Boy Scout Committee Unanimously Approves Proposal to Lift Ban on Openly Homosexual Leaders

Scouts pdAn executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has unanimously voted to lift a long-standing ban on openly homosexual troop leaders.

“As a result of the rapid changes in society and increasing legal challenges at the federal, state, and local levels, on Friday, July 10, the Boy Scouts of America Executive Committee adopted a resolution amending the adult leadership standards policy,” the BSA said in a statement on Monday.

“This change allows Scouting’s members and parents to select local units, chartered to organizations with similar beliefs, that best meet the needs of their families,” it outlined. “This change would also respect the right of religious chartered organizations to continue to choose adult leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own.”

The 17-member vote moves the matter on to the 80-member National Executive Board for a vote on July 27th.

“The Boy Scouts of America affirms that sexual relations between adults should be moral, honorable, committed, and respectful. Adult scout leaders should reflect these values in their personal and public lives so as to be proper role models for youth,” the approved statement reads in part. “The Boy Scouts of America affirms the right of each chartering organization to reach its own religious and moral conclusions about the specific meaning and application of these values.”

The document also provides the standards for selecting leaders.

“The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth,” it reads. “The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, the proposed language outlines that “[n]o adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation.” A provision is included to allow units to refuse, however, based on religious grounds.

If the board likewise approves the policy change later this month, it will become effective immediately.

As previously reported, the vote comes after BSA President Robert Gates, who served as the U.S. Secretary of Defense under then-President George W. Bush beginning in 2006 and stayed on board for part of Barack Obama’s first term, called for an end to the ban this past May.

“We cannot ignore growing internal challenges to our current membership policy from some councils,” he said. “Nor can we ignore the social, political and juridical changes taking place in our country—changes taking place at a pace over this past year no one anticipated.”

Reaction to Friday’s vote has been mixed, as some homosexual activists oppose the proposal’s allotment of religious freedom to troops.

“Half measures are unacceptable and discriminatory exemptions have no place in the Boy Scouts,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement. “It’s long overdue that BSA leaders demonstrate true leadership and embrace a full national policy of inclusion.”

But Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says he is skeptical about the provision.

“I don’t believe the Boy Scouts when they say that religious groups will have freedom to choose their own leaders,” he said. “The Boy Scouts have pursued an ongoing evolution, if evolutions can happen at breakneck speed, toward the moral priorities of the sexual revolution. At every point, the Scout leadership tells us that they will go this far and no farther.”

As previously reported, Rob Schwarzwalder, senior vice president of Family Research Council, told reporters two years ago after groups first began pushing for the change that it is dangerous to place men that have sexual attraction toward those of the same gender in charge of juvenile boys.

“As a father, I wouldn’t want my sons to go on a camping trip with a teenage girl and stay in the same tent. Similarly, I think it’s unwise to put boys or young men in a tent with boys or young men who are homosexual,” he outlined.

In 2013, over 60 percent of the scouting council voted in favor of altering the organization’s membership policy, which did not bar those struggling with homosexuality, but rather prohibited “open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.” The resolution posed the question of whether prospective scouts should be denied membership “on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”

BSA officials noted that sexual activity would still not be permitted among scouts despite the change in policy.


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
  • the christian

    I would rather go to jail…than pay that. God bless them “stand”.

    • momatad

      awful lot of ‘gay sinning’ going on in there, sure you could ‘tolerate’ it?

      • Angel Jabbins

        No only could he ‘tolerate it, he would have a great opportunity to share the gospel and the love and hope of Jesus Christ with those sinning gays. Always a win-win situation. An opportunity to be a light in a dark, hopeless place.

        • momatad

          or he might come out ‘moooslim’…..a lot of prisoners not into dropping the soap come out that way.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Me too.

    • StereoMan

      They’d be treated REALLY well by the others in jail when they found out the reason they were in. I think they are better off paying.

  • All In

    A good example of the intolerant, bigoted, and hateful attitudes of gay activists. They aren’t out for acceptance, but to suppress and punish anyone who disagrees with their sinful behavior.

    God will reward the bakers and punish the sinners.

    • Tara

      I absolutely agree, and even while they are doing so, they deny it. Beyond logic.

      • Rachel

        Clearly they don’t hate gays because they serve them , they just don’t want to participate in wedding.

        • u mad bro

          Well it clearly states in Oregon Law…that you can’t do that…so serves the right…maybe they should have done some research..either side could be playing victim…but it started out with the ordeal at the shop in the first place..Do I think the punishment was a little harsh…yeah…but regardless, they got what was coming to them.

          • musikfanat22

            those lesbians were just looking for some free money…

          • joeyman9

            I bet you they never see a dime as the lawyers will eat it all up as the case is appealed.

          • Zack

            It also says in state law that you can’t discriminate by religion. The punishment is a hypocritical situation as you are punishing the Christian family for working their way.

        • Peter Leh

          i believe this is true as well. however as a business owner they did not take the precautions necessary to protect themselves.

          it is all on the owners

    • momatad

      go get them some 2x4s, and some nails, let them try to crucify themselves in the town square saying how those ‘evil gays’ made them do it…….sick of the whole ‘martyr for the cause’…..they broke the law. They are to pay for it. Period.

      • Lemly

        So you really feel these girls deserve $75000 and $60000, the bakery should be forced to file bankruptcy and even have death threats against them? I recognize they broke the law and should be held accountable for it. But is that really what you see as right? Do you speed, change lanes without using a blinker, stretch the truth a little on your taxes to get an extra deduction, ever downloaded music illegally, bought a bootleg dvd or any number of other law breaking acts?? If so, how would you feel if the fines levied against you were astronomical? If you had to file bankruptcy or sell your house to pay them? I guarantee you’d be singing a different tune. And yet, you would be breaking the law and should have to pay for it. Yes, they broke the law but the ridiculous lawsuit and “emotional” damage amount is excessive.

        • Guest

          On the Oregonian several commentors have stated that the owner of the business released the personal information about the customers to the public in a malicious way. If this is true and the review committee knew it, that would justify the high fine, epecially in light of the money they know has already been gathered by the old ‘gofundme’ page and the newer one.

          • Lemly

            So it’s justified to order someone to pay an exorbitant amount since they knew of the go fund me page? Come on man, that’s just ridiculous. And it doesn’t say anything of them releasing information in the article, just someone’s shared opinion. They broke the law and should have consequences for it. But that shouldn’t be losing everything and relying on the generosity of others. The plaintiffs claiming this distress was malarkey. They were just pissed and went out of their way to purposely exact revenge because, God forbid, anyone believe something different from them. They scream tolerance and acceptance but that only applies to their views or beliefs. Anyone else should be tarred and featherd. I’m not opposed gay marriage, hey live and let live! I’m opposed to forcing your beliefs on others. This USED to be a free country, where we could choose if we wanted to participate in something. Now it’s forced on us.

          • Guest

            Well, you obviously are omniscient. You should run for the bench, we wouldn’t even have to have court proceedings at all!

          • 116-unashamed

            atleast then the case would be reversed and called correctly…

          • Lemly

            I don’t believe I know everything. I’m allowed my opinion and even allowed (thank you 1st amendment) to share said opinion. That’s one of those other pesky freedoms people are so quick to tread on these days. Again, let me state I acknowledge they broke the law and should have consequences. I feel the amount awarded is excessive. Now I’ll take your suggestion into consideration. Have a nice day sug!

          • Leslie

            Too bad that Avakian is in collusion with the plaintiffs and also is the one doing the fining. Serious conflict of interest and he will pay for that in a big way. The rest of the country has at the most fined 5000.00 and he is gay so the conflict just keeps going on….$135,000 for their feeeelings. It wont work if it goes to the Supreme Court it will be downgraded heavily. And it has nothing to do with the GoFundMe which was only put up after the fine was assigned. While rapists and drug dealers can use GoFundMe the Christians got pulled. Yeah just another day in what we use to call America, where agenda beats common sense every time. Can’t wait for Avakian to get royally screwed for this, not in the way he would like.

          • Guest

            Interesting speculation but there is no evidence of collusion with the plaintiffs, the complaint is he talked with rights advocacy groups which many state agencies do when there is a violation regarding their particular area, e.g. blacks NAACP, etc.

            Again, if the business did release the personal information that would explain the large fine and the different in the amounts.

            We’ll see.

          • Jean Adams

            What about a Christians rights?

          • Guest

            Christians have the same rights as people of any beliefs. They can’t be turned away by a business because some one doesn’t like their beliefs either. An atheist-owned B&B can’t refuse them lodging because they pray at the dinner table, or a restaurant because they wear crosses.

            And as a business owner is they will never have to offer something for sale they can’t in good conscience sell as the law requires. If they can’t sell wedding services to people of all faiths no one is going to force them to sell them at all. Arlene’s Flowers in Washington just doesn’t sell wedding floral arrangements any more – problem solved.

            But there is no right to religious discrimination in something that is offered, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them from it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You sound like you will come up with any excuse to justify this kind of fascism. And you post is coming from commentors – nice sources. 🙂 Please show me where that is where the fascist state has justified these kinds of draconian fines for “emotional distress.” I get “emotional distress” just reading about this – where is my money?!?

          • Guest

            Don’t like the amount complain to someone other than me, I was a bit surprised too. But upon reading the ruling it specifically states that the amount is consistent with what the plaintiffs experienced and there was not increase due to the various things the defendants did. Can’t provide a link (the message goes to pending) but it is out there, try a google of 44-14 Klein and it should popup. The reasoning behind the award is page 105+

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I was a bit surprised too.”

            Well, it IS nice to see that there is something of your conscience left. 🙂

          • Bernadette Reno

            im going to sue resturants for the no shirt no shoes rule it violates my freedom to dress as i please makes as much sence. this world is crazy how can you make a privately owned business bend over stupid laws. would maybe make more sence on resturant chains

          • gone26

            if the dress code is applied to everyone without discrimination then …… ? I think the point is that you can’t have different rules for different people….everyone wears a shirt, even straight people

          • Louise Grant

            public and malicious? AREN’T THEY NOT PROUD OF WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Good one, Louise, good one!

        • Jon

          They showed no remorse for breaking the law. They continually advocated for others to do so. They had no intentions of ever following the law. So, the fine was justified. If someone continually speeds, the fines and punishments are severe. If you feel the need to treat someone as a 2nd class citizen, you deserve to loose your business. That is the cost you have to pay when you open a business in a free country.

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

            Am I to understand that in this “free country” you refer to, there are no unjust laws?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “They showed no remorse for breaking the law. They continually advocated for others to do so. They had no intentions of ever following the law. ”

            You would have made an excellent pro-slavery advocate and a punisher of those who refused to turn in runaway slaves in 1800’s America or Jews in 1930’s Germany. Everything you said in the quote above applies equally well to those situations.

