Judge Rules Christian Bakers Discriminated in Declining to Make ‘Support Gay Marriage’ Cake

 

AsherBELFAST — A judge in Ireland has ruled against a Christian-owned bakery for declining to make a Bert and Ernie cake that was to be decorated with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage,” and has ordered them to pay a fine equating to nearly $800 U.S. dollars.

As previously reported, in May of last year, Ashers Baking Company in Newtonabbey—named after Genesis 49:20—was approached by a same-sex “marriage” supporter to bake the cake, which also was to feature the logo for the homosexual advocacy group QueerSpace. According to the Belfast Telegraph, the cake was for an event in observance of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

Karen McArthur, the mother of manager Daniel McArthur, 24, initially accepted the order as she didn’t want the man to feel embarrassed. But as the matter was discussed with other family members, it was agreed upon that they could not go through with putting the message on the cake in good conscience before God. Daniel McArthur told reporters that the company contacted the customer and offered a refund, explaining that same-sex “marriage” is against their Christian beliefs.

However, the customer, Gareth Lee, soon reported Ashers Baking Company to the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland, which in turn sent a warning to to McArthur, stating that he and his bakery had discriminated against Lee. Same-sex “marriage” is not legal in Northern Ireland, although laws have been passed throughout the rest of the UK.

Last November, the Commission ordered the bakery to pay compensation or face legal action. As the McArthur’s refused, the case moved forward in court. The family gave testimony on the stand as to why they could not fulfill Lee’s order.

“We felt as Christians we could not in conscience put it on a cake. We believe the business is being given to us by God and how we use it is on our shoulders,” Daniel McArthur explained. “Our Christian faith is [of] the utmost importance to us. It is how we run our entire lives and bring our families up. Before God, it is not something we could do.”

“We seek to live at all times in accordance with the doctrines and teachings of the Bible. I have been a born-again Christian since I was seven. I love the Lord and I seek to please him in the way I live my life,” Karen McArthur said. “We discussed how we could stand before God and bake a cake like this promoting a case like this.”

Asher’s Bakery has stated that it is willing to serve homosexuals in general—one would not know about another’s sexual behavior unless they had requested a cake for such reasons—but should not be forced to decorate cakes with messages that urge others to “support gay marriage” in violation of their faith.

Lee told the court that he “assumed” that the order was being declined because of his homosexuality.

“It is not very pleasant to be considered not worthy of service because somebody else says they are Christian,” he stated. “It does not make me feel good in any respect.”

On Tuesday, Judge Isobel Brownlie ruled against the McArthurs, declaring them “guilty of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.” She stated that because the bakery was not a religious organization, it wasn’t entitled to an exemption from the law.

“This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification,” Brownlie said. “As much as I acknowledge their religious beliefs, this is a business to provide service to all. The law says they must do that.”

Daniel McArthur says that he is disappointed in the ruling, reiterating that Ashers Baking Company has no issue with serving homosexuals—only the message that was to go on the cake. He believes that businesses shouldn’t have to promote messages that are contrary to their values.

“We’ve said from the start that our issue was with the message on the cake—not with the customer—and that we didn’t know what the sexual orientation of Mr. Lee was, and it wasn’t relevant either. We’ve always been happy to serve any customers who come into our shops,” McArthur said. “The ruling suggests that all business owners will have to be willing to promote any cause or campaign, no matter how much they disagree with it.”

As previously reported, last month, an appeals court in Kentucky overturned a guilty verdict against Christian screenprinter Hands on Originals, stating that the business had a right to decline to print wording on t-shirts for a “gay pride” event.

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

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

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

 

 


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
  • jjgrandisland

    This is what happens when bad business owners do not read the rules. I feel bad for them but how else are they going to learn?

  • bowie1

    Too bad for the bakery. I assume those who ordered the cake had copyright permission for the Bert and Ernie intellectual property or else the bakery could have declined on that basis.

    • Bobby Mae

      Lol

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

      As a print and sign shop owner, I deal with copyright infringement constantly. People just don’t get that I can’t print things that don’t belong to them. It’s a bit off-topic but it does relate to running one’s business in good conscience.

      • bowie1

        I was in the same business as an employee for some 18 years mostly designing signs, decals, etc. and some t-shirts. Most of it was company logos or content that was theirs. Well, actually the first place I worked I found out the owner was not entirely honest, although I don’t recall putting copyrighted material on t-shirts unless one would include a drawing of the Fonz. Even if it was copyrighted material without permission I wouldn’t have known that anyway. (I’m retired now on disability pension after working another 18 or so years in other lines of work.)

  • Bobby Mae

    Sorry but making a cake isn’t endorsing anything. When a baker makes a birthday cake that’s not considered participating in the birthday party, nor do they know anything about the birthday boy/girl. Christians just being whiners because they dont like gay people. Maybe you shouldn’t operate a business that deals with the public if your conscience is going to bug you so much.

    • akosipatriot

      Are you people so naive? The bakers have no problem serving cakes regardless of their sexual identity, the problem being is the message that will put in the cake. It is like forcing people to endorse communism against their will.

