How do you sleep at night?

            “As for the race stuff…”

            I equate bigotry to bigotry. Your sense of outright is a condition referred to as ‘denial’.

            “That’s how Cafeteria Christianity works, James.”

            Nothing cafeteria about this. I have the Gospels; there’s no need for anything else (my preference is the Jefferson Bible).

            Unless, of course, I wanted to justify acting in a manner contrary to what Jesus taught. If I wanted to do that, then the rest of the Bible has a lot of really good material to allow just about anything. Like bigotry, for instance.

            “As one who has a significant portion of Native American blood and look it, I find your comments utterly offensive.”

            I don’t find your offense relevant. And as one of the married gay men I live with is a full-blooded Apache, I find your ‘significant portion’ irrelevant as well.

            “Your comments are insensitive, offensive, intolerant, politically incorrect, non-diverse, racially insensitive, a microaggression AND a macroaggression, and…”

            So says the bigot.

            “Here’s a clue, James: You do not get to dictate to other people what they will and will not say.”

            Nor do I want to. Indeed, I’m so glad the Religious Right has gotten so uppity during the past six years; it’s given everyone a chance to get a good look at you, your primitive beliefs, and your barbaric social values. That is, after all, how your side ended up losing the so-called ‘Social War’; people actually see you now.

            “When the forces of sexual “freedom” start demanding a “right” to beastiality, will you be for it if the mainstream media declares it good?”

            There’s this thing called ‘consent’. Google it.

            “Hey James, seeing you all over here flinging ignorance, intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry, do you ever go outside and enjoy God’s beautiful creation?”

            Says the bigot who’s been right here with me all day.

            “You have my pity.”

            Pity from a bigot? That’s a laugh. Don’t bother praying for me; the God you believe in is a monster deserving as much disregard as his bigoted followers. I’ll stick with my God, the Almight Architect, and the love of Jesus.

            “There are a lot of people who are paid by leftist groups to post comments that imply that a great number of people agree with a particular leftist viewpoint…”

            Yeah, like the Right doesn’t have that, too. But I’m not a professional; I’m just a Christian who ~loves and accepts~ his neighbors tired of having his faith smeared with feces by folks like you.

          • BCVB

            Oh James. You ARE entertaining, that’s for sure. You express such hatred for basically anyone who is a serious Christian and you seem to have all the time in the world to get your blood pressure up and spew hate on conservative Christian sites. And you question OTHER people being rational??? What a sad and pathetic life based on your comments. I truly feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.

            “You judge your neighbor to live a sinful life and thus change your
            behavior rather than treating them just like everybody else. What else
            is that called if not bigotry?”

            No, I didn’t. But I can understand your confusion. When you run around spewing hate in your posts and calling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot” I realize how you might be confused about judging. It is YOU who judges people. Catholics are called to judge ACTIONS. We are expressly forbidden from judging persons. But we do not simply “condone” acts.

            Hey, when Jesus saved the prostitute from being stoned, he said “Neither do I judge you. Go and sin no more.” He did NOT say “Go and do what you have been doing.” He judged her action and told her not to do it again. But wait? Since you’re so into sexual liberation and whatnot, did you clip that from your Bible too?

            “Your constant displays of paranoid fear regarding the government”

            If you really did serve (which I have no proof of you doing) then thanks for your service. As to the government, hey, I understand low quality crap that passes for education. I worked for government education for a long time and saw what really goes on. I was even given tenure despite not being a teaching employee. Then I got smart and quit the mediocre environment.

            “What if I thought clothes were invented because the Devil taught us to be ashamed of our bodies, and so it is my religious expression to be naked… 24/7, no matter where I am. Would arresting me for indecent exposure (a law that exists ~solely~ because the Devil made us ashamed of nakedness) be a violation of my 1st Amendment rights?”

            Public safety issue again. There is this little thing called common sense. Maybe you don’t know what that is? People like yourself (and I’ve debated many) throw out all sorts of red herrings about religious stuff. You know, just as I don’t agree with Muslim honor killings because they are a public safety issue and I don’t agree with Muslims throwing their prayer rug down in front of a doorway, a street, or a public mailbox (and yes, I had to wait for 20 minutes to mail a letter because of that), the bottom line is whether it is a public safety issue or impeding a right of way or otherwise endangering the public. If they put their prayer rug down and prayed somewhere that is not going to impede something, then go for it. Ritual slaughter of animals in a neighborhood would be another no no. Use your brain! These kinds of things are obvious.

            Failure to bake a cake for an EVENT is nothing like any of the examples above. Especially when the bakery has served the homosexual people in other capacities before. They simply don’t want to be part of the wedding in any manner. But what you have said is that they MUST. You are demanding a form of slavery by compelling people to do something they do not want to do. All of the examples above this paragraph would involve STOPPING someone from doing something that violates public safety, not compelling them to DO something.

            “Actually, I have a total hatred of this concept called ‘sin’.”

            You are free to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese, you can. But don’t force me to adhere to YOUR religious beliefs. Don’t make me participate in something, especially when there is plenty of competition begging for your dollars. Got it? It’s simple, even simple enough for a person who posts such hate towards Christians.

            ” (A good number of Catholic priests still seem to think molestation is a-o-k, I’ve noticed.)”

            Oh here we go. Typical anti-Catholic bigot. Here’s the interesting part: There are MORE government funded teachers who have molested children than Catholic priests. There are a number of cases where accusations were made against DEAD priests and lawsuits against Catholic dioceses where the priest was in the ground and couldn’t defend himself. Just like the people who persecuted the Kleins and will be getting a windfall for unproven medical conditions, there is zero proof that some of these claims happened. But since there were a few cases that actually did happen and there was anti-Catholic fervor across the nation, juries awarded lots of money. Suddenly coming up with repressed memories about something four decades ago was way better than playing the lottery!

            But you know what? Some of the more recent cases of homosexual acts by priests AND BY GOVERNMENT TEACHERS probably were egged on by homosexuals promoting their sex acts all over society!

            “Again, if this ~one~ instance bothers you, go take a look at the
            Teabaggers. That ~should~ really offend you. If it doesn’t, then you outrage is completely one-sided.”

            Tell me, what tea party member has done anything like what was threatened against the Indiana pizzeria? Sources are needed. No, mere disagreement with irresponsible use of taxpayer funds is not the same. It might be in your mind, but not in rational minds. And oh yes, I realize that whenever someone commits a crime the leftist media tries to tie them to the tea party. Then it usually comes out that they posted leftwing talking points and the left conveniently forgets that part. Stop accusing tea party people of doing what leftwingers do.

            “As for this being from ~hundreds~ of years ago, yes, it is. And thank the ‘typical leftist’ for making that be from hundreds of years ago, given that ‘righties’ have ever been the loadstone slowing down our advancement in human rights. In short, if you’re glad you don’t live in those barbaric times, it is ~despite~ your views, not because of them, that you don’t.”

            Um, say what? You want to claim Martin Luther as a lefty when he basically protested a church that was pretty much a government entity and was being corrupt by selling indulgences? Wow! Just wow! Heck, if Obama was around back then he’d be peddling indulgences too. And people like yourself would probably say that opposition to Obama selling indulgences is “racist”.

            But if you want to have Henry VIII who ordered late term abortions on many of his wives and cheated on the others that at least got to keep their heads, have at it. He’s all yours. He’d be a typical Democrat of today. If you call such evil “advancement” then that says a lot about you.

            “Didn’t he just get pulled?”

            In the homosexual fantasy world, the archbishop of San Francisco may have been pulled. But in the real world, he is still there.