        • momatad

          The fines were levied by the court. The death threats should not be tolerated directed at ‘either’ side.

        • Tina Cartee

          AMEN!!!You are EXACTLY right! If thats gonna be the amount of compensation for being a lesbian and getting your feelings hurt then I may need to change my sexual preference, I could use a big chunk of cash like that for doing absolutely nothing but whining…lol

      • Oboehner

        Must be the freedom of religious expression “law” you are talking about.

        • momatad

          freedom of religious expression means you can state what your religion is, it doesn’t mean to hold it against others who may not hold your same beliefs. It doesn’t mean that you can shove your faith down other’s throats and then claim you are being ‘persecuted’ when they shove back and tell you NO.

          • Boa_citadel

            Mate I’ll use your argument against you. How are they shoving their faith down your throat for refusing to do something they don’t believe in? Aren’t you the one shoving your beliefs down their throat by forcing them to do something they don’t believe in? You went to them. It’s not like they asked every baker to refuse to bake the cake. There are countless bakeries that have no problem baking for gays.

          • Guest

            They wouldn’t be selling wedding cakes to the public if they couldn’t sell them to people of all faiths, including those faiths that hold that marriage is a blessing regardless of the couple’s sexes.

            Why offer wedding cakes to a group (the public) that they won’t sell them to? That’s is a fraudulent offer.

          • Oboehner

            Freedom of sexual perversion means you can sodomize your boyfriend, but it doesn’t mean you can force others to help you celebrate your perversion and ram it down the throats of those with constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom then claim you are being ‘persecuted’ when they shove back and tell you NO.

      • Hanan

        Of course the broke the law. That’s the POINT. The law is unjust.

        I mean REALLY??? You really think these people’s livelyhood should be destroyed?

        • momatad

          they made that determination when they broke the law…….if they insist on violating the law they shouldn’t be able to profit from this disregard.

          • Hanan

            Probably what the British said against the Americans.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Your heart seems very COLD. I bet it could freeze a lake in Florida.:(

          • momatad

            why yes, it is….I don’t tolerate bigotry in any form…….those girls have as much right to marry (so sayeth the Supremes) as the next couple, whether they be male/male or male/female and should be able to follow their hearts without some sanctimonious idjits looking down their noses based on cherry picked verses of Scripture.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            But it is wrong to force others to do what they feel is wrong. I’d rather not have a cold heart like you. If having a cold heart means destroy others ………….. No thank you!

          • momatad

            ah another from the Pat Robertson school of ‘if we allow homosexuals to exist they will force us all the ‘like’ anal sex’……….this couple is destroying their own business by trying to tell another couple how to live their lives……I wonder if Oregon has laws against selling food items from your home and not having it approved by the state health department……they better get their ducks in a row before there are ‘other violations’ coming their way because they ‘took their stand’…….

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I’m not into Pat Robertson.I’m into God and His truth. God dose not want us to destroy others through our lustful desires.

          • momatad

            How is two lesbians getting married ‘destroying you through their lustful desires’? Seriously. If you fantasize about what they are doing and the fact there are lesbians “doing THINGS” , aren’t you just as ‘depraved’ as you claim they are?

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Did I sat they were? But I do say I follow God and His Word. Not yours.
            Shalom <

          • momatad

            nice to know He stops by daily for a cup of coffee and to give you your walking orders to ‘deal with them gay people’.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            momatad It was not ((((ME))) I do not work at a place that sells coffee. The job I have would never have a problem with serving Gay people. I do not sell coffee,flowers,pizza,cakes,cookies no kind of food.He/She has never come to me for a cup of coffee. You are a trouble maker who is trying to start a fight with me over things I did not do. The Lord has told me to forgive you for you anger and your hate for me. Because I love the Lord I have agreed to forgive you for what you are trying to do. I have asked God to forgive you for what you are trying to do with me as well. This will be the last time I respond to you. If it is God’s Will for you to be Delivered and to receive Salvation May His Will be done for you . As His Will is done in Heaven. In the Name of Yeshua.
            Shalom < 🙂

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            momatad Are you done having your tantrum yet? Saying it is not right to force people to do what they feel is wrong. Has nothing to do with *fantasizing* . You are very heartless and very unkind.You must have lost your Human Kindness somewhere down the road.What you people do in your privet life is no concern of mine. But to destroy others is wrong. wrong.It dose not help your cause. It only makes others angry. It is not my life being destroyed. It is the destruction of other peoples lives they have destroyed. Now because of that I see them and you in a new way. To destroy people is not the answer.It just shows the true hate they and you have for others.
            Shalom < 🙂

          • momatad

            No tantrum here…..more like on your end. You still haven’t answered my question. How is two lesbians marrying ‘destroying’ you? Seriously. All I did was ask a question, not throw a tantrum……I haven’t asked what you do with your ‘significant other’ and how do you know what category of ‘you people’ I fall in and who are you to categorize anyone? And I repeat what I said, if you spend all your time ‘worrying about the evils of lesbianism’ that may be what is ‘destroying’ you…….and I am sorry, human kindness extends to those who aren’t ‘just like us’……you seem to be the one denying these two women this. Human kindness is not shoving one’s personal beliefs down another person’s throat to ‘insist’ they believe ‘just like you’……I defy you to tell me it is…..how kind is it of you to ‘point out’ their ‘sin’….what’s next? Remember the Church in the Middle Ages used to kill people to ‘destroy the body to save the soul’….is that what is next? Kill ’em for Jesus?

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            momatad The hate you are sowing is going to return to you . May the Peace of God rest on all the ones you hate.
            Shalom <

          • Anon

            Your response seems like you hate bigots which is in of itself a form of bigotry dumb ass. Have fun with the self loathing.

          • momatad

            I don’t tolerate bigotry…..some bigots are redeemable…..usually not the ones who wrap themselves in the flag and beat people with out mercy with the very book they claim to venerate. The ones who claim it is perfectly okay to harm/hurt/burn the property of/deny rights to in the name of their opinion of WHO God is. I bet you make Jesus so proud….not.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Well, under that standard, all those punished under the sodomy laws should never have complained.

      • jeb

        The law is ridiculous. There are a variety of ways to discriminate. Why didn’t they go to a gay bakery, or a Muslim bakery? Were they discriminating by NOT going elsewhere? Or were they intentionally targeting Christians?
        I’m sure there’s a law against that. I’ve seen the videos of Muslims just saying ‘NO’ with to repercussions.
        Do gay ‘pride’ parades break decency laws when they display erotic acts and various parts of their body in front of young children? THEY SHOULD BE ARRESTED.

        • momatad

          yep, those gays just run around looking for Christians to push their ‘agenda’ on. What’s wrong with going into ANY bakery and expecting to be treated, you know, like people.

        • Lisa K Jordan

          I have seen those videos too, if it is against the “law” to deny service for a wedding cake to a gay couple, why wasn’t the Muslim bakery also charged and fined similarly? And I have witnessed a gay pride parade, and would not want young children to be subjected to that display. But, I have also seen the Tampa Gasparilla Parade and Mardi Gras that have similar displays of indecency.

      • SuperMaq

        This is why America’s fall will be heavy! So as a business owner, you don’t have the right to determine how and who you sell to? How come America stopped Israel from Selling military hardware to Nigeria, and also didn’t sell?

        My prayer goes to God for this couple: may they be bigger than Oregon in the name of the Lord Jesus.

        • momatad

          Good, pray for them, that they come to realize that gay people are, how shall I put it to make it easy for you to understand, just ‘people’.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          In the Name of Jesus another Amen!

      • Welle Blue

        IN (KJV) BIBLE IS WRITTEN THE YHWH CRATED ADAM AND EVE BUT (NOT ADAM AND STEVE) . first things first your mom is a women and your father is a man. (A gay couple) women and women never gonna be born a child properly and even a man and man never be a childern EVER and even will be with nano technology never be beautiful and natural has it should be WITH MAN AND A WOMEN PERFECTLY . And even so you will change your organs and still you will be has at is MAN IS A MAN AND A WOMEN IS A WOMEN ON EARTH ! YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT THIS THE EVIL < DEVIL destroying CHURCHES BECAUSE THE DEVIL HATING A WOMEN AND MEN BECAUSE THE HOLY FATHER IN HEAVEN YHWH CHOSEN MEN BUT NOT THE SATAN FALLEN ANGEL . EVEN SO YOU WILL SLEEP WITH ENEMY AND WITH FALLEN ANGEL YOU WILL COMMIT THE SIN A CRIME . AND OBAMA IS ANTICHRIST WHO WILL DESTROY THE AMERICA AND THE EARTH AND SOME CHURCHES (HUMANITY). AND THEN YOUR WILL CORRUPTED YOUR SOUL THE FLAME IS IN SIDE

        YOU WILL BE TAKEN A WAY WITH LORD YESHUA AND HOLY SPIRIT AND YOU WILL DIE SECOND DEATH (YOU WHO DID not appreciated) BECAUSE YOU CHOSE THIS WOLD BUT NOT THE LORD SAVIOR FOREVER LIFE WITH HIM WHO GAVE YOU THE BREATH OF LIFE.

        • momatad

          Hmmmm, didn’t know God kept Adam and Eve in crates in the Garden of Eden. Nice to know that God stepped down from heaven and told YOU that Obama was the anti-christ, I’m sure that would be a surprise to him.

          • Welle Blue

            YOU WILL SEE ENOUGH …..

          • momatad

            are you communicating a threat? How will I ‘see soon enough’….you trying to facilitate this?

          • Welle Blue

            What is wrong with you man? if you are not believing in Lord ,so why you typing to overs who believe and says about concerning things .So you are loving someone same sex? because you are angry on christians and God’s law. And yeah i don’t mean what i threaten you i just saying in bible what is written inside in LORDS commandments. LOVE YOU A SINNER BUT I DO HATE A SIN. GOD BLESS YOU AMEN.

          • momatad

            whatever gave you pause to think I was gay? Or a non-Christian? Because I am considerate of others peoples lives? You forget the greatest commandment was LOVE. I have yet to see that shown by ANY of the defenders of this lot of bigots.

          • Welle Blue

            hypocrite,YOU —-> mister contradiction against your own words now because you still attacking me HYPOCRITE. WE ALL ARE SINNERS, LOVE A SINNER BUT NOT A SIN. AND I DONT CHANGE THE MIND OF MY WORDS BECAUSE YOU STILL DOING THE BAD WORKS . I DO LOVE ALL THE PEOPLE BUT NOT A SINNING AMEN.

          • momatad

            geez, speak English much?

          • Welle Blue

            AND FIRST commandment IS LOVE YOUR GOD AND LORD YESHUA AND BELIEVE IN HOLY GHOST BUT DO NOT MOCK GOD AND YESHUA LORD AND HOLY GHOST< BECAUSE YOU WILL BE PUT TO DEATH OF YOUR blasphemed AGAINST GOD < ALMIGHTY SAID IN BIBLE . YOU ARAB or MUSLIM I presume BECAUSE OF YOUR NICKNAME.