      The reality distortion field is really effective.

      • Bobby Mae

        Again, if writing “congratulations Bert and Ernie” on a cake causes you to lose sleep at night, you shouldn’t be in a business that services the public.

        • Josey

          I think it was more than just “congratulations Bert and Ernie” they wanted queerspace logo on it and the statement “Support Gay Marriage,”also from what I read in the article which is support of a homosexuality group in which because of their faith in biblical principles they could not go against God’s word to promote such a thing.

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

      So if I understand you correctly, you think that “maybe” the only people who should run businesses that deal with the public are people whose consciences don’t “bug” them? I’m not trying to be critical, I just wonder if you really meant to say that.

      For example, a sign company operated by lesbians shouldn’t be “bugged” by a customer who orders a banner that says “God Hates Fags”. After all they wouldn’t be “endorsing” the sentiment, just printing it. Am I understanding you correctly?

      • Bobby Mae

        I might be in the minority but yes, I would expect conscience to be bugged, but that’s dealing with the public and I would still make the sign.

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

          That’s a good, consistent answer. Businesses are public accommodations. We may not like what is happening in our society but denial of service is an act of civil disobedience. People may choose that route but they shouldn’t be whining about it. Churches are another matter entirely.

    • Josey

      The issue isn’t about serving gays and you either know that or are ignorant. The issues is what logo’s and statements gays want put onto the cakes or tee shirts promoting the gay lifestyle which clearly is against the beliefs of the baker or whomever hold these convictions before God Almighty. And most bakers who bake cakes for weddings go to the wedding and serve the cake so of course the baker would be aware of the gay ceremony and in all good conscience cannot partake of such a thing for it harms his conscience.
      I wonder how many homosexual business such as these mentioned would refuse a Christian going into their place of business and requesting a tee shirt or cake for whatever reason asking scripture against homosexuality or Biblical scripture in whatever form be place on said items? I’m convinced the homosexual business would refuse to make the cake or shirt or whatever and call it hate speech. Maybe time for Christians to flood the homosexual business and requests the same free speech rights under the constitution and put in many requests for scriptures to be placed on cakes, tee shirts, etc. HA! I’d do it! Let the truth be told!

      • Bobby Mae

        I’m gay and I would write anything you wanted xoxo

        • Josey

          sure you would

        • Josey

          and what business do you run?

          • Bobby Mae

            Would implicates hypothetical.

          • Josey

            Then your statement means nothing! Bye.

          • Bobby Mae

            Lol!! Only responding to your statement “I wonder how many homosexuals WOULD do this or that..” But ok

  • Kathryn Evans

    OMG – Bert and Ernie are NOT GAY!!
    I hate it when people use something innocent and childlike to promote some perverted agenda!

    • MisterPine

      So what if they are? Who cares?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “OMG – Bert and Ernie are NOT GAY!! ”

      How do you know?

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

        Because they’re puppets maybe? As characters, there was never any hint of it and CTW and PBS have denied it repeatedly. This is a meme of the LGBT community and it’s a little pathetic that something as innocent as this was expropriated to advance a political agenda.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          Actually, the Sesame Workshop said that they do not have a sexual orientation as they are puppets. Odd, though, that Ms. Piggy seems quite attracted to Kermit.

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

            Yes, I read CTW’s position. Bert and Ernie showed no overt attraction to one another so it was largely fabricated by the LGBTC (I’m tired of typing out “community”). Miss Piggy, however, had exhibited very overt attraction to Kermit. Not sure if that qualifies as heterosexual, however, since it was inter-species. In fact they’re not even in the same taxonomic family (suidae and anuran). Or maybe they’re just puppets.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Or maybe the whole thing is just much ado about nothing.

      • Josey

        for one thing inanimate objects are not real, they are puppets with out life in them and could not be gay or anything else. perverse people want to make them out to be gay which is ridiculous!

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          Oh, that’s great to know. So because they are inanimate and without life, they can’t be gay. Please let Jerry Falwell know he can stop worrying about the Telletubbie Tinky Winky and Barney the dinosaur. He was certain they were gay.

          You do realize that puppets represent real life things, correct?

    • Parque_Hundido

      You mean like images of baby Jesus to promote anti-gay bigotry? Yeah, I hate that too.

  • MisterPine

    If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a Christian baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean a Christian gun store owner participated in the murder?

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      They would be happy to sell them a wedding cake – just not one with porn (supporting gay marriage) on it. They can walk out of the store with their cake and put anything they want on it then. And, yes, selling a felon a sawed-off shotgun will get a gun store closed down. Or selling a non-felon a legal gun and then going to the scene of the crime to watch or participate in the murder. Big problem.

      • MisterPine

        But gay marriage is not “porn” – porn is open, graphic displays of gratuitous sexual acts. Gay marriage is two people in love committing themselves to one another. You Christofascists sure have some odd ideas.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          porneuo is any form of sexual immorality, as a minimum. It could also include some forms of idol worship. So, yes, in the Christian view, that cake most certainly IS pornography.