            “Unless, of course, I wanted to justify acting in a manner contrary to what Jesus taught.”

            That’s your INTERPRETATION, James. And it only works if you slice out the rest of the New Testament. Jesus left the church to His Apostles. And He told the prostitute not to sin (as in committing sexual acts for hire) again. You can say all you want that Jesus said we just go with whatever whims of the day are present. You have a false and pagan Jesus that you believe in, in that case.

            “KKK here in America”

            Why James, I didn’t think you would. But you did. That was stupid. I am sooo glad you brought up the KKK. See, this was not created by true Christians, except maybe the kind that rip things out of the Bible. It was created by angry DEMOCRATS who didn’t like having their butt kicked in the Civil War. You know, the DEMOCRATS put Robert “Grand Dragon” Byrd in charge of the Senate for many years. How disgusting. Your party has never got over its bigotry on the basis of skin color. First slavery, then the KKK, then Jim Crow, then racist LBJ and welfare, now racist Obama who doesn’t use his position to encourage African Americans but rather foments riots.

            ” the witch trials Christians are currently committing in Africa”

            Funny, you didn’t talk about all the Christians being victims of genocide by Muslims. But then, you probably don’t mind that, do you?

            “Holocaust for examples of ~modern~ Christian atrocities.”

            You’re really going to blame that on Christians? Hitler was hardly Christian, any more than you are. But you did show me your leftist credentials.

            “And before you come up with Stalin again… Yes, he was a monster. A monster of the Atheist Right.”

            You are going to call a Communist a righty? You really are clueless.

            “Which is no better than the Christian Right. Which is no better then the Muslim Right. Which is no better than the Jewish Right.”

            Well, I knew anti-semitism would rear its ugly head in one of your posts. Anyway, thanks for showing me your TRUE religion: leftism. Yeah, you’re not Christian at all. You’re nothing more than a secular progressive pagan in my view.

            “I equate bigotry to bigotry.”

            You make a mockery of the civil rights struggle by equating it with the practice of a sex act. Shame on you.

            “I don’t find your offense relevant. And as one of the married gay men I live with is a full-blooded Apache, I find your ‘significant portion’ irrelevant as well.”

            So now people without racial purity have no right to speak or have an opinion. Well, Hitler felt the same way. You’re in the same company. And you run around calling OTHER people “bigots”….

            “So says the bigot.”

            Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn. What is this? The 68th time you’ve called me a “bigot” now? Boooooooorrrring. You know what? Everyone who disagrees with you is a “bigot”. Everyone who disagrees with Obama on policy is a “bigot”. Again, please credit your Democrat masters here since you seem to have little capacity for an original thought. Stop stealing from the Democrats!

            “Nor do I want to. Indeed, I’m so glad the Religious Right has gotten so uppity during the past six years; it’s given everyone a chance to get a good look at you, your primitive beliefs, and your barbaric social values. That is, after all, how your side ended up losing the so-called ‘Social War’; people actually see you now.”

            Oh James. You’re really cute. If conservatives have lost the social war, then why do you feel the need to devote your whole life to this one teeny tiny little article arguing with everyone. Methinks you have some sort of need to convince everyone. If I am so insignificant and you are in the majority and whatever, why are you spending so much time on little old me? And all these other people posting here? Do you really, truly, honestly think that all your hate filled spewings, bigotry, and judgmental behavior are going to change the minds of anyone?

            You want to talk about primitive beliefs? Elevating a sex act and saying humans can’t control their urges is REALLY primitive. You know, I have a couple of cats. Male and female. I had them neutered and spayed because THEY cannot control their urges (unlike humans) and there are too many unwanted cats in the world. In your little world, you equate humans with animals and expect that just because they might be attracted to someone, they MUST act on that attraction. How offensive, James, to be equating people with animals who can’t control themselves. So offensive, James.

            “Says the bigot who’s been right here with me all day.”

            I’m sure I missed a few more times that the paragon of virtue, tolerance, and treating others as they would want to be treated, has called me a name. Let’s see, maybe 72 times now? Um, *I* am not replying to all the different threads here spreading anti-Christian hate like you are. I am staying in my own little thread. You came to my thread. If you want to talk to me, I’ll answer you back. YOU are the one who has been here for days now, James. I just got here today.

            “But I’m not a professional”

            Oh I agree with you there, James. You are hardly a professional. See, professionals do real stuff. They don’t get paying jobs spreading anti-Christian hate all day.

            “having his faith smeared with feces”

            The only one smearing feces around here as well as spreading hate and bigotry is you.

            As to your referring to your, um, organ about six different times, really classy. See, James, I don’t lower my mind to the gutter and nor do I focus on such things. I’m sorry to see that you do, based on this post. Sick. Just sick. It’s a simple thing of saying that people don’t want to participate in an event celebrating a sex act. But you feel the need to be graphic. Now I can see why you spend so much time on places like this. Your whole life must consist of a focus on sex. You know, there are psychiatrists who help people with OCD issues and hangups.

            Now I can see why you have such intense, deep seated hatred for the Catholic Church. The church sees people as beautiful and sees sex as a way to create new human life. They see people as much more than machines with which to have sex. I am so very sorry for you, James, as this seems to be such a focus of yours based on this post. I am so terribly sorry and sad for you. This really does explain the abject hate your posts display for the Catholic Church.

          • James Von Borcke

            Oh, BCVB, you are even more entertaining. I mean, you use of terms like “real Christians” and “serious Christian” because you can’t square up your actions to your own professed faith.

            But now to attempt an claim that you haven’t judged people as sinful when the entire basis of your argument is that the snotty behavior you endorse is what ‘true Christians’ should do around sinners? That’s just hilarious.

            “As to the government, hey, I understand low quality crap that passes for education.”

            Funny how you won’t take me on my word that I served our nation, but this is like the 10th time or so that you’ve attacked public education in order to attack me under the presumption that I attended public school. As it is, I could say I went to public school and be lying;’ or I could say I went to a private school and be lying. Fact is, you’d have zero way of knowing either way.

            I can say, though, that your interpretation of the Constitution sounds more like you’ve been getting your history lessons from Neo-Confederates who have been proclaiming the downfall of America ever since they got their butts handed to them in the War Against Southern Arrogance.

            “But don’t force me to adhere to YOUR religious beliefs.”

            I have absolutely no desire for you to adhere to my religious beliefs. However, I do insist that you adhere to our nation’s founding principles of inalienable rights, equality and justice, the Constitution designed to ensure the same, and the laws constructed within that framework.

            If you can’t do that, then I suggest you find yourself a nice little theocracy somewhere and move there.

            Or you folks could build yourselves a Mayflower II and ship out for Mars.

            “Tell me, what tea party member has done anything like what was threatened against the Indiana pizzeria?”

            And now we’ve reached the part will you will pretend that the Religious Right has learned from its mistakes (from witch trials to the Civil War to lynchings) and now plays nice.

            How… Typical.

          • BCVB

            Anyway, James, best of luck. You WILL be in my prayers and I will be praying for you this Sunday at Mass. I am so sorry you are consumed with so much hate. But remember this: Hating the Catholic Church so much will not make it go away. It was there at the beginning. St. Peter was our first pope. It will be there until the end of time. The gates of hell will not defeat it.

            It’s been fun but as I am one who is not on taxpayer funded welfare and who actually does this thing called working for a living (and no, it doesn’t involve getting paid to spew anti-Christian hate all over), I cannot indulge your hatred any longer. Just as national parks prohibit people from feeding the wildlife because they will become dependent, I should remember not to feed the trolls that inhabit comment areas.