          • Welle Blue

            YOU KNOW YOU ARE SUCH A HATER PERSON . BTW I READ YOUR SOME COMMENTS ,YES YOU ARE HATER TYPE > YOU NOW LORD JESUS LOVES YOU. AND I LOVE YOU TOO AMEN . EVEN YOU ARE HATER . 🙂

          • momatad

            Oh yes……I HATE the way people aren’t allowed to live their lives and love who they will….and not shove a fundamentalist viewpoint on them and YELL ‘IF YOU AREN’T JUST LIKE ME YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!!’ I guess I am truly a hater ’cause I’m not condemning anyone to hell. Smdh.

          • Welle Blue

            AND YEA I WILL LET THIS GO BECAUSE I DON’T NEED THIS OF YOURS ATTACKINGS

          • momatad

            bye, felicia

          • Welle Blue

            my name not that what you call me

          • Welle Blue

            WRITTEN IN BIBLE———> THE LORD YESHUA SAID WHAT THE WORLD HATE HIM FIRST.

          • momatad

            no one has said ‘jack’ about hating God….you’re the one projecting that on me.

          • Welle Blue

            but you hating the truth

          • momatad

            just because you yell louder than anyone does not make what you yell true. What did Jesus say about homosexuals…….chapter and verse, go ahead, I’ll wait…….(whistles, kicks a stone). Scream about how EVIL gays and lesbians are and how ‘ordained’ this couple of bigots are…….being loud only makes you obnoxious not right.

          • Welle Blue

            AND YEA MOCKING THE GOD NOT GONNA HELP YOU . EVERYONE WILL be JUDGED.AMEN

          • momatad

            I have NEVER mocked God……the asshats who think they ‘know’ what He would do or say, yeah, I’m having a field day with them……..you only THINK you know what He would do. I don’t recall Him saying ‘geez, I need a vacation, I will step off of MY throne and leave this imbecile in charge’……CHRIST HIMSELF said the greatest commandment was love. WHO are YOU to determine who does and doesn’t love WHO? I think I will take my chances being judged by the Almighty when all I have tried to do is be kind and compassionate to those ostracized by society for who they love……if YOU have a problem with that…..well, I guess that is YOUR problem.

          • Welle Blue

            GOD BLESS YOU WHAT YOU WILL GONNA FIND YE WAY IN GOD ALMIGHTY AMEN
            LOVE YOU SINNER BUT I DOT LIKE SIN .

      • Louise Grant

        mr / miss foolish i’m sure they could find another bakery whom they can do business with .it’s plain as can be persecution and they won’t win they deliberately went there KNOWING the bakers stand.oregans law aint higher that Gods’ law

        • momatad

          As I stated earlier, the United States is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. So yes, Oregon’s law does trump what you interpret your god(s) law to be.

          • Dwayne ActivistSmith

            wrong because there is a flaw in their interpretation of the law. The problem was NOT service to the lesbian couple BUT rather their requests. That’s a major difference.

        • Lisa K Jordan

          And some of the “distress” they claimed in the lawsuit? Just BS. The bakery said they wouldn’t make your cake, so somewhere else. That causes you emotional distress worth $135.000? Maybe I need to ge t a bakery to turn me down for making a cake with the Confederate Flag on it or some other BS.

          • Taussig

            so should they be able to refuse to serve Blacks?

          • Lisa K Jordan

            This is about religion, not race. The bakers had a religious objection to gay marriage. There is no “religious” objection to race that is Biblical, so no, it would NOT apply. And it should not apply when WalMart refuses to make a cake with the Confederate Flag on it. I am speaking of the “distress” the couple claimed to have suffered if you read the article, most of which are really bogus. There is a difference between selling you cookies and producing something (like a cake, T-shirt, flyer, brochure) that goes against your beliefs. Would you require a black person who owned a printing business to produce flyers for the KKK?

          • Dwayne ActivistSmith

            eh… wrong. there were not NOTserved becaue of their orientation but rather their request was denied…theres a big difference

      • Phuq Obama

        It’s sexual deviants like you that think not getting a cake made by your chosen Christian bakery is a crime worth $135,000 dollars in tax free compensation. Perhaps you should stop trying to rape little boys and learn to reason.

        And what “law” did they break? So if I demand you to serve me and you decline I should receive a huge payoff? Sounds like a great way of making a lot of tax free money. These deviants could have easily chosen a different bakery like the did. They did not suffer any indignities but you expect the bakers to violate their deeply held sacred beliefs for the sake of a couple of sexual deviants. So tolerant you leftists are.

        • momatad

          you know nothing of my sexuality. These people put their religion out in front as ‘why’ they disregarded the law. This is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Your interpretation of ‘who’ your god is does not trump this.

    • Thys Du Plessis

      Yes they broke
      the law of Oregon, and Oregon broke the law of YHWH. So may YHWH judge Oregon
      like Oregon jugged these people. And let Origon pay the fine imposed by God!

      • Tina Cartee

        Amen.

        • pal1210

          Amen!!

      • Daniel Jenkins

        Your Bible is not the law of the land. Keep it in your church and your home and follow the laws of the United States of America. No special rights for bigots.

        • musikfanat22

          Yes, no special rights for homosexual bigots. It’s obvious that they went there to look to file suit for some free money…

          • Zigby Knight

            Very true. Pretty obvious they just want money. They made up some sort of crap about the damages. It’s all about the money. No morals! A disgusting creatures with a wicked mind.

        • shye

          They actually kept it in their home, within their family. The laws of the land shouldn’t intercept with other people’s personal beliefs and culture. Respect does not necessarily entail acceptance.

        • Lucifer Light

          Actually it is. You are wrong. Its just stupid Christians dont follow THEIR own the law.

        • Jay Roc Toney

          sir your wrong and being a bit bias cause actually the same rights that the gay has to not be discriminated on because of sexual preference is also on the same line as the right not to be discriminated on be cause of religious beliefs so how does that work you make me go against my religion to accommodate your sexual preference no how about just get your cake some place else no harm no foul come on man all this mental damage and hoopla is nonsense they seemed like they were pretty nice people and ready to serve them as they always have in the past even though they were gay it was just this time it went against there personal religious beliefs and by god the people have just as must right to that as they do to theres simple fix but these gay activist always just push to far it’s your life’s live it but stop trying to make the rest of the world live it too

        • Zigby Knight

          You’re such another idiot like them. I bet you’re a gay or u have gay friends or family. I would call you the immorals! No morality at all. You want people to respect you, then behave and live like a human being not like a disgusting animals. I bet you the next stupid law is marriage between man and and his dog, or pig, horse, etc. I wouldn’t be surprise by the wickedness act of mind of the people who made a stupid freakin’ law. I don’t give a shit if you’re offended because that is true.

          • TERRY KAYE

            Wow!! You win Zigby!! That is literally the most bat-shit crazy thing i’ve read on the internet today. You apparently don’t live very close to other people, or if you do, they have sex with their farm animals, but elsewhere in the world people are enjoying sex and marriage with other people. Secondly, reducing someone to one aspect of their being by calling them “a gay” is incredibly shallow and criticizing him because he can empathize with someone who is homosexual makes you look like a cold-hearted psychopath.

      • u mad bro

        so much facepalm.

    • Woodsman69

      AMEN!!!!

    • hexxuss

      I wonder why they chose to comply with that part of their bible, but NOT
      the part where a man must never cut his hair or shave his face or he
      becomes an abomination before God… hmmm – could they be cherry-picking
      what they want to believe so that it matches & justifies their OWN
      beliefs?! Say it isn’t so… good christians would NEVER do that – they
      follow EVERY part of their book!! Seriously – you either follow EVERY part of your bible or NONE of it – period. No cherry-picking. Period.

      • All In

        The problem you are having is not understanding the Bible. Study would clear up your confusion.

        • momatad

          I’ve got a degree in it and I agree with Hexxuss, next comment…………

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Please provide your sources for Church documents – statements of faith, practice, and doctrine – that show the Church has called on its members to not cut their hair or shave their faces over the past 2000 years. Documents similar to what I can provide regarding the outlawing of abortion from its earliest inception, a barbaric and inhuman practice supported by 97% of a-theists.

        Also, please provide evidence that you have been trolling Orthodox Judaism websites and posing these same questions to them, since you are relying on your (poor) understanding of their Tanach. Otherwise, I will be forced to assume that you are disingenuous and merely another one of the “there is no God, and I hate Him” crowd. Thanks and God bless!

      • Lisa K Jordan

        All of what you are citing is Old Testament. Christianity is based on the New Testament ONLY. People keep confusing the two very different books. The Old TEstament is the history before Christ was born when God was wrathful and vengeful. The New Testament is the history of Jesus Christ and is what TRUE Christians are supposed to adopt and follow. People need to quit mixing and mingling to two. Jesus said to love one another. He sat down with those who were considered the worst, the poorest, the “vermin” as we all should.

        • Psh no

          wrong Paul was a Jew most of the New testament comes from that idea so it isn’t based on the new its based on the bible itself

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      It seems that some gays not only fake “emotional distress,” they fake being physically harmed:

      http://winteryknight .com/2015/07/03/gay-man-fakes-hate-crime-against-himself/#respond

      Excerpt:

      “A man who reported someone beat him and carved a homophobic slur into his arm staged the attacks, authorities in rural Utah said Tuesday.

      Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker said Rick Jones, 21, could face charges after officers investigating the series of reported attacks found inconsistencies in the evidence. The Delta man eventually acknowledged faking the harassment, Dekker said.”

      So, this man who faked a hate crime against himself “could” face charges, but these bakers who serve homosexuals all the time, yet do not wish to participate in their “wedding,” face 6 figure fines. A world gone crazy.

      • JustSoYouKnow

        The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

        This story in Genesis 19 is probably the most popular passage used to condemn homosexuality. Here is how Vines explains it:

        “God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. ”

        So gang rape = not good (also not the same thing as homosexuality). But the recap of Sodom & Gomorrah found in Ezekial 16:49 highlights what Vines believes is the realpoint of the story:

        “Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy.”

        In other words, everyone using this story as evidence of the sin of homosexuality, might be missing the point entirely.

        When God calls homosexuality an abomination
        (Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)

        Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus is where the Bible straight-up says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. And yes, it does. It also says that homosexuals should receive the death penalty (!!!). It also says the same thing about eating pork or shellfish, charging interest on loans, and a whole bunch of other restrictions that were a part of the Old Testament Law Code. But for Christians, the Old Testament doesn’t (dare I say “shouldn’t?”) settle any issue because Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law. Which is probably why most Christians today eat meat, use credit cards, wear makeup, and support equality for women. Because, as Hebrews 8:13 says, the old law is obsolete and aging.