          • MisterPine

            No, because once again you’re assuming that just because SOME Christians view homosexuality as immoral, that you get to define it as such for the rest of us. Which, of course, you don’t.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t be silly. God defines it as amoral, not you or I.

      • Bobby Mae

        Porn? Wow, that shows where your mind is. Gay séx wasn’t even mentioned in the article. When you see wedding cakes and attend weddings do you just think about the couple getting it on? You clearly have some suppressed thoughts buddy

        • MisterPine

          Maybe it’s better he suppresses them, given some of the things he comes out with when he’s unfiltered.

          • Bobby Mae

            They pretend to squirm yet they’re the ones to bring it up lol

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Says the member of the Gaystapo.

          • MisterPine

            I’m a member of the Gaystapo? I must let my wife know. She’ll be very interested.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          porneuo is any form of sexual immorality, as a minimum, under Christianity. It could also include some forms of idol worship. So, yes, in the Christian view, that cake most certainly IS pornography.

          • Bobby Mae

            Sorry, you’re speaking Greek (literally).

    • Bobby Mae

      Amen to that

    • FoJC_Forever

      Only if the gun seller sold the gun knowing it would be used in the commision of a crime. Murder is not only a crime, but against God’s Will and Word.

    • John_33

      Terrible analogy. Wedding cakes are made for weddings. Guns are not made for murders. These Christian bakers only refuse to sell cakes when they know that the wedding cake is being purchased for a gay wedding. So in response to your analogy, yes, a Christian gun store owner would be participating in murder if they sold a gun to the buyer knowing that the customer intended to use it to murder someone.

      • MisterPine

        It’s an excellent analogy. Cakes are made to be eaten. Guns are made to be fired.

        • John_33

          But we aren’t talking about cakes and guns, which are both very fine things. The analogy refers to gay wedding cakes and guns used for murder.

          • MisterPine

            The analogy is all about “taking part”. That is the complaint coming from the Christians – they are saying that they are being forced to “take part” in a gay wedding which goes against their beliefs. And they are no more taking part in the wedding than a Christian gun seller would be taking part in a murder. The analogy is good because it makes nonsense out of the idea that a baker would be taking part in a wedding.

          • John_33

            *sigh* not again. Look, Christian bakers refuse to sell gay wedding cakes because they already know what it will be used for – a gay wedding. Christian bakers openly sell their cakes to gays. They will even sell wedding cakes to gay customers. They will not sell wedding cakes for gay marriages. That’s the only reason why Christian bakers refuse the service – they know the intent of the product. For your analogy to be equal, the Christian gun store owner would need to know the intent of the customer who wants to purchase the gun.

          • MisterPine

            And once again, Christian bakers have no concern with what happens after the cake has been decorated and sold, just as a seller of a gun has no concern with what happens after the gun leaves the shop.

            “For your analogy to be equal, the Christian gun store owner would need to know the intent of the customer who wants to purchase the gun.”

            That is EXACTLY the point. The intent is none of the shop owner’s business.

          • John_33

            And once again, Christian bakers have no concern with what happens after the cake has been decorated and sold, just as a seller of a gun has no concern with what happens after the gun leaves the shop.

            Right, provided that they do not know the intent for the product and provided that the sale is legal and appropriate, then the baker is not responsible for what happens afterwards. If someone buys a cake and they suddenly perform a gay wedding outside the store, then the owner didn’t partake in the event since they had no prior knowledge.

            Similarly, a Christian gun owner isn’t responsible for anything that happens later unless they had prior knowledge that would make them responsible. If illegal intent is known, then they will refuse to sell.

            That is EXACTLY the point. The intent is none of the shop owner’s business.

            Intent may very well be none of the owner’s business, which is why many Christian bakers don’t bother to ask what the product is going to be used for. It’s when the customer reveals their intent to purchase the product for a gay wedding that Christian owners refuse to sell. That’s why knowledge of the intent of the product is necessary for your analogy to be equal.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Add this to the 300 ways in which the Gay “Rights” Movement is more KKK than MLK:

    http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

    • MisterPine

      Oh, your opinion piece article? You certainly get a lot of mileage out of it…

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Facts are inconvenient for the blind faith a-theist.

        • MisterPine

          To make your messages less confusing to the rest of us, you should use definitions common to everyone, not just your fundie cult. To whit, there is no such thing as an “a-theist”. There ARE, however, atheists.

          Blind faith is all yours. People of science go with facts, not fiction.

          And that article was woefully low on facts.

        • rationalobservations?

          What form does the “blind faith” of atheists take?

          The third largest world religious demography (after christian and muslim) are the non-religious non-believers. The only thing that unifies us is rational non-belief in all the many thousands of assorted imaginary “gods”, “goddesses” and “god-men” that have appeared in human authored fiction – but never in the real or infinite and violent Universe.

          If rejecting blind and irrational religious faith is another kind of religious faith., I suppose you consider baldness another kind of hairstyle?

          As you believe nonsense, I guess it’s no surprise that you recycle nonsense here…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I actually did not see anything intelligent to respond to here in your emotional rant. So, let me invent that you are trying to say that a-theists share no burden of proof in the debate, that a-theism means “you lack belief in a god.”