            I’ll be out there helping Christians to “come out of the closet” with their faith. You lefties have said you want us at your gay weddings. We’ll be at all weddings to which we are invited to serve with overt displays of Christianity. And you’ll probably just continue to spew anti-Christian hate. I hope someday you find peace. But know that the Catholic Church is not going away until the end of time. And it will be growing by leaps and bounds with all the Mexicans coming here. They are very “out of the closet” with their faith. It’s wonderful to see them. Parishes that may have fallen by the wayside from Cafeteria Catholics who found church attendance “inconvenient” will suddenly get new life as Mexicans move in. So, get used to seeing a lot more Catholicism, James. They’re not big on homosexuality and they tend to have more than the leftist-dictated 2.2 children. And they have children when they’re young, so they will get a couple of extra generations in there. Look at all the new Catholics! Enjoy, James, and thank Obama for growing the Catholic faith by virtually opening the border.

          • BCVB

            Reply missing, sorry if a duplicate.

            “But if you think you’re above the law, then go ahead and wave that flag for all it’s worth.”

            See, we have this thing called the First Amendment which bars prohibiting the FREE PRACTICE of one’s religion. Did you go to government school James? If so, then I guess you’re excused from understanding the First Amendment. I realize how you might see it as an inconvenience.

            “A nation of laws doesn’t practice Guilt by Association.”

            Really? So, like when the guy drives the getaway car from a robbery, or when they search someone’s house because they believe they might be an accomplice being connected to the perpetrator of a crime? Gosh, you MUST have gone to a government school!

            “(or the religion you claim to justify being a bigot)”

            Again, calling all serious Catholics who abide by the Catechism “bigots”. Why James, how intolerant. How hateful. Hot bigoted. Oh well, tyrant Joseph Stalin didn’t like people of faith either. He made religion illegal and wiped out tens of millions of people in the name of “progress”.

            “(ie, those who break the law and violate the Constitution)”

            Like those violating the First Amendment and the amendment banning involuntary servitude…. Please, James, tell me which amendment requires people to violate their religious faith and serve at GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED homosexual “weddings”…

            “The law doesn’t care about your religion, nor does the Constitution.”

            Again, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with the free practice of religion. I know, I know, defective government schooling causes misunderstandings like this…

            “this is a nation of laws, dedicated to the premise that ~all people~
            (not just the ones that [insulting comment about God by self-proclaimed “Christian” removed]) are equal under the law.”

            Yes, all people have the right to practice religion as documented in the First Amendment. Too bad extremist homosexuals don’t agree with that for CHRISTIANS but allow it by Muslims who refuse to make gay wedding cakes.

            “No, they want to be able to walk into ~any~ lawfully licensed business
            are receive the same goods and services as any other citizen.”

            First, tell that to Muslims in Dearborn who wouldn’t make gay wedding cakes.

            Second, oh, but they WILL receive the same goods and services. Overt Christianity will be a level of service provided across the board. Homosexuals are seeking out Christians and so they are going to get overt Christianity as a free bonus. Better yet, it will be given to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. THANK YOU James and your buddies for encouraging devout Christians to come out of the closet!

            “Having numerous homosexual friends (including the nice couple I live
            with and whose wedding I officiated over), I’ve had chance to patron a
            myriad of gay establishments; I have never been made to feel unwanted or
            unwelcome at any one of them.”

            Um, they probably thought you were one of them, being with them. Afterall, some homosexuals have been known to have lots and lots and lots of partners. Just because someone has a GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED “marriage” doesn’t mean they are automatically monogamous.

            “If you’ve experienced the opposite, then it might have something to do with your attitude.”

            Um, no, see I believe in this thing called a free market (sorry the extreme homosexuals and their supporters don’t). I have plenty of restaurant choices and I choose to go to those that don’t specifically cater to homosexuals. But I have heard of plenty of heterosexual couples (without homosexuals in tow) who HAVE been turned down. And this is now the crime of the century in the eyes of secular society:

            Secular Commandment 9,345,231: “Sexual orientation is above all other aspects of humanity. Anything that can even remotely be considered discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and allow a claim of victimhood and financial windfall to the “victim”, even if it means discriminating against other groups that henceforth have previously not been allowed to be discriminated against, IS to be called discrimination and the other groups are to be steamrolled in the process.”

            Don’t try to cloak discrimination in the cover of attitude, James. It is such thinly veiled discrimination against hetero sexual orientation. It is bigoted. It is intolerant. It is hateful. For shame!

          • James Von Borcke

            “See, we have this thing called the First Amendment which bars prohibiting the FREE PRACTICE of one’s religion”

            And they are free to open a church. A business, however, is a purely secular pursuit subject to secular laws.

            “If so, then I guess you’re excused from understanding the First Amendment.”

            You keep saying I don’t understand the First Amendment, but all you post to validate this are your justifications for being a bigot. I don’t care about your justifications; I care about my fellow citizens (and visitors from other nations) being able to walk into a business and purchase the same goods and services as anyone else without being harassed or made to feel inferior in order to appease the bigotries of the owners or staff.

            Or put simply: Your rights end where mine begin. Also known as, “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” Do ~you~ want to be preached at by someone of a different faith every time you cross their paths? Probably not. But don’t let that stop you from, y’know, listening to Jesus and being a decent neighbor.

            “So, like when the guy drives the getaway car from a robbery…”

            That’s aiding and abetting, not guilt by association.

            “…or when they search someone’s house because they believe they might be an accomplice being connected to the perpetrator of a crime?”

            Again, not guilt by association.

            The law isn’t your strong suite, is it?

            “Again, calling all serious Catholics who abide by the Catechism “bigots”. ”

            I call anyone who follows a bigoted philosophy bigots. I don’t care if it’s the Pope’s Catholicism or Hitler’s Positive Christianity.

            “Oh well, tyrant Joseph Stalin didn’t like people of faith either.”

            Understandable, being that he was raised Catholic and, while abandoning his faith, retained the same sense of totalitarianism that Catholicism has always demanded until recent days.

            “Please, James, tell me which amendment requires people to violate their religious faith and serve at GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED homosexual “weddings”..”

            Strawman, meet match.

            “I know, I know, defective government schooling causes misunderstandings like this…”

            Says the person who’s found 100 different ways to say, “I’m a bigot, but please don’t call me one.”

            “(not just the ones that [insulting comment about God by self-proclaimed “Christian” removed]) ”

            I love God… Your ~idea~ of God, on the other hand, deserves mockery.

            Though who ever came up with the latex nun concept was a genius.

            “THANK YOU James and your buddies for encouraging devout Christians to come out of the closet!”

            You really think ~that~ is going to be the end result? No, in another decade, you’ll be relegated to keeping your trap shut except when you use code words like racists do today.

            “Um, they probably thought you were one of them, being with them.”

            Nope. I’m quite open about who I am and about my faith (which teaches love via the Gospels, not hate via Leviticus and Saul). Several establishments know me by name.

            (And just as an FYI, if they ever need someone to officiate a wedding, they’ve got my number.)

            “But I have heard of plenty of heterosexual couples (without homosexuals in tow) who HAVE been turned down.”

            Again, what you have ~heard~ is irrelevant. Bigots ~always~ hear something to affirm their bigotry. Come back with ~facts~, not hearsay.

            “Secular Commandment 9,345,231…”

            Reducto ad Absurdum.

            “It is such thinly veiled discrimination against hetero sexual orientation.”