        When people turn away from God (Romans 1:26-27)

        “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

        This is where Vines really digs in on the the cultural context angle. In Biblical times, same-sex behavior was primarily seen as happening between adult men and adolescent boys (masters and servants — yikes), via prostitution, and by men who were married to women. In all of those cases, we can see why it would have been viewed as sinful, excessive, lustful, and against God’s law. But he makes no mention of love, commitment, faithfulness, or the type of same-sex relationships that are at question in the debate around marriage. (By the way, Paul also says that men having long hair is “unnatural” and that women shouldn’t speak in church, so it’s clear Paul himself may have had some issues of his own.)

        Uses of the Greek works “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”
        (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (1 Timothy 1:10)

        These words are included in the New Testament’s lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. And there has been much debate over their original meaning. (Translating ancient words is hard, guys.) Some believe them to mean homosexuality and sodomy, whereas others have said that the closest modern translation would be “dirty old men.” Ha! Here’s how Vines explains it:

        Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations (nor did he support women speaking in church…), but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters.

        Here is the video:

        http://www . upworthy . com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say?c=ufb4

        • Bob

          Isaiah 5.20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

          You ABUSE the word of God with your humanistic reasonings, instead take the whole harmony of Scripture in account so you may properly levy just judgment. THERE ARE NO Homosexual Christians – Period.

          Proverbs 26.28 A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.

          THE OT LAW is STILL VALID under the NT Jesus, as he IS GOD who’s morality never changes… try with integrity to actually READ the bible with this true consideration of all lovers of truth; Psalms 139.17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O El! how great is the sum of them!

          THIS; Genesis 2.23-24 is what Jesus AUTHORIZED when he Created the Earth and it’s Inhabitants – KIND after KIND, Male & Female – Adam & Eve not Steve. When the ONE FLESH as Yahweh describes it is DESIGNED by him as a Beautiful act shared between people, and when adulterated (which includes the homosexual PERVERSION ‘Mental illness’) obscene/debased.
          James 1.14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Hebrews 13.4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers יהוה will judge.

          Genesis 18.20 And יהוה said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 13.13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before יהוה exceedingly.

          Jude 1.7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

          Romans 1.26 For this cause יהוה gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

          Isaiah 5.24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of יהוה of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

          SOCIETY IS OBEDIENT and PRAISED BY GOD the Risen Jesus for DOING HIS WORK and destroying the homosexual perverts when they are rightly found out; II Kings 23.7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of יהוה, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

          The ONLY REASON why anyone depraved as yourself and those who proffer the cloak of Christianity but ACCEPT homosexual perversion – is BECAUSE, you do not have the law of God in your heart. You have never FALLEN UNDER the NEW COVENANT. YOU don’t even know – what the New Covenant IS, nor appreciate the MORAL STANDARD for ALL Mankind.

          Leviticus 20.13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

          THAT, Lev 20 site – JESUS before, then, and now his Walk FULLY SUPPORTS, for how could he OTHERWISE, the Sinless manifestation of Yahweh in the flesh who dwelt amongst us.

          YOU are PLAIN OUT down right WICKED, and unless you repent – and work on renewing your mind, obeying God and having therefore his Law in your reflections – you are DOOMED; Jeremiah 23.14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

          You’ve got to read the WHOLE and not impart your world view into Gods word, when you do, perhaps THIS may matter then;

          II Peter 2.8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

          There’s NO ESCAPE if you apply integrity; I Corinthians 6.9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of יהוה? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of יהוה.

          Revelation of John 22.14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

          Now time for breakfast

          • Ninevah Hall

            Thankyou Jesus!! Hallelujah! I was about speak on how easy it is foe one to take Gods word and twist it to fit their own lifestyle but you sir said it all!! Straight from the bible..theGood Book!! THE TRUTH!!

          • Daniel Burns

            Just curious. Do you shave? Do you play football( skin of a dead pig) , did you curse your parents, have you had premarital sex, or even had oral sex. All of those are punishable by death in the bible. Do we still stone people to death because of these infractions? Hell no! They’re are laws in place to protect people from this crap.
            Stop being a hypocrite and get with this century.
            Gays are not going away so get over it.

          • Ninevah Hall

            And you directed this message at me because? Lol. The questions you ask are ridiculous. I could easily answer no to all of them but I can’t. You have surface view of the bible and it’s teaching. GOD BLESS you sir. Get with this century? He is the same God yesterday, today, and forever.

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Daniel, you really don’t expect hypocrites to be honest, do you? Don’t you know it’s okay to be dishonest when it serves their cause. They’re the cherry-picking bible people. They do no wrong. “Do as they say, not as they do”

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Preach your double standard cherry picked bible quotes to those who believe your rhetoric. We can all do that, but most of us know the REAL God, not the one you speak about on His behalf – because you have NO right to do so. There are more LGBT Christians than you want to admit. God created each. You’ll reap what you sow at Judgment day.

          • musikfanat22

            you chat pure sophistry. One can not say they are Christian and ignore Scripture…

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Tell that to many of the Christians who don’t practice what they preach….not to the ones who are honest about their lives.

            As for my comment, I stand by it whether you agree or not. Fact is fact

          • David White

            even if those quotes are cherry picked, they do exist and are as valid as when they were written. Those bakers should not be required to bake a cake for something involving adultery between a man and a woman, a satanic ceremony, a witchcraft seance, pornographic pictures on the cake or anything else that would violate individual principles. If the bakers were satanists and didn’t want to bake a cake for a christian wedding would anyone be pissed off then.

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Anyone who believes in satanism would be pissed off, as would any person of any religion, race, ethnicity. A bigot is a bigot. Hate is hate. Prejudice is prejudice………and many masked as Religious freedom. But when you open a business to the public, it’s for the public.

          • musikfanat22

            Rather long winded, but, I totally agree…

        • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

          Your first mistake was getting your theology from Matthew Vines. It’s clear that Vines wasn’t trying to understand scripture.

          [updated 05/07/15]
          2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

          //******* This story in Genesis 19 *******//

          This verse indicates why God judged Sodom and Gomorrah:

          [Genesis 18:20]

          And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

          That’s right! It’s not only for the sin of homosexuality, but how grievous the sin was; to a point that an overtly perverse culture was indicated–homosexuality being the pinnacle of their perverseness .

          This next verse clarifies the extend of the sin throughout the population:

          [Genesis 18:32]

          And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.

          This establishes, individually, Sodom and Gomorrah were so sinful that not even ten righteous people could be found.

          //******* Ezekiel 16:49 *******//

          Don’t know why people keep leaving out verse 50. Especially when it leads to God’s conclusive judgment. :-/ Not only that, but Ezekiel 16 was meant to clarify ’cause and effect’ to a sinful people (Israel) during there exile.

          //******* Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus *******//

          False comparison and conclusion. Christ is the fulfillment of the law, not the end of the law.

          //******* This is where Vines really digs in *******//

          False assumption. [Romans] establishes a clear understanding of the consequences of a perverse people. In other words, when mankind shuns God’s instructions on natural morality, which are clear, He eventually gives them over to their lusts. Which is what we are seeing now. To the point where an almost complete understanding of what morals are, is absent.

          So, in essence: God does not condemn a society just because of homosexuality; however, it is definitely an indication that the people have abandoned his natural creation to such a point as to incur His wrath.

          You wrote a lot here, and I know I didn’t go into great detail of why Matthews Vines’ views are completely void of any true theology, I am willing to clarify my points if you’d like. I just can’t be providing book sized details on a myriad of points at the same time.

          Suffice to say, your position lacks scriptural integrity and provides no Godly position on the matter.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, indeed, Mathew Vines?!? smh. Excellent exegesis, Steven!

      • JoeNCA

        In this particular instance, the bakers posted the couple’s personal information on their Facebook page, from which the couple received death threats and temporarily had to move to protect their child.

        But I suppose you’re going to apologize for the vindictive “good Christians” who made that happen, aren’t you?

        • Daniel Jenkins

          They don’t care what Christians do. After all, they are demanding special rights to violate the law in their own businesses. They only care that they hate gays and shouldn’t be required to be civil and Jesus-like towards them. Hypocrites.

          • Shelton Allen

            You guys all hurt my heart, my head, my soul, my everything. Simply because of how ignorant you guys are. Because of how blind you guys are. And because you guys allow bias to take the lead role in your discussions and your point of view. Please not to address Christians as ‘they’ like you did above in your first sentence because that’s a lie, a lie. I’m a Christian and any Christian doing such things as described above to hurt homosexuals are very misled. Just like how Islamic terrorists are misled and misguided.

            No, not demanding special rights. America is the land of the free, right? So, why am I not free to make MY business that I started with MY own WILL and MY OWN SWEAT and MY OWN STRESS and MY OWN MENTAL DECLINE DUE TO STRESS pay respect to my Christian obligation of not partaking in sin? They obviously didn’t discriminate against the couple seeing as the bakers have served them multiple times in the past.

            And don’t get me started on your rather stupid notion of what is hate. Disagreement is NOT EQUAL to hate. But of course, in this day and age, everything is all about being equal so why not just turn disagreeing with something into hatred. I’m beyond tired of this argument. Both caused by worldly people with “this century’s” views and the Christians that go about it the wrong way.

            Final point: Bible-following Christians should not and will never accept homosexuality as being right. We say it’s wrong and that’s that. Agree to disagree. It’s time Christians stop wasting time with the followers of the Devil and move to people who are willing to listen to not our words, but the words of a book that has undoubtedly lived the longest.

          • u mad bro

            Cause you read it from a book, than thats how it should be!

          • XYZ

            Not just any book, it’s THE BIBLE!!!

          • Keith kowalski

            a collection of folklore written over several thousand years by hundreds of people. yes follow that to the letter.

          • GBW

            That’s just it he served them before. He should have witness to them about the love of Christ how their is no sin Jesus won’t forgive had he done that they would have disagreed with him and avoided coming into his bakery. Instead his served them did business with them then refused because he thought marriage was going too far. He was judgmental and he was wrong. Jesus is the only judge of Christians and Non- Christians. Jesus left Christians with one assignment to preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. He said nothing about judging. The problem here is that he tolerated sin and then said oh that’s too much. A Christian should always be witnessing about the goodness and mercy of God. So when non Christians come into your space they have an opportunity to be saved. When Christians come into your space they are strengthen and encouraged to do likewise. Those who come into your space and don’t want to hear you talk about Jesus will leave and not come back. He missed many opportunities to witness and jumped at the first opportunity to be judgmental.

          • Jay Roc Toney

            wrong he did nothing wrong and what he did was not judgmental he was being a good christian when he served them anyway knowing they were sinners and not being judgmental and when there sin came to a point that would cause him to participate in there sin he then as a good christian chose not to do so which like you ppl keep saying in america is his rights

          • nickwoods

            Not so long before there were so called Christians who believed people of color couldn’t marry. What’s the logic in what your supporting. If it wasn’t for the government stepping in and enforcing certain discrimination laws you wouldn’t be in the position you are today.