            Well, “lacking belief in a god” is merely a measure of your psychological condition. You could “lack belief in a god” when a God exists, just as some people lack belief that we landed on the Moon even though we did. This is not really the place to expose your psychological problems – or anything else, much as you might like to. Here is a good article for you on this matter, so that you might become marginally rational (for an a-theist, anyway): (just take the spaces out)

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2014/12/25/is-the-definition-of-atheism-a-lack-of-belief-in-god-3/

            God bless you, but do think harder!

          • rationalobservations?

            So avoiding all issues and failing to answer all questions is supposed to be excused or missed by the rest of us?

            Your rabid hatred of some fellow citizens has somewhat been bypassed by the 2 to 1 vote in favour of equality in marriage. So whatever you have to say or write is meaningless to those of us who are no longer in thrall to ancient barbarism of the type you espouse bu fail to justify or defend.

            The only slight disappointment is that Ireland only voted in favour or equality by 2 to 1. Still, considering that Ireland was held in the tyranny of “the church” until only very recently – they have evolved and gone a long way to becoming more civilised in a very short period of time.

            Your barbarity and anti-humanitarian demands will no longer be conceded or tolerated. Get used to it.

            Do at least try to THINK at all…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I am sorry, IrrationalMan, but I see nothing of substance in your rants and your gay “love” and “tolerance” directed at me and those who disagree with you. You try to call me a hater but the only hater here is the one who cheers on the destructive behavior that results in diapers at 30, AIDS at 40, and children a priori guaranteed to be brutally separated from their biological mother or father.

            As for polls, you should be educated enough (?) to know that polls are not how objective truth or morality are arrived at. There was a time when the polls were much more than 2 to 1 in favor of racial slavery and Jew gassing, but that does not make either activity objectively moral. (Of course, under “might makes right” a-theism, they are perfectly fine.) And, of course, 97% of a-theists are in favor of the brutal destruction of innocent defenseless babies in the womb – not exactly much of a moral compass there. There would appear to be, in both abortion and SSM, an unrealistic desire for the a-theist to achieve sex without consequences. But, alas, the CDC data shows otherwise.

            You continue to assert objective moral values and duties, but under your “survival of the fittest” a-theism, no such things can be grounded. Please take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals,” and until you do, stop stealing objective moral values from the Objective Moral Law Giver, God:

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

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

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

            Thank you for proving to me that the Gaystapo is alive and well. I do hope you are moving up in the ranks. And thank you also for acknowledging, however unintentionally, the One True God! God bless!

          • rationalobservations?

            You parade your fury and ignorance like some sort of badge of honor!

            Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn’t been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

            Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. “For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,” Tanner told Live Science.

            Theory basics

            The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as “a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses.”

            Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

            An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

            The evolution of a scientific theory

            A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

            Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

            Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn’t explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.

            Additional reporting by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your argument is not with me, Sir: it is with your fellow Darwinists. Here is another one:

            “What are we to say about them [the mentally handicapped]? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering [Darwinism], would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude that
            they may be used as non-human animals are used – perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food.” James Rachels “Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism,” p 186.

            The quotes I gave you are from folks on YOUR side. Feel free to put the hard work in, spend years studying a STEM field (like I did), and then publish works that shoot these folks down. But, just wanting it to be possible to be an a-theist and have purpose, meaning, grounds for objective moral values, etc does not make it so. Prozac is the only rational response to a life of a-theism.

          • rationalobservations?

            You quote a religionist, not an atheist.

            “From a religious perspective, however, things look very different. Judaism and Christianity teach that the world was created by a loving, all-powerful God to provide a home for us. We, in turn, were created in his image, to be his children. Thus the world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in which God’s plans and purposes are realized. What could be more natural, then, than to think that “morality” is a part of the religious view of the world, whereas the atheist’s world has no place for values?”

            “Does Morality Depend on Religion?”

            by James Rachels

            (Chapter 4 of Rachels’ The Elements of Morality 4th ed)

            Criticizing a straw man perversion of the science of evolution is only a sign of desperation and ignorance, my friend.

            The western world is now predominantly non-religious and non-believers in “gods”, the supernatural and magic outnumber believers.

            In lands like the UK – peaceful, law abiding, tax paying “nones” predominate. Crime rates are low and peace and prosperity is long established. Crime rates continue to drop almost in line with the rapid dwindling of belief in super-spooks and enthrallment to the human politico-corporate businesses of religion that so profitable sell the god delusion to the gullible and the ignorant.

            The “born again” USA has the highest crime rate and the largest prison population in the developed world by comparison.

            Here’s a quote for you to ponder:

            “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

            — Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

            The third largest human demographic (after christians and muslims) are now atheists. Our number is rapidly increasing while the barbarity of christianity is rapidly being recognised and shunned while a war on the terrorism of Islam continues in many lands.

            Billions of peaceful, happy, loving, charitable atheists are proving daily that you do not need to believe in any imaginary super-spooks to be good. Meanwhile thousands continue to be slaughtered in pursuit of the answer to who’s imaginary friend is “best”….