            Sorry to say, but this is just more of the same old crap… I’ve heard that our culture is striking out against men, but as a man, I’ve never noticed it. I’ve heard that our culture is striking out against whites, but being white, I’ve never noticed it. And I have heard that our culture is striking out against heterosexuals, but being straight, I’ve never noticed it. Now you’re saying that our nation is striking out against Christians, but as a Christian, I’ve never noticed it.

            What I ~have~ noticed, time and time again for all of my cognitive life (which begins in the early 70s), are bigots who are ~trying~ to make it about their maleness, their whiteness, their religiousness, or their straightness, in order to claim themselves to be the moral ones who have been victimized by ‘them’ (be it women, Africans, Atheists or homosexuals).

            It’s all just a bunch of BS. And the worst part isn’t that I know it… It’s that ~you~ know it, too, but can’t admit it even to yourself.

            Remember: When Thomas Jefferson was elected president, Christians buried their Bibles because they believed he was going to take them away. Your side of the debate has ~always~ promoted its own persecution complex. Indeed, it seems to be that your faith is built almost entirely on that foundation. “How dare those homosexuals come into my place of business and spend their money! Of all the nerve!” Yeah, that really is what you sound like. It’s what you ~all~ sound like.

          • BCVB

            “A business, however, is a purely secular pursuit subject to secular laws.”

            Hobby Lobby. They won a case where the left wanted to force them to pay for abortion causing drugs.

            “you post to validate this are your justifications for being a bigot.”

            Here we go. Anyone who dares disagree with James is a “bigot”. James has such a monopoly on “tolerance” that he calls everyone else who disagrees with him names.

            Actually, in your eagerness to thrash about and call everyone else a bigot you didn’t see that I was saying that you will WISH we could go back to the days of a polite decline. That is far different than advocating declining service. I said that homosexuals have made it clear — by specifically targeting Christian owned businesses for destruction — that they are in need of the light of Christianity. They go to a business because it is Christian. The business will then provide overt Christianity as part of their business to EVERYONE. The homosexuals have said they want Christian business owners to be part of their GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED “wedding” and as long as Christian business owners provide the same overt Christian service equally to everyone, they will do the same to homosexuals, atheists, any visiting interdimensional time travelers, space aliens, and whomever else that wants to get married in this great land.

            “Your rights end where mine begin.”

            Get a clue. Your “rights” do not trump anyone else’s, unless you feel you are above everyone else. And seriously, guy, that DOES come through loud and clear in your angry, hateful, bigoted posts. My gosh, do you ever take your blood pressure when you participate in these comment areas? Anger management courses might also be a good investment.

            “”Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.””

            And you’re the one who is okay with someone being hit with a $135,000 fine. What a twisted comment to make from a guy who is okay destroying a family over a cake. Sick and twisted. Is that what YOUR (clearly pagan) “god” teaches? That it’s okay to crush a family over a cake? How horrible. How sad. I’m glad the real God is not as harsh as your fake pagan “god”.

            “without being harassed or made to feel inferior”

            But it’s okay when you and your buddies do that to Christians, of course…

            “That’s aiding and abetting, not guilt by association.”

            Just as making a cake for a celebration of an act deemed to be sinful by one’s faith (without making it clear one is simply doing it to appease secular law and will be giving all proceeds to an organization that promotes the opposite). Logic and comprehension aren’t your strong suits, I take it? Oh and by the way, in case your government indoctrination center forgot to tell you, there is no “e” in “suit”. A “suite” is an individual office in a building that contains many different offices. I’m so sorry that government schooling has failed you, James.

            “Understandable, being that he was raised Catholic and, while abandoning his faith, retained the same sense of totalitarianism that Catholicism has always demanded until recent days.”

            My goodness! Your posts seem to show such a burning hatred for Catholicism, so much more than the burning and deep seated hate shown for anyone who disagrees with you or sees things differently from you. What has caused such hatred, James? I really, really feel sorry for you that such hate is emanating from your comments. I would encourage people with such hate to see a head doctor. It could be just a little chemical imbalance that can be fixed with the right kind of medication….

            But I have seen much worse hatred for the Catholic Church. It’s understandable. It doesn’t have the ability to change with the whims of society on important issues, like Protestant churches do. It will never “bless” homosexual acts. See, it was around since the beginning of Christianity and will be there until the end of time no matter what various groups throw at it. The hate spewed from your comments are not going to make it shrivel up and disappear nor is it going to convert a single Catholic away from that church, you know. Sorry if that disappoints you.

            “Sorry to say, but this is just more of the same old crap…”

            Says the guy who plagiarizes Obama in bringing up inquisitions from 500 years ago…. Look, at least give poor Obama a credit when spewing anti-Catholic bigotry that he used a few months back. HE said it first!

            “Remember: When Thomas Jefferson was elected president, Christians buried their Bibles because they believed he was going to take them away.”

            Oh, were you around back then? If not, then provide a source.

            “Now you’re saying that our nation is striking out against Christians, but as a Christian, I’ve never noticed it.”

            OF COURSE you don’t notice it. You advocate bigotry against Christians and your posts are filled with burning hatred towards Christians. You are hardly “Christian” when you endorse homosexual acts and ignore whatever is in the Bible that seems inconvenient to your personal whims. Beyond all that, just because YOU didn’t observe it hardly means it’s not happening. Heck, your posts are engaging in it!

            “What I ~have~ noticed, time and time again for all of my cognitive life (which begins in the early 70s), are bigots who are ~trying~ to make it about their maleness, their whiteness, their religiousness, or their straightness, in order to claim themselves to be the moral ones who have been victimized by ‘them’ (be it women, Africans, Atheists or homosexuals).

            It’s all just a bunch of BS. And the worst part isn’t that I know it… It’s that ~you~ know it, too, but can’t admit it even to yourself.”

            Seriously, you have to stop stealing other people’s words and passing them off as your own. Or just give them credit. This is a talking point from almost every Democrat politician of modern times, or person reading the news teleprompter on MSNBC. Either come up with an original thought or give credit where credit is due. The former is difficult judging by your posts. The latter is easy. Have the integrity to do the latter.

          • James Von Borcke

            “Hobby Lobby. They won a case where the left wanted to force them to pay for abortion causing drugs.”

            And, of course, the Right wants to punish people for having sex.

            But it should be noted: The ruling changed secular law, it did not make our laws into religious ones.

            “Anyone who dares disagree with James is a “bigot”.”

            No; just the ones that are bigots.

            “…they are in need of the light of Christianity.”

            That’s exactly what the ‘kindly masters’ thought about their African slaves when they were unloaded on the docks. And its what the Religious Right said about the Native Americans. How’d all that work out?

            “They go to a business because it is Christian.”

            Google “Greensboro Sit-Ins”.

            “Your “rights” do not trump anyone else’s…”

            Funny, that’s what ‘Your rights end where mine begin” means.

            “And you’re the one who is okay with someone being hit with a $135,000 fine.”

            They broke the law. If I broke the law, the same would happen to me.

            “Is that what YOUR (clearly pagan) “god” teaches?”

            When it comes to ‘God’, I’m a Deist. And He doesn’t teach anything except the answers which are found in nature itself.

            “That it’s okay to crush a family over a cake?”

            Because they broke the law in a manner that is anti-American by treating fellow citizens like they had a second class status.

            “But it’s okay when you and your buddies do that to Christians, of course…”

            You have to realize that claiming that Christians are being persecuted in America to a American Christian who has never witnessed or experienced such persecution isn’t really getting you very far. Especially since I have so many positive experiences with a large circle of friends that include the very people you claim are persecuting us.

            “First there are many Mexicans coming in here.”