          • GBW

            Because he served them knowing they were lesbians and then refused to make their wedding cake because he thought marriage was going to far was judgmental and he was wrong. Homosexuality is a sin, not just homosexuals getting married. So he should have objected as soon as he knew they were lesbians. All he had to do every time they came into his store was serve them and tell them that Jesus loves them and will for give their sin. If he did that he would not have been doing anything illegal and they probably wouldn’t have come back into his store. Witnessing in you place of business is not illegal. Denying service is.

          • David White

            Jesus taught Love but he also taught obedience to the scriptures.. where there was repentance to sin which is disobedience of scripture/ He forgave, but he also said” go and sin NO MORE.”

          • Dannon Pressley

            he didnt jump at the chance to be judgmental, and what he did wasnt like tolerating their sin. He didnt judge them at all, yes he served them multiple times but it could be a couple donuts, some muffins, cupcakes, etc. What happened was they were getting MARRIED and supposedly the bible says that marriage is only for a man and a woman coming together. Sooo he didnt judge, he just turned them down on their request because, like they quoted from the bible, partaking in other people’s sins is wrong. idk what you read but they weren’t being judgemental or anything.

          • joeyman9

            RE: “America is the land of the free, right? So, why am I not free to make MY
            business that I started with MY own WILL and MY OWN SWEAT and MY OWN
            STRESS and MY OWN MENTAL DECLINE DUE TO STRESS pay respect to my
            Christian obligation of not partaking in sin?”

            Actually your question answers itself. If America was really the land of the free you would be free to run your own business as you see fit. But when you operate on one set of assumptions (that America is the land of the free) yet the men with the guns operate under the opposite set of assumptions (it’s not really free, we just tell you that so you’ll cooperate with what we tell you to do) then you get sued and have to pay out 135K to lawyers complaintants etc. And if you don’t, men with guns will come and take your stuff to make the payment (or at least as much of it as they can get).

            They will attach all your financial assets and earnings for as long as you work until the fine is settled. And if you resist, they will jail you and if you resist physically that they will use force, up to and including lethal force to get you to comply. They may or may not be a legitimate govt by and for the people, but it is healthy to acknowledge that they do have more guns and men and equipment than any individual can ever have and it is best to treat them with that in mind at all times.

            Even if this couple prevails in court, legal fees will do the damage that not paying the fine would’ve done – perhaps the legal fees will even be higher than the fine.

          • GBW

            Rule of thumb for anybody claiming to be anything. You will know them by their fruits. You will know a Christian not because he or she says so. You know a Christian is a Christian because they are Christlike in their behavior. They bear the fruit of Christ which is love. Christ asked us to love and leave judgment to him. Man looks at the outward and God looks at the heart.

          • One other person is typing…

            Where do they say they hate gays? Or are you lying?

            “But Klein states that he regularly serves homosexuals. He believes that there is a difference between serving homosexuals in general and having to personally facilitate same-sex ceremonies, which is an act of participation.

            “I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” he said. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

          • David White

            Jesus loves them but I don’t think he would bake that cake either.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Absolutely not! IF what you say is true, then I heartily condemn it, as well as any death threats made by anyone, Christian or not. (I’m sure you would do the same with the death threats lobbed at the pizzeria in Indiana?) But, of course, there are no grounds, under a-theism, for objective moral values or duties, so since anything goes (including lying) on the a-theistic view, I have no way of knowing that.

          “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))

          And, I am sure you will condemn the 300 recent examples of homofascism provided here (just take the space out)?:

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

          AND, I’m sure you will condemn the gay guy in the posting you are replying to for faking a hate crime against himself? Will he be penalized $135K?!? If not, then why not? Political correctness?

      • Daniel Jenkins

        When a guy yelled “f*gg*t” at me and hit me in the head with a rock there wasn’t anything fake about it. I had to have medical attention and I hadn’t done anything to deserve it. It’s a crazy world alright, especially thanks to religions that teach people to hate people who are born different from themselves.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “When a guy yelled “f*gg*t” at me and hit me in the head with a rock”

          I am sorry to hear you were so mis-treated – reprehensible! I condemn that kind of highly immoral behavior!

          I am sure that you are not saying that faking a hate crime against oneself is anything but reprehensible too, right? You are not justifying this man’s immoral actions because someone so mis-treated you, right?

          Of course, under a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties, so that kind of behavior falls within the confines of “anything goes” in your worldview. And a-theists 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).

          God bless, and hope your head is better.

        • givecake

          Hey man. I’ve been smashed just for being in the wrong place. People find any reason to express the darkness in their hearts in the easiest way they can, harshness and violence. You’re not special, anyone and everyone can be mistreated horribly. Consider this: When was the last time you saw a nice reasonable person do anything remotely like that? It doesn’t happen, ever. Cherry picking starts because there’s a flaw already, an unwillingness to be honest about that flaw, and instead disguise it as something more convenient.

      • Peter Leh

        that is why one should stick with the law.

        there are many “fakers” out there.. on all sides.

      • Keith kowalski

        and some gay men are handcuffed to a fence post in the middle of nowhere beaten bloody left to die.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Not for being gay, but for a meth relationship gone sour, killed by his methed-up gay lover. I guess SOME people (that would be you) never got the memo that the Matthew Shephard hate crime wasn’t, and that the myth was exposed by a gay journalist himself? (And one who suffered his own persecution, from the gay community no less, for exposing the lie.)

    • Kara Connor

      The bakers can follow the law, like every other business.

      • John O

        if the shoe were on the other foot, would u obey the law to honor Jesus? how about to honor Allah? how about honor satan? satanic church s 501 church. law for special interest groups has destroyed constitution. nobody else has rights. I am old enough to escape the coming helter skelter.

        • Kara Connor

          If I wasn’t prepared to obey the laws governing a particular business, I wouldn’t open that type of business. That’s why Orthodox Jews don’t tend to become pork butchers. Why do you want special rights to ignore the law?

          • Dan

            Kara, they want special rights to be bigoted against anyone they choose and to hide behind the cloak of God.
            All the examples that John provided, I would do. It’s only cake for crying out loud, nobody asked them to stand at the alter or join them in the wedding night bed. They were not invited guests, they were bakers hired to bake a freaking cake!
            John is whining because the gay people are selfish enough to dare to try to get the SAME rights as the rest of us. Not special rights, not special interests, simply equality. And John is too narrow-minded and bigoted to even consider that a gay could possibly be equal to him.
            John, i don’t think want to be equal to you. I very seriously doubt that any of them would want to stoop that low.

          • micobondo .

            This gay wedding denied the couple of their religious preference. Those gays discriminated the couple because the couple preferred to practice their right to religion. Those gays violated the right of the couples. Those gays should obey the law but violated it and cry that they were discriminated while in fact they are the ones who are discriminating people by not allowing the couple to practice their religious rights. Is it lawful to force your own belief to someone who has its own belief ? This gays insulted the couple religious beliefs by insisting them to practice sin.

          • Kara Connor

            Blah blah blah. The bakers broke the law, knowingly. They must be prepared to face the consequences if their faith means that much to them.

          • micobondo .

            and so did the gays , it is unlawful to discriminate religious beliefs. if you want people to accept your belief you should be accepting their beliefs too, that’s equality in action.

          • dog tired

            Your turn Will come. I would not want to be in your shoes when it is

          • Kara Connor

            Are you threatening me?

          • Shelton Allen

            Everybody please hail and bow down to the Almighty Law of the United States of America – the world’s governing body -.- … And obviously they were, they closed down their store and the guy became a “garbage guy.”

          • JustSoYouKnow

            The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

            This story in Genesis 19 is probably the most popular passage used to condemn homosexuality. Here is how Vines explains it:

            “God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. ”

            So gang rape = not good (also not the same thing as homosexuality). But the recap of Sodom & Gomorrah found in Ezekial 16:49 highlights what Vines believes is the realpoint of the story:

            “Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy.”

            In other words, everyone using this story as evidence of the sin of homosexuality, might be missing the point entirely.

            When God calls homosexuality an abomination
            (Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)

            Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus is where the Bible straight-up says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. And yes, it does. It also says that homosexuals should receive the death penalty (!!!). It also says the same thing about eating pork or shellfish, charging interest on loans, and a whole bunch of other restrictions that were a part of the Old Testament Law Code. But for Christians, the Old Testament doesn’t (dare I say “shouldn’t?”) settle any issue because Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law. Which is probably why most Christians today eat meat, use credit cards, wear makeup, and support equality for women. Because, as Hebrews 8:13 says, the old law is obsolete and aging.

            When people turn away from God (Romans 1:26-27)

            “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

            This is where Vines really digs in on the the cultural context angle. In Biblical times, same-sex behavior was primarily seen as happening between adult men and adolescent boys (masters and servants — yikes), via prostitution, and by men who were married to women. In all of those cases, we can see why it would have been viewed as sinful, excessive, lustful, and against God’s law. But he makes no mention of love, commitment, faithfulness, or the type of same-sex relationships that are at question in the debate around marriage. (By the way, Paul also says that men having long hair is “unnatural” and that women shouldn’t speak in church, so it’s clear Paul himself may have had some issues of his own.)

            Uses of the Greek works “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”
            (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (1 Timothy 1:10)

            These words are included in the New Testament’s lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. And there has been much debate over their original meaning. (Translating ancient words is hard, guys.) Some believe them to mean homosexuality and sodomy, whereas others have said that the closest modern translation would be “dirty old men.” Ha! Here’s how Vines explains it:

            Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations (nor did he support women speaking in church…), but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters.

          • Jan Carlos

            I believe the Bible covers all, and is timeless. And the Bible DOES address the issues of sexual orientation and same sex marriage. Read the Bible and start having a personal relationship with GOD, and He will reveal to you what you need to understand.

          • Katherine Bryans

            I have read the Bible and have a close personal relationship with God. He blessed my wedding to my wife.

          • DNelson

            “Those gays discriminated the couple because the couple preferred to practice their right to religion.”

            How is it discrimination to hold a business accountable for violating the law?

            “Those gays should obey the law but violated it”

            What law did they violate?

          • micobondo .

            The couple chose not to make “Gay Wedding Cake” , if you force them to do it even against their religious belief is discriminating like they don’t have the right to refuse even it is against their will. Its discriminating because it shows that only gay have the right to do what they will, if you disagree your the bad guy.

            The right to practice your religious belief is a law , by suing the couple, they violated the rights of the couple.

          • DNelson

            “The couple chose not to make “Gay Wedding Cake””

            There’s no such thing as a “gay wedding cake”. The couple chose not make provide a wedding cake to a couple that wanted to buy a wedding cake.