            Best wishes to you and yours, my friend.

            Please bother me no further with your recycled lies and disingenuous [email protected]

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Criticizing a straw man perversion of the science of evolution is only a sign of desperation and ignorance, my friend.”

            Not at all! He was a SECULAR philosopher who argued for euthanasia and was a big fan of Peter Singer, certainly not a religionist of any sort. Rachels was a skeptic of Christianity (though he once called himself a “Christian segregationalist” in high school). In the quote that you provide, he is merely teasing out the consequences of the Christian worldview, a worldview he often attacked using the Euthyphro Dilemma. (A false dichotomy).

            “The “born again” USA has the highest crime rate and the largest prison population in the developed world by comparison.”

            Thank you very much! Yes, we put our most severe sinners in prison. You celebrate them. 🙂

            “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” –Encyclopedia Britannica

            “the barbarity of christianity”

            Sorry, but you are NOT allowed to make objective moral claims, as your a-theism has no grounds for doing so. If you do not like that, take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals” – they agree with me here:

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

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

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

            Thus, every time you invoke an objective moral value or claim, you are also acknowledging the existence of an Objective Moral Law Giver, God. Thank you for doing so!

            “charitable atheists”

            OMG – I just spit my Coke out – you owe me a new monitor! Yes, all those “Freedom From Thought” Hospitals and “There is no God” homeless shelters I see popping up everywhere! 🙂 Under a-theism, life has absolutely no meaning, purpose, truth, or morality. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be “good” under a-theism. Rape? Happens all the time in the animal kingdom. Murder? Ever see a lion take out a gazelle? And charity?!? No reason to do it under a-theism, and you a-theists don’t:

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2014/10/14/statistics-on-whether-atheists-are-more-moral-than-religious-people/

            Take it from a former a-theist: when you get a few more years under your belt, you are going to discover that there is literally NOTHING in the a-theist life. (Except for sex without consequences, which will wear off after you kill a few babies in abortion.) That same NOTHING that you think created everything is what your life’s meaning is.

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
            mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
            ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

          • rationalobservations?

            You appear to misunderstand your situation, my delusional friend.

            I join the billions who don’t care what you believe and disregard your opinions and the opinions of your fellows who remain in thrall to ancient childish superstitions and the politico-corporate businesses of religion that so profitably sell those superstitions.

            After a few decades of searching and research within many of the world’s greatest museums and libraries – I conclude that there is no evidence of the historicity of the much, much later written legends of “Jesus” from the time in which those legends are set.

            To make any case against my observation of the utter and complete lack of evidence of the life and times of “Jesus”., you merely need to reveal to location and nature of such original, authentic, verified and verifiable evidence.

            Your reliance upon the opinion of fellow delusionists and human authored fiction written by anonymous scriibes mostly between the 4th and 14th century – just doesn’t cut it.

            I acknowledge many thousands of god’s, goddesses and god-men. I observe that they are all fictional and that none have ever been manifest in the here and now at any time in history.

            If you know of any evidence of your particular god and god-man, please reveal it.

            Put up or shut up time??

            A growing majority within the free, democratic and increasingly secular western world agree with the following quote:

            “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

            — Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I realize that you are young and brainwashed, but you need a basic lesson in logic:

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
            Premise 2: Evil exists.
            Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
            Conclusion 2: therefore, God exists.

            A-theists affirm Premise 1:

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

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

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

            A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively “evil” Christians and the God of the Bible is.

            Therefore, by identity with Premise 2, Conclusion 1 is achieved. Therefore, by Modus Tollens of Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is achieved, and God exists. So, when you talk about how objectively “evil” Christians and their God is, you are unwittingly acknowledging His existence. Thank you so much for acknowledging God today!

            “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.” — Albert Einstein

            “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.” — Albert Einstein

            “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.” — Albert Einstein

          • rationalobservations?

            If there was (and is) no evolution, then moral and ethical imperatives would not have evolved in so many thousands of species.

            Plague, pestilence, starvation, ignorance, tsunami, earthquake, worms the live by eating the living human eye, and much else vile and evil things all exist. Therefore if any god, or gods, exist it/they must be pure evil.

            No atheists affirm any of your childish and long debunked bunkum.

            now:

            Here again is the challenge you constantly fail.

            If you know of any evidence of your particular god and god-man, please reveal it.

            Your opinion and childish superstitious beliefs are NOT evidence.

            Your recycled nonsense from others who share your childish superstitious beliefs is NOT evidence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to the Moral Argument for the Existence of God – just ad hominems and name-calling, which support the fact that somewhere deep down, you actually DO believe in an Objective Moral Law Giver, God – you are again asserting objective moral values and acknowledging Him – thank you!

          • rationalobservations?

            There is no “moral argument” for the existence of any gods.

            Even if we grant the existence of objective moral values, the argument fails because the first premise is groundless. The rationale for thinking that objective moral values require any of the thousands of gods of mythology is the assumption that only gods could ground the objectivity of ethics. But, in fact, there appears to be no way that the existence of any god could ground moral truths–anymore than it could ground mathematical or scientific truths.