            You may not have noticed, but these Mexicans are also usually ~liberal~ Catholics. That’s why the Religious Right is all uptight about immigration. If they were conservatives, the RR would open the borders and escort them in personally.

            “…true Christians…”

            I always love it when somebody uses the term ‘true’ to refer to their own narrow world view. It ranks right up there with ‘True Goths’ and ‘True Punks’ and ‘True Metalheads’. And of course, my favorite, ‘True Scotsman’.

            “Look, the mainstream media has tried to tell everyone to keep their faith in the closet for so long.”

            Another false accusation by the Religious Right. Now, if your problem is with secularism, take it up with James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

            “Meanwhile, anti-Christian bigoted groups have stomped all over Christianity.”

            Losing your privileged status is not persecution.

            “There is no place that it can go but to be “out” and to adopt all the same things that bigoted anti-Christian homosexuals used in their run up to power.”

            Again, losing your privileged status is not a “run up to power.” Equality is not persecution. Liberty is not slavery. None of your arguments here are valid. It’s all just fear and paranoia.

            “I know that scares you completely but the run up for homosexuals is well documented. Documented enough that creative Christians can use it. And yes, since the homosexuals have “come out of the closet” there is no reason for Christians not to be overt with their faith.”

            Of course it’s well documented. It’s in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Malcom X and Gandhi and Women’s Suffrage.

            Funny, of course, that ~all~ of them were fighting for freedom under Christian regimes that (really!) persecuted them and made them second class citizens.

            Exactly as you wish to continue to do towards homosexuals.

            “You want to sting a Christian business owner in the hopes of legally stealing all of their money with a bunch of unproven claims?”

            We want everyone to treat everyone fairly and equally. It’s not my fault that your prejudices prevent that.

            “Just as making a cake for a celebration of an act deemed to be sinful by one’s faith (without making it clear one is simply doing it to appease secular law and will be giving all proceeds to an organization that promotes the opposite).”

            So if I by flowers and give them to my girl and she shows me some ‘appreciation’, has the florist just participated in whatever just happened to my penis?

            And, yes, what people do with their penis’ (and vaginas!) has always been a money maker for the Religious Right.

            “Logic and comprehension aren’t your strong suits, I take it?”

            Again, trying to defend your bigotry while denying being a bigot kinda takes the cake of unintelligable propositions.

            “Oh and by the way, in case your government indoctrination center forgot to tell you, there is no “e” in “suit”. A “suite” is an individual office in a building that contains many different offices. I’m so sorry that government schooling has failed you, James.”

            Oh, wow… I made a spelling error. Well, I guess you had to get ~something~ right in this discussion, it might as well be something unrelated to the actual issue. After all, you’ve utterly failed in law, the Constitution, morals and theology. If not for my ~one~ spelling error, you’d be a complete waste.

            “My goodness! Your posts seem to show such a burning hatred for Catholicism…”

            Pointing at that your church, which you believe should dictate US social policy, has a pedophile problem, isn’t a hatred for Catholicism in general. But if you’re going to argue your religion’s moral authority, then then are we not only free but duty bound to investigate and scrutinize that authority?

            (Ah, if only it were 400 years ago… You’d have been able to send me to the gallows for saying that. Speaking of which, have you noticed that what you fear will happen you to in the near future is exactly what you folks do to everyone else whenever you’re in charge?)

            “What has caused such hatred, James?”

            Dealing with bigots. How ’bout yourself? Where does your hate come from?

            “I really, really feel sorry for you that such hate is emanating from your comments.”

            I look turn to the words of my idol, Thomas Jefferson, who said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

            “But I have seen much worse hatred for the Catholic Church. It’s understandable. It doesn’t have the ability to change with the whims of society on important issues, like Protestant churches do”

            I’d be happy if they just changed their position on the diddling of altar boys.

            “Oh, were you around back then? If not, then provide a source.”

            Every newspaper printed at the time, on file at the Library of Congress.

            “You advocate bigotry against Christians and your posts are filled with burning hatred towards Christians.”

            I don’t advocate bigotry against Christians; I advocate taking a stand against bigotry ~regardless~ of the justifications they use.

          • BCVB

            James, like I said, I have real things to do. I see you just have time to spread anti-Christian hate around. All I can say is peace be with you. May your heart one day not be so filled with hatred. Don’t blame the Founding Fathers for the modern left’s anti-Christian bigotry. The Founding Fathers wanted people to be free to practice their faith as long as it was not providing a public safety issue. You, on the other hand, want to compel them to involuntary servitude, aka slavery. So sad, and so sorry that you like making slaves out of Christians.

            So first you’re a Christian and now you admit to being a Diest. Not the same thing at all. But at least you were honest this time. No wonder your posts spew so much hate for Christians.

            By the way, stop judging people. True Christians judge ACTIONS. You have cast judgement on people bazillions of times. THAT is where “Judge not, lest ye be judged” applies, James.

            As to the Mexicans, believe whatever fantasy belief you want. They are not at all liberal Catholics. Spend any time with them in Texas? Yeah, I thought not. The right generally has an issue with people violating our laws. The left only has an issue when it’s one of the laws they recently made up to persecute Christians.

            That you think it is fine to crush a small family and destroy them with a $135,000 fine over a cake tells me all I need to know about you, James. Harsh and tyrannical. You have no clue about compassion. The lesbians got a free cake. Problem solved. So sad for you if you get sick and twisted pleasure out of destroying this family and punishing the little kids who expected to grow up making cakes. So sad that you are pleased at wrecking their childhoods over a cake and someone’s sex act. So sad for you. I have such pity for you James that you enjoy seeing this family destroyed. That you think such a harsh penalty is justified. Only those who worship sex acts would feel that way. And I do feel sorry for your parents.

            Good luck James. May the hate in your heart go away and may you one day have peace. May you find something better to do than spread so much anti-Christian bigotry and hate.

            Again, you will be in my prayers and especially at Mass.

          • James Von Borcke

            I learned an interesting fact today… Did you know that that the ~entire~ Constitution, complete with all 27 Amendments, totals 7,591 words?

            Now, this next bit I already knew, but now that you know the above, consider the following:

            The entire Constitution and the first ten Amendments were all written by our Founding Fathers (hence the name, yes?); nearly every person involved in its beginning remained involved until the very end. The remaining seventeen Amendments were penned by later generations. And amongst ~all~ of those who contributed to those words, not a ~one~ saw fit to include the words God, Christianity, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, Commandments, New Testament or Bible.

            That means that our Founders and all of our democratically elected leaders who have since followed, complete and in-total, have had seven thousand five hundred and ninety-one chances to use even ~one~ of those words just ~once~.

            Give yourself a moment to let that sink in.

            Now consider what they ~did~ write…

            First, the No Religious Test Clause… Then the Establishment Clause… Then the Free Exercise Clause… Consider ~all three~ of these together. Consider them in the context of those words which ~are not~ there.

            Then consider that just a few short years following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, John Adams gave another nation ~our~ solemn word that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”, a statement which was ratified by the Senate ~unanimously~ (and keep in mind here that several of those Senators were amongst those who wrote, debated and voted on those two aforementioned documents which are missing all those aforementioned words).

            All of these facts point to a separation between government and religion; a government tasked with seeing to our secular needs, with the freedom of religion permitting each individual the ~civil right~ to believe and worship as they see fit (even if that means not believing or worshiping) to fulfill their sectarian needs.

            Remember our motto: E Plurubus Unum. “From many, one.” Not one religion, but many. Not one people, but many. All ~united~ into a single nation.