            “if you force them to do it even against their religious belief”

            They weren’t forced to make a cake for a same-gender wedding, nor did they.

            “like they don’t have the right to refuse even it is against their will.”

            They don’t have the right to refuse.

            “The right to practice your religious belief is a law , by suing the couple, they violated the rights of the couple.”

            The couple does not have he ability to violate the rights of the couple. If you believe that anti-discrimination laws violate the constitutional rights of the couple, you are free to work to get them changed. The courts have determined, in previous cases, that anti-discrimination laws do NOT violate 1st amendment protections.

          • micobondo .

            There is such a gay wedding cake, where you write names of both men or both women, then it becomes gay cake. If they just ordered a cake then there will no issues. So, there is such a thing.

            They were’nt forced ? then why they have to sue them if it is ok not to do it?

            They have the right to refuse because they dont make gay wedding cake, its not available, sorry, go find somewhere else.

            Suing them violates the rights of the other couple to practice their rights, because you dont want them to practice their belief,it is a violation of law, they can counter-sue if they wish.Suing them is not the violation, but the objective is a violation.

          • DNelson

            “There is such a gay wedding cake, where you write names of both men or both women, then it becomes gay cake”

            No such request was made. All they wanted to do was order a cake. They made no request for names to be written on it, nor do most wedding cakes include names. What if both of the people were heterosexual? Would that be OK?

            “They were’nt forced ?”

            No, they weren’t. They never made the cake.

            “then why they have to sue them if it is ok not to do it?”

            i didn’t say it was OK for them not to do it. I said they never had to make the cake. They were sued because they violated the law.

            “Suing them violates the rights of the other couple to practice their rights”

            Suing doesn’t violate rights. Again, you may believe that the law that allows people to sue is one that violates people’s rights. But the act of suing based upon the law does not violate rights.

          • micobondo .

            Read the article again to why it was rejected.

            They were force indirectly which resulted filing a case, or else it would not come to this.If you are not forcing them so why complain ?

            Serving something not available is not violating a law. They were sued because gays think they are always right .Even its not available they think the are discriminated.

            I said the objective of suing them is the one that violates they’re rights, not the act of suing.

          • DNelson

            Please cite in the article where it says that the couple was forced to bake a cake.

            “Serving something not available is not violating a law.”

            The bakery offered wedding cakes. They were available.

            “They were sued because gays think they are always right”

            No, they were sued because they broke the law.

            “I said the objective of suing them is the one that violates they’re rights”

            Objectives don’t violate rights. Laws can violate rights.

          • micobondo .

            Go read the article.

            Wedding cakes, but not for gays , get it ?!

            “They were sued because gays think they are always right” – this is your law that they violated.

            They violated their rights by provoking them to practice something against their belief, by suing them, forces them to do it or else close.simple.

          • DNelson

            So you can’t cite in the article where is says that the couple were forced to bake a cake. Got it. Thanks

            “Wedding cakes, but not for gays , get it ?!”

            Yes, I get it. That is a violation of the law in Oregon. Get it?

            “this is your law that they violated.”

            No, it’s the law of the State of Oregon.

            “They violated their rights by provoking them to practice something against their belief, by suing them, forces them to do it or else close.simple.”

            Suing someone does not violate their rights. Only laws have the ability to violate rights.

          • micobondo .

            read well so you’ll get my point . have a happy life, hopefully someday you’ll change and obey law of God not law of men.

          • DNelson

            Thanks. I wish you a happy life. I believe I am already obeying the laws of God. I also believe it is important to obey the laws of man. I hope someday you will also believe it is important to obey the laws of man.

          • momatad

            your ‘interpretation’ of God’s law….does He know you ‘modified, edited and made corrections’ as YOU saw fit?

          • Katherine Bryans

            Does he know that every edited, revised and translated version of the Bible modified God’s law?

          • Daniel Jenkins

            Keep your God in your church and home and heart. Don’t force it on others. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible.

          • Charlotte Webber

            Are you demanding people of religion “get in the closet”?

          • Katherine Bryans

            No we just wish you would stop forcing others to believe like you do.

          • Landon

            Thank you for pwning this noob.

          • sanity1

            Can’t convince a pseudo Christian who is hell bent on stoning those who disagree with him.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            You just don’t get it. Religion doesn’t give you the right to break the law. Even if it tells you to hate gays.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            False. They were sued for refusing to do the job they pretend to be there to do (bakery) by discriminating against a couple based on their sexual orientation (which is against Oregon law). The bakers chose to violate Oregon law and thus were penalized for doing so. Any couple who is denied service by a business that serves the public has the option to file a suit because they were wrongly treated by the bakers. If the bakers don’t want to serve all the public, then they shouldn’t run a bakery. Not in Oregon anyway.

          • sanity1

            Voice of reason in the darkness of bigotry.

          • Phei Sze

            “My first question was what’s the wedding date,” Klein told television station KTW in Portland. “My next question was [the] bride and groom’s name. … The girl giggled a little bit and said, ‘It’s two brides.’”

            They actually write names of wedding couples n wedding dates on their cakes. I suppose it’s part of the design. But of course, the article did not state that the homosexual couple requested.

            Still think it’s unfair tho. Seems like they were after the compensations to the extent of ruining a family’s life. You could always walk out of the store and order a wedding cake from another bakery n not get your life ruined for it. Smells like revenge, selfishness and greed to me.

          • DNelson

            “But of course, the article did not state that the homosexual couple requested.”

            The customers never got far enough along in the process to make such a request. Once it was known that both of the couple were women, the baker refused the order.

            “Seems like they were after the compensations to the extent of ruining a family’s life.”

            if the Klein’s had accepted the order, there would be no compensation to go after. So to suggest that the intention was to go after compensation “to the extent of ruining a family’s life” is without merit.

            “You could always walk out of the store and order a wedding cake from another bakery n not get your life ruined for it.”

            Yeah, they could. Just like an interracial couple could if a bakery owner said it was their sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix. But, the people of Oregon have decided that citizens should not have to go store to store to find one that is willing to serve them. The citizens of Oregon have decided that people should not have to deal with that. The citizens of Oregon have decided that if a store is open to the public, that the store may not refuse to serve someone based upon a variety of covered categories, including sexuality.

            “Smells like revenge, selfishness and greed to me.”

            So you believe that holding a business accountable to the law is a sign of “revenge, selfishness and greed”?

          • sanity1

            More nut case logic.

          • Katherine Bryans

            The cake itself is not gay. It does not have a sexual orientation it is just cake.

            They don’t have the right to refuse because they make wedding cakes.

            They can practice their belief they cannot use that belief to infringe on someone else’s rights.

          • Tahatch Bearwolf

            DNelson, you are in the wrong country boy, go try to subvert people’s inalienable rights and support degeneracy somewhere else.

          • DNelson

            How am I wrong?

            In what way do you believe I am attempting to subvert people’s inalienable rights?

            What would be considered degenerate is a matter of personal opinion.

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Hi pot, meet kettle.

          • sanity1

            Very good…a voice of reason among the demigods.

          • momatad

            what pray tell is a ‘gay wedding cake’…..a vanilla cream cake getting frisky with another vanilla cream cake? Oh my, wait, what if that vanilla cream got frisky with a chocolate fudge cake….would that be Miscegenation?

          • sanity1

            Your a freakin’ nut case ! Where did you come up with that convoluted logic? Your hatred knows no bounds.

          • Katherine Bryans

            For one it is not a “Gay Wedding Cake”. It is a cake celebrating the love of a homosexual couple who would be spending their lives together.

            Secondly Public Accommodation laws come into affect and since their business is not a place of worship is not exempt from following the law.

            The right to practice your religious belief is just that your belief. Not your belief to make others believe like you do. I do not have a right to force my religious beliefs on others, yet I am free to practice my religious beliefs. When your religious beliefs keep you from doing your job then you infringe on others.

          • Starstorm

            Except that they weren’t discriminating against them, or did you conveniently ignore the part where they had done business with homosexuals? I could understand if they were actually discriminating against them but they weren’t.

            So what law did the bakers violate? Hmm, yeah, thought so.

          • DNelson

            “Except that they weren’t discriminating against them, or did you conveniently ignore the part where they had done business with homosexuals?”

            They refused to provide a product that they offer to the public based upon the sexuality/gender of the customers. That is a violation of the law where the baker operates.

          • Starstorm

            And you ignored the part where it says they do provide a product for their sexual orientation in both the article and in my comment. How convenient!

            No laws broken.

          • DNelson

            They supplied SOME products that they offered, but refused to provide ALL products they offered. That is a violation of the law.

          • Starstorm

            They also have the right to refuse service as long as it isn’t discriminatory, which it wasn’t. How easily people forget that one. Do you go to a Muslim and all to buy pork from them, knowing fully well that it’s against their religion? If they deny you service, are you going to go cry to the courts about being discriminated against?

          • DNelson

            “They also have the right to refuse service as long as it isn’t discriminatory, which it wasn’t.”

            The courts disagree.

            “Do you go to a Muslim and all to buy pork from them,”

            The Muslim business wouldn’t offer pork nor would they be required to. Businesses are free to decide what products they want to offer and what they do not. Therefore I would not expect to be able to buy pork from them. If, however, they did offer pork, they would have to provide it without restriction based upon anti-discrimination laws.

          • Starstorm

            Muslims also work at places such as Target and Walmart that do sell pork. And often enough times, they’ll refuse to handle it. Some even decline to ring up the entire thing.

            Also, Walmart can refuse to make a cake that has the rebel flag on it. And what if it was a Christian paying for it? Could that Christian go to the courts and claim they were discriminated against because they were Southern and Christian? Or what if it was a black person (yes there are some that like the flag, I’ve seen some) would they be discriminated against because they are black? Courts, like hot said, would disagree. So why would they agree now?

            Right, discriminating against someone based on their religion is okay, I guess. But only if they are Christian. That’s what this whole thing implies. Not really talking about what you are implying.

          • DNelson

            “And often enough times, they’ll refuse to handle it. Some even decline to ring up the entire thing.”

            Really? What information do you have to back that up?

            “Also, Walmart can refuse to make a cake that has the rebel flag on it.”

            Correct. Businesses that offer cakes are not required to put a symbol or words on the cake they do not want to.

            “Could that Christian go to the courts and claim they were discriminated against because they were Southern and Christian?”

            No. See above for an explanation. In addition, they refuse the cake for everyone. Finally, being from the South is not a covered category.

            “Right, discriminating against someone based on their religion is okay, I guess.”

            No, it is not. It is illegal.

            “But only if they are Christian.”

            No, Christians are covered as well.

          • Isidoro Villafane

            I will tell the judge that I will not pay a single penny to these yoyo’s period for violating my religious freedom.

          • DNelson

            That is certainly one of your options. I hope you like bologna.