            The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely because a god either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On DCT the only thing that makes an act morally wrong is that a god prohibits doing it, and all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that a god prohibits torture. DCT is wildly implausible for reasons best illustrated by the Euthyphro dilemma, which is based on a discussion of what it means for an act to be holy in Plato’sEuthyphro. Substituting “moral wrongness” for “holiness” raises the dilemma: Is torture wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture because it is already wrong?

            Is some laws in an old book called the bible all that inhibits you from running amok in an orgy of rape, pillage and murder? REALLY?? If that is the case – you are a poor specimen of humanity and all the growing millions of atheists who do good through evolved and evolving human conscience and for it’s own sake – are far better and more worthy than you.

            Now: back to the point you so desperately try to avoid:

            If you know of any evidence of your particular god and god-man, please reveal it.

            Your opinion and childish superstitious beliefs are NOT evidence.

            Your recycled nonsense from others who share your childish superstitious beliefs is NOT evidence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Even if we grant the existence of objective moral values, the argument fails because the first premise is groundless.”

            That is just not true at all. The vast majority of big thinker a-theists over history have affirmed Premise 1. I gave you 3 above. If you can find a way to refute them, then publish your proof, collect your Nobel, and wait for statues to be built to you. But, I, for one, believe that Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse (and the late great Bertrand Russell – one of my faves in my a-theism days) are spot on here.

            “The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely because a god either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively.”

            That is fundamentally false. There is no arbitrariness in DCT. DCT is an outcome of the fact that God’s good nature grounds objective moral values and duties, not that He arbitrarily commands morality. God’s good nature is the Standard.

            “Euthyphro dilemma”

            That is a old false dichotomy – big time. See above. (God’s good nature is the Standard.)

          • rationalobservations?

            “The vast majority of big thinker a-theists over history have affirmed Premise 1.??

            Who are these people?

            If there was (and is) no evolution, then moral and ethical imperatives and the instinct for unrewarded acts of altruism would not have evolved in so many thousands of species.

            Moral and ethical imperatives and the instinct for unrewarded acts of altruism have demonstrably evolved in so many thousands of species.Therefore the survival benefits of evolved ethical imperatives and the instinct for unrewarded acts of altruism are proved by most of the animal kingdom – including our own species of ape.

            Therefore evolution is proven and no magic or supernatural entities are required, evident or needed.

            Repeating your long and conclusively debunked bunkum and childish superstitions is boring and predictable.

            Don’t you have an answer to the challenge presented to you?

            Here again is the challenge you constantly fail.

            If you know of any evidence of your particular god and god-man, please reveal it.

            Your failed and irrational non-logic, your personal indoctrinated and brainwashed opinion and your childish superstitious beliefs are NOT evidence.
            .
            Face it my crazy friend: You are on a hook of your own design and you can wriggle all you like but cannot get off without facing the truth that NO EVIDENCE of your imaginary god or god-man exists.

            Fiction, lies and fraudulent religion is evidence only of the fictitious, fraudulent and dishonest nature of your religion (and all religion).

            Please quit bothering me with your repetitive and predictable recycled and repeatedly debunked [email protected]

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Who are these people?”

            People like Richard Dawkins, William Provine, Michael Ruse, Bertrand Russell – and plenty more. I can get a list for you if necessary. I am friends with a number of pretty intellectual atheists, and they, too, affirm the consequences of Darwinistic atheism. (Materialism, if you prefer.) I was the same way when I was an atheist. I am pretty sure that Hitchens believed this as well, and I just loved Hitchens – he cracked me up and still does watching some of his old debates.

            “If there was (and is) no evolution, then moral and ethical imperatives and the instinct for unrewarded acts of altruism would not have evolved in so many thousands of species.”

            Well, that is an interesting line of thought, but I am concerned with the case of, if macro-evolution is true, then what are the moral implications? I think that most of the intellectual folks got it right on this one, regardless of their worldview. (That is NOT a proof, of course.)

            “Therefore the survival benefits of evolved ethical imperatives and the instinct for unrewarded acts of altruism are proved by most of the animal kingdom”

            Yes, indeed, we agree – I think that is 100% true! But, the fact remains, that, if there is no God, then the animal that eats his young is just as “moral” as the one who doesn’t. (His family might not survive, but that might be evolution’s “desire.”) And the serial killer is just as “moral” as Mother Teresa, in a godless universe. That is why this long quote seems to hit the nail on the head to me (it is this type of thinking that converted me to theism, BTW):

            “[To] all my Atheist friends.

            Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

            We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial
            imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

            We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc.
            Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus
            be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

            I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall
            where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.” — unknown a-theist

            “If you know of any evidence of your particular god and god-man, please reveal it.”

            I gave you evidence for the Creator God of the Bible, using Kalam and the metaphysical implications arising from it. I never reply to the “Jesus never existed” cult (I am making an exception with you, obviously, because you seem to be a sincere truth seeker, despite the vicious ad hominems), just as I never reply to the “Apollo lunar landing never existed” cult. I don’t think that there is ANY evidence that would convince you that Jesus of Nazareth existed, even if He were to stand right in front of you:

            “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'” — Luke 16:30-31

          • rationalobservations?