            And those words share a place with two other mottoes: Annuit Cœptis (“Approves Our Undertaking”, regarding the approval of Providence, a Deist term) and Novus Ordo Seclorum (“A New Order of The Ages”, aka New World Order).

            Now, this last part is interesting because what, we should ask, would ~be~ a new world order? At least, what would one created by our Founding Fathers be as evidenced by the documents they wrote? And it is this: A republic consisting of democratically elected representatives free from the influence of king, aristocrat and clergy alike. The common folk, free and educated, determining the destiny of their own nation, armed with knowledge and compassion rather than fear and superstition.

            Was this to be achieved overnight? No, the Founders ~knew~ that this was a struggle that would take decades, if not centuries. That rising the common realm of thought into the knowledge made possible by the Enlightenment and the advent of Free Inquiry would inevitably lead to the cause of liberty and freedom to expand until fully realized.

            Now, you sneer at the word ‘liberal’ like its a slur. But the question is: Why isn’t ~every~ American a liberal? Was it Conservatives that dreamed of such a nation? No, Conservatives remained as Loyalists [1]. Was it Conservatives the worked towards the abolition of slavery? No, Conservatives fought for the South. Was it Conservatives that wrote the 13th Amendment? No, Conservatives fought against it every step of the way. Was it Conservatives that sought to make peace with the Indians? No, Conservatives broke and violated every treaty whenever possible[2]. Was it Conservatives that fought for Women’s Suffrage to win their right to vote? No, Conservatives beat and imprisoned and raped the women that stood up for that. Was it Conservatives that strove for racial equality? No, Conservatives set loose the dogs and got fire hoses and formed lynch mobs and murdered civil rights workers (regardless of their color). Was it Conservatives that sought to end the ban on interracial marriage? No, Conservatives got violent and rioted and pronounced that the America they ~hate~ was finally doomed.

            And today, is it the Conservatives that fight to increase voter turn out? Is it the Conservative fighting for LGBTQA Rights? Is it the Conservatives fighting for education? For the banks to no longer have the power to crash our economy? For women’s rights to medical coverage? Or even accurate, scientifically-sound information regarding that coverage? To protect the air we breath, the water we drink and the earth we live, work and play on (y’know, all that beautiful stuff God created that you went on about earlier)?

            The American Conservative (meaning the Religious Right) has been on the wrong side (and the losing side) of every human rights struggle this nation has faced.

            Every. Single. One.

            Without exception.

            So you can call me a ‘Leftist’ and a ‘Liberal’ with whatever grade school sneering tone you wish. It’s a label I wear with pride and honor, with the solid conviction that I ~am~ an American Patriot and ~you~ are, as always, on the wrong side of history. And no amount of “If-Only-The-South-Had-Won” revisionism will change that.

            So you see, I don’t need to be an ‘anti-Christian’, or an Atheist, or a Pagan, or even a Satan Worshiper to stand up and call you out for what you are.

            I just need to be an American.

            -Notes-
            [1] It should be noted that when enough Conservatives joined the rebellion that the Southern states were ‘in play’, they did so only ~after~ the removal of Jefferson’s
            condemnation of slavery. Imagine how much sooner the Abolitionist Movement may have succeeded had that remained, and even the possibility that it would have been handled in the courts ~without~ the bloodshed of war. That’s how much Conservatives love freedom.

            [2] And for whatever reason possible, ranging from simpleton racism to objectionable greed. Note here also that the average Conservative Christian was unsympathetic to the plight of the ‘godless savages’. After all, if God was with them, they wouldn’t have lost their lands, right?

          • BCVB

            James, this is the end. After this, you go on my ignore list. I will correct your copy and paste nonsense in case anyone is reading and confused. After that, I have a real life to be involved with. Sorry if you don’t.

            Your comments about religion not being in the Constitution are totally out of context. These people were English colonists. Just a couple of centuries before, England had an idiot king named Henry VIII who created his own church so that he could use, abuse, and sometimes behead wives simply because he couldn’t get a male heir out of them. (Modern science would show that it was probably Henry VIII that was the problem in not being able to produce a male heir, not the numerous women.) But worse, his children each persecuted people who were not of their faith. Another king later on down the line was even beheaded for being a Catholic. OF COURSE the Founding Fathers were not going to include religious language in the Constitution; they didn’t want to create a Henry VIII or Elizabeth I. People of religious faiths other than the official faith had fewer rights in England at the time. These people were also widely read and knew about the history of Rome where paganism was required for quite a while and Christians were persecuted for failing to make sacrifices to pagan gods. Then, when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, pagans were persecuted. Enough! Let people freely practice their own religion as long as it does not physically harm someone else or impede the public safety (e.g. dropping a prayer rug in the middle of a street).

            What they DID include was that there would be NO restrictions on the free practice of religion. That meant that anyone was free to be of any religion they wanted or of no religion at all without meddling from the government. Popular opinion and viewpoints, of course, were out of the control of the government — back then, at least.

            And your copy and paste nonsense forgot to mention that many of the writings, Annual Messages (their version of a State of the Union before radio and television), proclamations, and other statements by early presidents and Congress referenced God, the Almighty, the Savior, Providence, and other Christian remarks. Did they have the force of law? NO, but it shows these thoughts influenced such people and guided them in their decision making. You have whole cities all over this country named after Catholic saints or other Christian concepts.

            You are trying to impose a modern secular progressive interpretation on the Founding Fathers without considering historical context. It is perfectly fine that the GOVERNMENT does not have an official religion. But what they do instead is allow the free practice of all religions by anyone. That includes presidents, Congressional leaders and officeholders, governors, and common people. THAT is all that is needed. Freedom to PRACTICE (not merely show up to their place of worship on their religion’s designated day of worship) their religious faith. Free from the meddling of a burdensome government except in matters of public safety. Free from the meddling of people who put a sex act above all other aspects of life. Period. End of story.

            As to your misinformation about conservatives, conservatives of today are CLASSICAL liberals. The Founding Fathers and people like Abraham Lincoln were CLASSICAL liberals. Your cut and paste doesn’t mention how progressive “saint” Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that the word “progressive” had a bad rap to it at the time (this was a brief third party that could never make headway). So, he took over the term “liberal” as a replacement for “progressive”. Liberal after FDR = incremental Marxism/Communism.

            It was the DEMOCRAT president Woodrow Wilson who was primarily against women’s suffrage. And in the first presidential election after women could vote, women went for REPUBLICAN Warren Harding.

            It was the DEMOCRATS who championed slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, opposition to Civil Rights, and now welfare slavery for African Americans. It was DEMOCRAT racist president Lyndon Baines Johnson who said he would do welfare to get African Americans (Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson used a more insulting word that starts with n) to vote for Democrats for the next 200 years.

            Martin Luther King was NOT a Democrat.

            It is the LEFT and Democrats who pit identity groups against each other so they can say the Democrats are the only ones who will protect them. They refuse to consider everyone equal Americans.

            It is the LEFT that believes in a larger and ever growing government that controls more and more of our lives. It is the RIGHT that wants to restore the freedoms put forth by our Founding Fathers and remove burdensome meddling in people’s lives by government except where there is a compelling public interest. It is the RIGHT that believes we are all Americans and that we are all individuals capable of making our own path without the need of the government to offer cradle to grave chains of dependency.

            James, I happened to see a couple of other articles on this site and saw how you referenced your sexual practices in comments. My gosh, you are a slave in my opinion. I truly feel sorry for you and will pray ever more for you. Now it makes sense. The seething hatred your posts show for Christianity and especially Catholicism is, in my view, due to the idea of its promotion of purity and true freedom from slavery.

            Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

            Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing. You reign now in Heaven, with Jesus our King. Ave, ave, ave Maria.

            And before you call that “Mary worship”, there is reverence for the vessel whom God chose to bear His Son. That is not the same as worship.

            James, I will pray a rosary for you. And after this, you will hear no more from me. May God bless you, James. May the Holy Spirit one day free your mind from the terrible slavery which you have created for yourself. Peace be with you.

          • James Von Borcke

            “After this, you go on my ignore list.”

            Translation: “You hurt my pride and I’m taking my toys and going home!”

            “After that, I have a real life to be involved with. Sorry if you don’t.”

            Funny how someone that’s been here ~just as much as me~ and has matched me ~post for post~ seems to think he can belittle me for posting here… There’s a word for that, y’know?

            (Hint: It starts with an H.)

            “Your comments about religion not being in the Constitution are totally out of context.”

            No, it’s not. You ~want~ it to be out of context, but that’s just your theocratic nature shining through.

            “OF COURSE the Founding Fathers were not going to include religious language in the Constitution; they didn’t want to create a Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.”

            Or another pope.

            “Let people freely practice their own religion as long as it does not physically harm someone else or impede the public safety (e.g. dropping a prayer rug in the middle of a street).”

            Or allows them to get gay married. That apparently isn’t allowed by you, either.

            “What they DID include was that there would be NO restrictions on the free practice of religion. That meant that anyone was free to be of any religion they wanted or of no religion at all without meddling from the government.”

            Which is why we’ve spent the last 215ish years weeding all to the sectarian laws out of our secular legal system.

            We’re just about done, by the way. Just a few more of these primitive relics left.

            “And your copy and paste nonsense…”

            If I did a copy/paste, please prove it by citing the source.

            “…forgot to mention that many of the writings, Annual Messages (their version of a State of the Union before radio and television), proclamations, and other statements by early presidents and Congress referenced God, the Almighty, the Savior, Providence, and other Christian remarks.”

            Proclamations and statements are not our laws and they are not our Constitution. It didn’t matter if these folks were religious or not; our ~secular~ Constitution recognized each and every one of their rights to be religious or not.

            “Did they have the force of law? NO, but it shows these thoughts influenced such people and guided them in their decision making.”

            Again, that doesn’t make our government a religious institution. Keep in mind, I have no problem with faith, having it myself. My question is ~what~ that faith drives you to do. Good things come from good faith; bad things come from bad faith.

            “You have whole cities all over this country named after Catholic saints or other Christian concepts.”

            Most gaining these names during the time when Christianity was spread by way of sword, spear and musket.

            “You are trying to impose a modern secular progressive interpretation on the Founding Fathers without considering historical context.”

            No, I’m not. You are.

            “It is perfectly fine that the GOVERNMENT does not have an official religion. But what they do instead is allow the free practice of all religions by anyone. That includes presidents, Congressional leaders and officeholders, governors, and common people. THAT is all that is needed. Freedom to PRACTICE (not merely show up to their place of worship on their religion’s designated day of worship) their religious faith. Free from the meddling of a burdensome government except in matters of public safety. Free from the meddling of people who put a sex act above all other aspects of life. Period. End of story.”

            And free from the meddling of those who can’t stop imagining, fearing or fantasizing about what sex acts others are performing.

            “As to your misinformation about conservatives, conservatives of today are CLASSICAL liberals.”

            Keep telling yourself that.

            “It was the DEMOCRAT president Woodrow Wilson who was primarily against women’s suffrage.”

            A Conservative Democrat, back when the Democratic Party had Conservatives in it. Remember, they were kicked out of the party in 1948; now they all vote Republican.

            Kinda throws a hole in your ‘classical liberal’ nonsense, don’t it?

            “And in the first presidential election after women could vote, women went for REPUBLICAN Warren Harding.”

            Given his platform at the time, I probably would have voted for him, too. Just remember that he was the ‘compromise candidate’, with the Conservative and Liberal Republicans unable to bring forth a candidate no one could agree on. As for women voting for him, it’s because he supported child welfare (which modern day Republicans, all of whom are Conservative now, oppose vehemently) and his endorsement of civil rights for African-Americans (which modern day Republicans oppose as well).

            You starting to see the picture yet?

            “It was the DEMOCRATS who championed slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, opposition to Civil Rights, and now welfare slavery for African Americans. It was DEMOCRAT racist president Lyndon Baines Johnson who said he would do welfare to get African Americans (Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson used a more insulting word that starts with n) to vote for Democrats for the next 200 years.”

            Again, you ~ignore~ the ~fact~ that these Conservative Democrats were ~booted~ from the party in 1948, after which they went on to form the Dixiecrats. After the Civil Rights Act, Nixon instituted the Southern Strategy to take advantage of the disgruntlement of whites living in southern states, bringing them (and their KKK/Jim Crow/Opposition to Civil Rights views) into the Republican Party. Then, during the Reagan Administration, these Conservatives were given a voice via the Moral Majority. Then during the Bush Jr Administration, they were emboldened with a false sense of patriotic pride that didn’t belong to them, while pushing out anyone that didn’t tow the Christian Conservative line.

            Then, with the election of President Obama, this same Christian Conservative movement went on a ‘purity purge’ to expel ~anyone~ with moderate social policies from the Republican Party. Now, the Republican Party has become the Dixiecrats in all but name, but like everything else they claim as their own (patriotism, Christianity, etc.), all that’s left is a dried up husk of the original.

            “Martin Luther King was NOT a Democrat.”

            Never said he was. But he ~did~ work with socialists and liberals.

            “It is the LEFT and Democrats who pit identity groups against each other so they can say the Democrats are the only ones who will protect them. They refuse to consider everyone equal Americans.”

            Says the person who believes homosexuals should be second class citizens and votes for politicians who perceive women the same way. But let’s not let that distract from your outrage over no longer holding a privileged position.

            “It is the LEFT that believes in a larger and ever growing government that controls more and more of our lives.”

            Like about how homosexuals should remain hidden, or that women should not be allowed to make their own medical decision? Oh, wait… That’s not the Liberals at all. That’s ~you~ people.

            “It is the RIGHT that wants to restore the freedoms put forth by our Founding Fathers and remove burdensome meddling in people’s lives by government except where there is a compelling public interest.”

            In other words, you want to turn the clock back to how it was before the South got their arrogant butts handed to them.

            “It is the RIGHT that believes we are all Americans and that we are all individuals capable of making our own path without the need of the government to offer cradle to grave chains of dependency.”

            In other words, “Every man for himself”.

            Stress on men; women are second class citizens in this Randian dystopia you dream of.

            “My gosh, you are a slave in my opinion.”

            Fortunately, your opinion don’t mean much other than its entertainment value.

            “I truly feel sorry for you and will pray ever more for you.”

            I don’t need the pity of a bigot who’s sense of patriotism is based on lies and propaganda.

            “The seething hatred your posts show for Christianity and especially Catholicism is, in my view, due to the idea of its promotion of purity and true freedom from slavery.”

            Your brand of Christianity is slavery. It’s based on fear, hate and distrust, which form chains stronger than iron or steel.

            “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

            You need to pay less attention to Saul and his popes and more to Jesus. You do remember who he is, right? He’s the cool cat who said, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:5-6)

            Your prayers and your pity are clearly anti-Christ.

            “And before you call that “Mary worship”, there is reverence for the vessel whom God chose to bear His Son. That is not the same as worship.”

            Keep telling yourself that. Besides, we all know about Catholic girls and anal; I count more than a few amongst my most amorous lovers.