          • momatad

            and the judge will say ‘oh, thank you for refusing, now go and have a good day’? I think not. Toss their asses in the klink if they blatantly refuse…..then they can have an ‘evangelism rally’ in jail…..maroons.

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            Obviously you have zero knowledge of the court system.

            The judge made a ruling. It will stand as such unless any / if any appeal is filed.

            Go against the court order, meet your new cell mate

          • Starstorm

            Is anyone going to punish those that actually did harm people? Like pay for damaged property and the emotional distress that was caused by the LGBT crowd?

            A symbol is a symbol, it shouldn’t hurt anyone but yet businesses can deny the person’s request. So why now did they freak?

            And they didn’t refuse service because they were homosexual, we can argue this point forever, if you wish.

            Also, I’ve had experience of Muslims not ringing up my stuff because of bacon. Know what I did? Didn’t cry about it, that’s for sure. I just waited patiently for someone else to ring me up or I went to a different lane. Omg so hard!

          • DNelson

            “Like pay for damaged property and the emotional distress that was caused by the LGBT crowd?”

            Any person who causes physical damage should be held responsible. People are certainly free to pursue legal action regarding emotional distress they have been caused, but if no law was broken regarding the emotional distress they wouldn’t have a legal case.

            “So why now did they freak?”

            Who “freaked” about a bakery not putting a words or a symbol on cake?

            “And they didn’t refuse service because they were homosexual”

            From a legal aspect they did. It is the people who were turned down – not the event. The event is not the customer.

            “Also, I’ve had experience of Muslims not ringing up my stuff because of bacon.”

            Well that is quite surprising. So your entire basis for the statement “Muslims also work at places such as Target and Walmart that do sell pork. And often enough times, they’ll refuse to handle it. Some even decline to ring up the entire thing.” is that you have experienced it? You do realize that would be against store policy, correct? You do realize that they have no legal standing for refusing to do so, correct? So you realize that you are comparing apples and oranges, correct?

          • Starstorm

            My point that they did that, despite you saying it is illegal and against store policy for them to do so but did anyways but I didn’t seek to ruin them. Apples to apples.

            They refused to make a product for such an event not the people. Because if it was the people, why did they deny just them? Why not deny all of the other homosexuals?

            And I hope these bakers charge those that gave them death threats and caused property damage and win. They do have legal right to do so.

            But claiming all that emotional distress over being declined service in a polite matter is rather ridiculous.

          • DNelson

            “despite you saying it is illegal”

            I never said it was illegal.

            “but I didn’t seek to ruin them.”

            If you don’t want to report misconduct by a store employee and let the employer know that the person he is paying is not acting in accordance with store policy regarding employee conduct and thus is potentially harming the business, that is certainly your choice.

            “They refused to make a product for such an event not the people.”

            The event is not the customer. The people are the customers. If you provide wedding cakes, then you must provide them to all customers in a manner consistent with the law.

            “And I hope these bakers charge those that gave them death threats and caused property damage and win.”

            As do I.

            “But claiming all that emotional distress over being declined service in a polite matter is rather ridiculous.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • Starstorm

            I’m going to bow out. I disagree with you still but I’m getting rather bored of debating. And got nothing else to say to tell you the truth.

            I’m glad you are a mature guy, some people are not and go straight to insults.

            If you can do me a favor and have a nice day, that will be great. 🙂

          • DNelson

            I hope you have a nice day, as well.

          • Katherine Bryans

            “And I hope these bakers charge those that gave them death threats and caused property damage and win.”

            I hope they do to, but first they have to find out who made the threats and damaged their property.

          • sanity1

            Do you think Walmart could refuse to have a cake that has a KKK, Nazi, or other hate symbol? The “law” says they can. It’s not the same as sexual orientation. World of difference dumbell. Apples and oranges.

          • Starstorm

            Swastika wasn’t always a hate symbol. The law isn’t only against hate symbols btw.

            Also apples and oranges may be different but they are both still fruit, thus are both upheld by the same laws.

          • sanity1

            What??? Where does it say in the article that their business either advertised or promoted itself as “Christian wedding cakes only”. Dope.

          • Starstorm

            Cute, an insult. 🙂

            They didn’t, but they also didn’t discriminate as they do sell to homosexuals. Must have ignored that part.

          • momatad

            find a practicing Muslim who SELLS pork….DNelson’s point made earlier.

          • Starstorm

            I realize that but there are places where Muslims work that do sell pork. My point still stands.

          • momatad

            Ah, yes, a company that employes Muslims AND sells pork. If this is the case, the Muslim employee does not work/handle the offending meat. Moot point. I know of at least one place this happens…..

          • Starstorm

            Had it happen to me, where they didn’t want to touch the package of bacon. Didn’t really bother me though.

          • Katherine Bryans

            “Do you go to a Muslim and all to buy pork from them, knowing fully well that it’s against their religion?” They wouldn’t be selling pork for one, therefor no discrimination. Secondly you cannot force someone to sell something they would not sell on a regular basis.

            The wedding cakes were part of their business, therefor they had to have them available for all couples wanting to order one.

          • Starstorm

            I’ve stated in other comments about places such as Target and Walmart.

          • Katherine Bryans

            Walmart and Target are not exclusively Muslim.

          • Starstorm

            I didn’t say they were.

          • Ing

            They did sell cakes to homesexuals, they just did not want to participate, the writing said.. probably it meant that they did not want to bake a special cake for them, but they do sell regular cakes.. If I open a vegetarian restaurant and refuse to sell meat because I believe it’s not healthy, am I discriminating against the meat eater? The order doesn’t make sense!! Poor family, hope they can recover..

          • DNelson

            “They did sell cakes to homesexuals, they just did not want to participate, the writing said.. probably it meant that they did not want to bake a special cake for them, but they do sell regular cakes.”

            The bakery offered wedding cakes. They are not legally allowed to refuse a cake that they offer based upon sexuality or gender of the customer.

            “If I open a vegetarian restaurant and refuse to sell meat because I believe it’s not healthy, am I discriminating against the meat eater?”

            You are not, as a business owner, required to see any particular item. You are, however, required to provide whatever products you have chosen to sell in a manner that does not violate anti-discrimination laws. You would be free to not offer meat. You would not, however, be free to not offer vegetarian dishes to a customer based upon the customer’s sexuality – at least in Oregon. There are many states, however, where you would be free to refuse service to a person because you believe them to be gay.

            “Poor family, hope they can recover..”

            They received over $50,000 in donations through GoFundMe and have sense received additional donations through Samaritan’s Purse.

          • sanity1

            As long as that sucker money went to the two deserving lesbians in their lawsuit, the laughs on the Conservative freaks who donated.

          • sanity1

            Listen nut job, they weren’t ask to participate in their wedding….all the wanted was a lousy freakin’ cake. They had a legal and moral obligation to serve the public as a business. If they wanted Fido the dog and Fritz the Cat inscribed on the cake, so freakin’ what? They’re paying for it. Ever hear of separation of Church and state? That little tidbit so ignored by Conservative zealots.

          • Katherine Bryans

            No because when you open your restaurant you open it as a vegetarian restaurant which automatically shows you do not serve meat.

          • Katherine Bryans

            Public Accommodation laws. They made wedding cakes and according to these laws they must make them for everyone not just heterosexuals.

          • Starstorm

            They sell other stuff too, not just wedding cakes and they did sell to homosexuals as well.

          • Katherine Bryans

            Yes but they refused to make a wedding cake for the lesbian couple which is discrimination.

          • Starstorm

            From my understanding that lesbians are homosexual, and these people sell to homosexuals. So, tell me, if I were to sell something to homosexuals but refused one for whatever reason, politely too, I would be discriminating against the entire group?

            Good to know. If someone refuses me in anything, I can just accuse them of discriminating against either my race, religion, or gender. Doesn’t matter if they had a reason for it or not.

            Besides, they were Christian, and this mother and daughter (not a couple) probably knew this as they were friends and frequent customers. Supposedly friends. They say they were friends in the article but friends wouldn’t seek to ruin friends so I guess they weren’t. And knowing that some Christians are against homosexuality but don’t hate homosexuals. As evidenced by this article. Why would they purposely go to a Christian bakery to buy a cake for a homosexual marriage? There’s plenty of bakeries but this one is singled out.

            The only hatred and discrimination I see here is against the bakers by members of the LGBT crowd, not necessarily by the mother and daughter. Death threats, property damage, and having to move the business into their home out of fear. Yeah, love totally won.

          • Katherine Bryans

            The mother and daughter had ordered a wedding cake for the mothers wedding and they liked the cake. Because of that the decided to use the same baker for the bride’s cake. Because the bride was marrying another woman they would not make the cake. The fact that they would let them buy anything and everything in the store, except a wedding cake is discrimination.

          • Starstorm

            The fact that they sell to homosexuals is not discrimination.

          • Katherine Bryans

            The fact that they sell wedding cakes to heterosexuals and not homosexuals is discrimination.

          • Starstorm

            The fact that they sell to homosexuals is not discrimination. They weren’t even rude about it. Want to continue to go in circles? Because that’s exactly what we are doing.

          • Katherine Bryans

            Oregon public accommodations law. “Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

            “We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, noted.

            They were being asked to make a wedding cake not participate in their wedding. How does baking a cake for a homosexual couple go against their religious beliefs and still accommodate the law? It doesn’t, they were being paid to make a cake.

          • Starstorm

            By making the cake, they are participating in it. Behind the scenes, yes but still.

            They were allowed inside, they were allowed to buy other things. Yawn…

            Also, even if it was discrimination (which it’s not) I highly doubt they went through that much emotional trauma. That amount and kind of trauma they claimed they went through is synonymous with being physically and/or emotionally harassed, property damaged, getting death threats and being scared to even step out of their house. All of which did not happen to them, they were politely told that their request was denied. They could have went elsewhere afterwards. But instead they sought ruin on their friends.

            Now, the bakers on the otherhand, have gone through WORSE. Death and rape threats, property damage. They even had to bring their business into their house. Now these people have not sought ruin on their friends.

            Hell, these two women wouldn’t even survive in my shoes if a simple “we don’t make cakes for homosexual weddings” makes them gain weight, start smoking, distrust men, distrust friends, etc etc. And I’ve been physically and emotionally harassed by both genders, mostly males. I’ve lost sleep over a friend (now former friend) harassing me constantly all because I am a Christian. Most of the harassment I’ve faced was because of my religion. I still go through it but not as much as before.

            And if I frequented, let’s say a Jewish bakery or whatever, and they found out about my German ancestry and I was told they don’t make whatever for some non discriminatory reason (or even if it was) I wound be like “whatever” and buy from someone else. I wouldn’t start smoking or gain weight or lose sleep (or sleep too much) over it.

          • Katherine Bryans

            How is it participating? No one has answered this question. The were asked to make a cake. They weren’t asked to deliver it to a specific place, which would be participating. The weren’t asked to put anything out of the ordinary on the cake. They weren’t asked to do anything that they wouldn’t do for a heterosexual couple, which they did for one of the mother’s of these women. I am not saying suing anyone is right. I am just asking how is it participating.