            Still no evidence supported argument here?

            Still haven’t got it that you can’t validate the unsupported content of an old confused and internally contradictory book by quoting from that old confused and internally contradictory book?

            The most compelling argument against the possible existence of any of the thousands of imaginary gods of fiction – is over 2000 years old:

            “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

            – Epicurus

            You display so much ignorance that I doubt it is possible to educate you to the degree that you begin to understand that which you fail to argue against. Do you believe the stuff you write or recycle? I hope you are merely a Troll.

            Lets take just one example of your simplistic nonsense where you write: “…. the animal that eats his young is just as “moral” as the one who doesn’t.”

            You observe that such a species would become extinct yet fail to comprehend the implications of that fact.

            You suffer from the common misunderstanding of evolution when you attach any concept of morality or of progress to it. You probably follow the laughable idea that all evolution led to our puny and very, very recently evolved species of ape. If you cannot get a grasp on the reality of and evidence for evolution, you’re incapable of entering into any meaningful discussion.

            I wish you well and leave you with some more meaningful quotes:

            We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

            — Richard Dawkins

            “My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”

            – William Provine

            “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence”

            “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

            ― Bertrand Russell

            “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

            – Benjamin Franklin

            And finally:

            “Which day did god make all the fossils?”

            Anon

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to Kalam plus science equals God. No reply to the Moral Argument. No reply to the fact that even a-theists admit that there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties, under a-theism. Just a lot of whining and ranting about a God you don’t believe in and silly false dichotomies, long ago refuted, on the problem of evil. Got it. God will not force you into Heaven against your will. Hell was made for such as thee.

            “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.” — Professor Thomas Nagel, NYU

          • rationalobservations?

            Your lies and long debunked bunkum are predictable but totally unconvincing.

            If there was any truth, logic or evidence supported reason in anything you recycle – we would all be believers. But instead – more and ever more rapidly more of us recognise all that childish [email protected] for what it is.

            Repeating nonsense does not make it in any way less nonsensical.

            Now quit bothering me unless you have some answers to the questions I asked of you and the points that confound and confuse you.

            I guess if ignorance is bliss – you must be deliriously happy. I’m happy for you if that is the case.

            Regards

            RO?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Just more angry rants on your part. I remember my a-theist days well. 🙂 I will address one thing you said:

            “If there was any truth, logic or evidence supported reason in anything you recycle – we would all be believers.”

            This is most assuredly not true. Remember that the number one reason a-theists remain a-theists has nothing to do with evidence, but has everything to do with free will and the “Cosmic Authority Problem” that Thomas Nagel discusses in the above quote. (This was true for me as well.) As one physicist put it: “I agree that Christianity is perfectly logical, but if I accept it, then I cannot sleep with whomever I want.” The desire to cling to a-theism is usually about a rebellious nature and sex. For more proof of this “I want to be my own authority” issue (just take the spaces out):

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/05/03/why-do-famous-atheists-believe-that-god-does-not-exist-4/

            AND a study that shows that a-theists tend to be very angry at a God they do not believe in:

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/05/22/study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion-3/#comments

            God bless!

    • rationalobservations?

      The civil rights movement continues to prohibit and punish discrimination and persecution of any ordinary, peaceful, law abiding citizen regardless of their natural gender, color, or gender orientation.

      The days when anti-humanitarian and totalitarian religionists dominated the rest of us are long past. Get over it…

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Yes, death threats and vandalism are indeed what the KKK did, not MLK. I see you did not reply to the data. That is typical in blind faith a-theism. Here is some more for you, including your side cooking the data (take the spaces out):

        https://www .facebook .com/GayActivistsarehypocrites/timeline?ref=page_internal

        • rationalobservations?

          What “data”??
          disingenuous and unsupported propaganda is not “data”.

          I am a middle aged, middle class, conservative, long and happily married heterosexual.., just like the majority who value equal social and civil rights for all ordinary law abiding citizens. Most folk who are naturally same gender sexually oriented appear to be totally ordinary and few would be recognised as “gay”.., let alone as activists.

          I wonder if you have any actual reason to hate and discriminate against certain of your ordinary fellow citizens?

          Is there something you are hiding – even from yourself?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “disingenuous and unsupported propaganda is not “data”.”

            Every one of those 300 events is supported by legitimate sources. The fact that you are unable to recognize your fascism bears no warrant on the fact that you are fascist. Most fascists think they are the “good” guys.

            “I wonder if you have any actual reason to hate and discriminate against certain of your ordinary fellow citizens?”

            I don’t hate anyone – gay or straight. I hate the destructive behavior, not the person. The gay lifestyle is enormously destructive to the individuals involved (CDC and other secular data), children adopted into it (secular data), and the society at large (through the numerous attacks on religious freedoms, which you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit).

            As for “discriminate,” all gays have the right to marry – someone of the opposite sex. Many do, and lead successful and joyful lives.