  • ijohnc1

    If one only looks at the salaries that GFM pays out along with their yearly bonuses, why would anyone ever send them a donation, they probably get a big chunk from Soros.
    By the way did Sweet Cakes ever receive any of the monies sent to GFM? if they were sent over nine hundred thousand for their cause, and the lesbians got one hundred thirty five thousand from awarded by the secular judge, where did the rest of the money go?
    Just saying

  • Abacrombee

    So they discriminate to show discrimination is wrong. Not the brightest bulbs on the tree are they?

  • James Raymond Lane

    Do the people the funds were raised for before they shut down the pages get the money already raised before they changed their guidelines? It’ll be interesting to see if GoFundMe gives it back to the donors or they keep it. If they keep it I think criminal charges could be in order.

  • pearl87

    Homosexuals don’t have friends, they have allies.

    • James Von Borcke

      Hey, I ~tried~ replying to you in the other thread, but it’s not appearing in the discussion; It is appearing on my page, so no idea what’s up… Hope, then, that you don’t mind me pulling it over here to this new thread you started.

      You had said…

      “You are giving yourself carte blanch to judge, and then claiming others must refrain from judging.”

      You seem to have not understood what wrote, so allow me to explain again… This time, however, I’ll take the role of the one being judged.

      If ~I~ commit a crime, it is for the Court of Law to punish me for my transgression against ~society~. It is not the Court of Law’s job to punish me for my transgression against God if such occurred. After all, if we are going to dispense holy justice, then which religion (thousands of Christian sects alone!) will that supposed justice come from? And more importantly, if the government were to enforce biblical law, then how different is that from enforcing Sharia? Thusly, the courts are ~not~ charged with doing so and our secular foundation ensures that this remains so.

      (And a good thing, too; being Gnostic in my approach to the Gospels, I’d be deemed a heretic in any sectarian society run by most other Christian sects, particularly the more militant ones that are so vocal here in the United States.)

      Now, let’s say the crime I committed calls for my execution (typically murder and treason, and as a veteran I’m quite unlikely to do the later, so let’s go with murder). One bit of flowery language tacked on at the end of the execution order is the phrase “May God have mercy on your soul.” Now, while this ~does~ presume I have a soul, it does ~not~ indicate which God thus making it ‘ceremonial Deism’ under constitutional law (regardless of how the individual perceives it to mean).

      Now, why is this done? Because even though the state can decide that my ~secular~ crimes call for my execution, it is God and God alone that can judge me for my ~sectarian~ failings (consider Jesus asking the men gathered about the adulteress which of them was sinless enough to judge her). After my death, someone may say, “He’s burning in Hell,” while another might say, “He found Christ and was forgiven,” but ~both~ are making assumptions based on their own feelings and opinions as neither has any way of knowing what happened to me when the proverbial lights went out.

      Do you understand more clearly what I’m saying?

    • James Von Borcke

      And I guess I’ll reply to this one, too…

      “Homosexuals don’t have friends, they have allies.”

      I’m both… That is, I identify as a Straight Ally (we even have our own Pride flag! Google it!), ~and~ I have a multitude of homosexual friends. I live with three gay men (two being a married couple, with me in the role of Token Hetero lol), and I belong to a leather club with over forty members, about fifteen of which are gay men, three are lesbians, around eight or so bisexual women and at least two bisexual men (and yes, that makes straights the minority).

      As a club, we circulate with several hundred other people (close to a hundred long time residents, about another hundred ‘frequent visitors’ from nearby cities and states, plus numerous vacationers visiting the great city of Lost Wages who’ve heard about what a great community we have out here in the desert), in which a general mix of straights, gays and bisexuals are a part.

      Though the majority of so many people would clearly be associations, a great many of them friends. A small few, such as the three I live with, are regarded as my family, and I love and care for them deeply. It doesn’t matter to me if they are straight, bi or gay, nor do I care what faith they adhere to or if they have no faith at all (“But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~Thomas Jefferson). I don’t care if they are office professionals, mechanics, florists, or even sex workers. All I care about is how they treat me, just as I endeavor to treat them in kind.

      Homosexuals are human beings, and nearly every human being has friends.

      • pearl87

        You are a very versatile bohemian.
        I still stand by my statement.
        But I’d like to specify. I’m not speaking of people who happen to engage in a homosexual lifestyle, who may or may not be normal in other ways. I am referring to those who embrace the cause of homosexuality as a holy war, and who subordinate all other human endeavors to their sexual proclivities. That’s, unfortunately, the most visible face of “Gay Pride” and, to me, it is a culture that intends to threaten the existence of those with whom they disagree. As such, they acknowledge neither friendship nor love unless it furthers their goal of supremacy and subjugation of those whom they despise. Your little colony of non-conformists sounds like a group who value their eccentricity and individuality. Perhaps, that type of community isn’t interested in destroying the identity of the larger population. After all, they value their uniqueness, and it will disappear if deviancy becomes a mandate.

        • James Von Borcke

          “That’s, unfortunately, the most visible face of “Gay Pride” and, to me,
          it is a culture that intends to threaten the existence of those with
          whom they disagree.”

          Homosexuals don’t want to wipe out anyone that disagrees with them; they are merely standing up for the human and civil rights which have been denied to them by those who see them as being less than worthy. In a free and open democracy, which is what America is, they have equal protection under the law, regardless of what you may believe, or have been taught to believe, about their sexuality.

          That is, if you perceive hatred ~from~ the homosexuals, then I can assure you that such a response is the result of ~your~ hatred of them.

          “After all, they value their uniqueness, and it will disappear if deviancy becomes a mandate.”

          This is an interesting display of paranoia and unjustifiable fear.

          • pearl87

            I see I misjudged you. You ARE a militant homosexual. I must disagree with your positions on everything you’ve said, in this case. I was under the mistaken impression that you and your “friends” were the type to live and let live. But you, instead, intend to proselytize for deviancy. So, please know that normal people will resist your perversion.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You ARE a militant homosexual.”

            No, I’m straight. If I’m militant about anything, it’s in the proposal that every Human is endowed with inalienable rights ~and~ that this nation was founded for and charged with the defense of those rights.

            By all accounts, then, it is those who stand against this ideal who are, by definition, the ‘enemies domestic’ I swore by affirmation to stand against when I joined the US Navy.

            Consequently, your attempts to demonize me aren’t really all that effective; I spent the 70s being called an n****r-lover by people who believed, just like you, that they held a special societal status above everyone else, so you can understand why I find your present efforts to be amateurish at best.

  • Lark62

    If you are in business, benefiting from public roads and other infrastructure, you have a legal responsibility to comply with the law. As a human being, you have a responsibility to be kind.

    When a business sells a product, any product, they are not opining on the use of that product. When a person buys gas, maybe they are planning to go to a kids soccer game or a church or a strip club. The gas station doesn’t care. The baker has probably sold wedding cakes to people with multiple divorces, men marrying women 40 years younger, couples who have been living together for 10 years, and teens not old enough to drink. The baker did not opine on the worth or prospects of any of those marriages. It isn’t their business.

    I don’t want to live in a society where discrimination is rampant. This means that businesses choose their product. But they treat all money as green. Any person can purchase the products they sell.

  • jmichael39

    I, essentially, feel the same way I wish others would feel about these Christian businesses…if they don’t want our business. We’ll take it somewhere else.

  • WampusKat

    Maybe just stop being a-holes to people. I’m pretty sure if businesses started putting up “No Services to Fundies” signs, ya’ll wouldn’t like it too much.