            “Is there something you are hiding – even from yourself?”

            No, not at all, but I do think there is something you are hiding from yourself: your obvious fascism. But, one thing your side will NOT be hiding is the fake data in this “study” (just take the spaces out):

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/05/21/pro-gay-marriage-study-retracted-for-using-completely-fake-data/

            God bless and have a great day!

          • rationalobservations?

            Ridiculous and hate filled prejudice appears to be all you have to offer.

            The data you refer to is disingenuous propaganda.
            In the UK and Europe, countless same gender families exist in which healthy, happy and well balanced children are being raised by loving parents.

            Far more mixed gender parents are drug addicted or otherwise neglectful of the children who’s lives they ruin.

            I have no “side” other than the side of humanity. Your anti-humanitarian doctrine is fortunately dying out rapidly as mankind continues to evolve into something we may sometime soon call “human” and humane.

            Keep your talk of an imaginary and barbaric “god” and keep your good wishes for your self in the hope that you will overcome the evil and barbaric doctrine that has filled you with these evil and barbaric ideas.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Aaah – yes – thank you for proving my point with your gay “love” and “tolerance!” 🙂 We will have to add that to the hundreds of examples of homofascism that come out almost daily. Projection much?

            As for the UK, are you really using that decadent society as an example of good? And, of course, under a-theism, there is no good or bad, right or wrong – there is no way to ground objective moral values and duties. Don’t take it up with me, take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals” as they agree:

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

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

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

            So, when you assert objective moral values and duties, you are actually stealing from God. Thank you for acknowledging His existence, but do thank Him once in a while! God bless!

          • rationalobservations?

            Fortunately most of the christian fascism has now been outlawed.
            A few USA led genocidal crusades continue to blight the world but the 9 ancient crusades and the 20th century christian crusade of the 3rd Reich at least are a thing of the past and Europe is rapidly eliminating the anti-social and anti-humanitarian blight of christian tyranny.

            Nine tenths of Europeans prove that you do not need to believe in barbaric and fictional “gods” to be good.

            Two in three USA citizens are following that trend. Although the “god fearing” USA still has the highest prison population per head of population in the world.

            Those of us who never have, or no longer do, share the hatred, bigotry and taboo ridden anti humanitarian attitude you so clearly exemplify, have a well developed and long evolved HUMAN CONSCIENCE that guides our thoughts and actions toward humanitarianism, charity, peace and tolerance. So much more worthy than those like you who claim they would run riot, commit rape and murder if not constrained by the tenets of your human invented and human controlled cruel and phony religion.

            QUOTE: “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

            Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

            As Einstein assesses: You do indeed appear to be in a “poor way”!

            Please rant at someone else who gives a $**T about your perverted weird beliefs and anti-humanitarian prejudices and taboos.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, yes, I feel your “gay” love and “tolerance” again – thank you! Keep it coming – you are proving my point! Are you in diapers yet? Watch out for the 40’s – that’s the AIDS decade – no fun.

            And once again, you make objective moral claims – denying your a-theism. Thank you for acknowledging the existence of an Objective Moral Law Giver, God! A-theism really is the blind faith self-refuting delusion. I love it! You made my day!

  • rationalobservations?

    For “gay right” I read civil rights.
    It is not any form of discrimination or persecution to restrict and punish the application of discrimination and persecution by religiots.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    While I am supportive of laws which ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I do not believe that the baker should be required to place a specific message on a product that goes against their beliefs.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Satan is crafty and is using something as benign as a cake to force people to speak contrary to God’s Will and Word. To see how easily people can be led astray and accept this sin is more proof the Day is fast approaching.

    Judgement is coming.

    • Josey

      And it starts in the church, the church has to repent, humble themselves and call upon the Name of the Lord God, we are truly in the Laodecia age.
      1 Peter 4: 13-17 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. 16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
      18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
      19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

  • LeftCoast

    I would mark up the price and say it’s for my tithing.

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

      I understand what you are trying to do, but having a different price based on a customer’s sexual orientation would still be considered denial of service. You could mark it up 10% or 10,000% but it would still be the same under the law.

      I do printing and signs and I usually don’t care what people print even if it offends me. But in some cases where it is something political I feel passionately about I simply tell the customer up front that I refuse to profit from the sale and will donate the entire cost to a group antithetical to their beliefs. I am not denying them service. Insofar as money is fungible, it is no different than any other donation I might have made.

    • Parque_Hundido

      That would make you a liar. You willbe cast into the lake of fire for lying. Sorry. God bless..

      • LeftCoast

        LOL, God bless in this post and blasting God in another?

  • Lark62

    I differentiate the product from the customer.

    If the baker will bake a pretty cake for a ceremony, he should sell that cake to any customer. The cake is the same, only the customer is different.

    If the baker does not put hateful language on cakes, that rule should apply regardless of who is asking for hateful language.

    If the business owner is willing to sell a certain product, he doesn’t get to sell it to customer A but not customer B.

    If the business owner does not sell a product, he can’t br forced to start selling just because someone wants it.

    In other words, business owner gets to pick his products not his customers.