          • Starstorm

            I answered that question already and I won’t answer it again. Look at my previous reply.

          • Katherine Bryans

            They would have been making a cake, for a ceremony, that they were getting paid to make. That is not participation, that is business.

          • Starstorm

            It’s participation. Yawn.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            The gay couple followed the law. It was the Christian couple that violated it because they think their religion allows them to ignore Oregon law. Not if you run a public business.

          • John O

            why do u want to come on a supposedly Christian website and promote what the bible calls an abomination? what are u going to do when special interest groups change the law that effects u? that’s the end of the constitution. u apparently are not aware that in America, the bible is still the measure of truth in the courts. willfull disobedience is Gods business. I have no argument with u.

          • Kara Connor

            Do you want this forum to be an echo chamber? I present a contrary viewpoint for your consideration, and perhaps to be able to have a meaningful dialog.

          • John O

            u obviously are not a dummy. those who are not gifted believe your meaning full dialog is the same as there is no god. just a fundimental opinion. I was taught right and had no problem straying. difference is I had a base to return to. u probably have too, but what about the ones who don’t?

          • Kara Connor

            Clearly I don’t find any evidence for the existence of any gods. However, legal equality, evolution, and scientific explanations don’t _disprove_ anybody’s god. Many religious people are able to reconcile the two. It is biblical literalists who have problems. Which is strange since in the bible, Jesus uses parables/metaphors. For example, I doubt anyone believes the prodigal son was an actual person.

          • John O

            all creation points to a Creator. the bible is for teaching believers. we are all prodigal sons and daughters. very, very few that haven’t gone astray. How could a loving God have such a mess? free will. we don’t have to believe or obey. we have choice. animals only have nature. ask God to make Himself real, if u are serious. I will guarantee u there is a Living God and I found the Truth the hard way. God have mercy on all of us.

          • John O

            all creation points to a Creator. the bible is for teaching believers. we are all prodigal sons and daughters. very, very few that haven’t gone astray. How could a loving God have such a mess? free will. we don’t have to believe or obey. we have choice. animals only have nature. ask God to make Himself real, if u are serious. I will guarantee u there is a Living God and I found the Truth the hard way. God have mercy on all of us.

          • Andrew Ashley Perkins

            Hello Kara Connor, and to anyone who says they don’t have, can’t find, & or says there is no evidence of our (EVERYONE’S) Lord God [Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ], I have a question for you all. & please REALLY think about it. Do y’all believe in the wind?” “Can you see the wind?” No “But what can you do?” Feel it, right. Well that’s the same way it is with our Lord God [Savior Jesus Christ]. We can’t see Him… yet (when He returns we will), but we still “Believe” in Him. What we can also do is “Feel His Presence.” Everyone can if you “Truly Believe In Him & Obey” His Laws which “‘Is & are All In,’ The Bible.” Not only will you Feel His Presence, He will lead you and guide you in the right direction, on the path of Righteousness into Heaven. Be Blessed Everyone love y’all

          • momatad

            thank you, Kara. As a biblical scholar, I don’t believe it is my place to judge anyone based on their sexuality….first and foremost, I believe gay people are (gasp) PEOPLE first and should be treated with respect and dignity…..I also believe that God made them the way they are……are they going to question the Almighty’s decisions on who is who?

          • momatad

            since when are things posted on an ‘open’ website limited to ‘Amen, Brother/Sister, PREACH it’….there ARE differences in opinion, believe it or not EVEN in the Church on this issue. What is NOT at issue is that the State of Oregon found this couple in violation of THEIR laws and fined them accordingly, like it or not. People in the LGBT community want basically what everyone else wants…..to be treated like PEOPLE.

          • John O

            no special interest group is in favor of the constitution. I did my service under Eisenhour when it was one nation under God. read Patrick Henry on equal rights. special interest groups only purpose is to destroy the constitution to make way for the new world order.

          • momatad

            ‘one nation under God’ was only added to the pledge of allegiance when McCarthy, much like today’s tea party, saw the ‘red devils’ in everything and demanded it be added to prove ‘loyalty’ to the country by ‘swearing to God’. Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, and more than a goodly share of the founding fathers DID NOT want a specific religion to ‘reign’ in this country, as the majority of the immigrants who first came to this country came to ‘escape’ religious persecution, not to inflict it.

          • John O

            u obviously do not understand one law and equal prosecution mean. example: prosecute somebody for “gay” cake but not for refusing to decorate a confederate cake. u are entitleted to your opinion and u are apparently trying to establish a different set of rules for special interest groups. bye.

          • Shelton Allen

            Very bad example. Terrible example. Jews don’t become pork butchers because they believe pork SHOULDN’T be consumed. Maybe you weren’t aware of this, but Christians believe cake SHOULD be consumed.

          • Kara Connor

            See that thing flying over your head? That’s the point you just missed.

        • Gary Pranzo

          LGBT people are real people and like all real people are protected by laws. Jesus, Allah and Satan are imaginary beings and do not need protection under the law.

      • MoeMoney

        The law itself is wrong – the most unconstitutional thing ever devised, to force someone to do business with another. If they were a public utility, sure, but a cake? No. Wal-mart refused a Confederate flag cake recently. Think they’ll have to pay over 100k? Nope, only when liberals feel wronged, not anyone else. Think a gay man would be sued for refusing to write down a Christian’s anti-gay beliefs? Nope. The a black man would be sued for not serving KKK? Nope. The Liberal Fascism must come falling down.

        • Kara Connor

          And the law has been in place for many years. Don’t like it, either campaign to get it changed, or don’t open a public accommodation. They knew the laws before the went into it.

          • Tahatch Bearwolf

            Or just disregard unconstitutional laws as the higher laws call for. You are a conformist and unpatriotic.

          • Kara Connor

            You can bring a case to SCOTUS as we did to get marriage equality, and if, like the bans on same sex marriage, it is deemed unconstitutional, it will be struck down like DOMA and the other iniquitous, pro-discrimination laws. In the meantime, don’t open a business which serves the public if you aren’t prepares to serve the public.

          • PapaCookie

            13 gay bakers refused to make a cake for a hetero sexual wedding…why haven’t they been fined or lost their businesses under the law of sexual discrimination?? shoe is on the other foot…but they get away with breaking the law…see a double standard?

          • Kara Connor

            Citations, please. Strange they haven’t been sued. It’s like you’re making it up.

          • momatad

            They don’t need ‘citations’……an ‘angel’ came to them and told them, don’t you know that?

          • Shelton Allen

            HAHAhAHA funny -_____- … God bless you ma brotha, God bless ya

          • sanity1

            LIAR!!!

          • bobmead1960

            Because the people seeking the cake weren’t vengeful and hateful towards their freedom of beliefs.

          • JoeNCA

            They did no such thing. They agreed to bake a specific cake with objectionable content. They didn’t deny it because who they are.

            With Sweet Cakes they never even got to that point. They just said “We don’t serve your kind.” That’s discrimination.

          • Matt Brooks

            Neither did these people. Did you even read the article? They serve homosexuals regularly. “Who they are” had nothing to do with it.

          • JoeNCA

            Yes they did, with the exception of wedding cakes, which they serve to heterosexuals but not to gay people. It’s like saying “We serve black people, but the steak is for white people.”

            It’s still discrimination.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            Because either you made of the story (most likely) or there was no law in that state protecting customers based on sexual orientation. I’ve never heard this news and I’m an avid reader of all news everywhere. I think you are just lying.

          • u mad bro

            news??? really?…it’s called Law, anyone operating their own business should have least read up on all rules/regulations/guidelines just to keep themselves out of ordeals such as this… And then because they want the same rights as everyone else they are doing it for attention or…they are lying…no they wanted a fucking cake…and they couldn’t get one…The cake doesn’t even matter it’s the fact of the matter that they couldn’t go into an operating business in Oregan, which you signed an agreement to operate under the state’s rules..and get what they wanted. Sorry…not sorry,

          • Peter Leh

            papacookie… shoebat is a hack. What he was denied was his hate speech on a cake.

          • ISpeakOnlyTruth

            If they did wrong, they should be fined as well. But since nobody seems to have all the FACTS to post instead of just pointing a finger, saying “You didn’t get in trouble because I did”, there’s nothing more to be done.

          • momatad

            Funny, I don’t remember seeing anywhere that Jesus was a ‘Murkin and carrying an American flag.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            And you are a treasonist and criminal.

          • Shelton Allen

            Uhm, he did say that he was unaware of that law in the video.

        • Taussig

          so you’re ok with segregation of races?

          • drjgorman

            Non sequitur..

        • IHeart Yeshua

          They were in the wrong. Yehovah hates broken commitments. They signed a business license knowing this was the law, and broke it. This has nothing to do with authority, but an agreement.

          BUT 🙂 They seem to have been given a blessing, and may receive more than they dreamed out of this. What you ask?? Their HOME Business….I think it will be better, and what they need. Moral of the story: Yah still has your back–even when you might have been wrong.

      • Tăut Lăcrimioara

        The owners have the right of selecting their clients, sheesh good for them if they did not want to compromise

        • Kara Connor

          They don’t have the right to discriminate as they did. That’s the law. They broke the law.

          • nevergiveup

            They may have broken the law but 135000 dollars is overkill. One of the reasons why the USA is going down the toilet is the farce that the so called justice system has become. You seem to get pleasure from seeing two good people get roasted for having the guts to live by their convictions. For goodness sakes they did not beat someone up or even verbally abuse them.

          • Kara Connor

            I actually think the fine is excessive. America is a great country and is not going “down the toilet”. It is preventing citizens being treated as second class, and upholding the law.

          • http://vgsage.com Azix

            To be fair, not getting a cake baked by someone when you can take your money elsewhere in protest seems trivial in the face of forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs for your sake. This isn’t a case of your skin color or your hairstyle. This is something fundamental to their person and world view. If anyone is actually being wronged, its them.

            Go get your cake from an establishment that is willing to do that. There are many most likely.

            Make of it what you wish, this is just another form of bigotry. An attempt to wipe out any dissent when it comes to homosexuality. Disgusting really. We’ll see where it ends up.

          • Kara Connor

            Look, the bottom line here is that if your conscience forbids you from serving the same product to all groups, don’t open a public accommodation. You know the law, and you know you have to follow it. Do I think the fine was excessive? Yes, I do as it happens, but they knew they were violating the law.

          • http://vgsage.com Azix

            They clearly do not think they were violating any law. They considered baking a wedding cake involvement rather than just providing a service because clearly they had no issue providing the publicly available service to the homosexuals. A wedding cake is not something you walk in and buy. It involves pain staking involvement. Why on earth would anybody want to even force someone to make a wedding cake for them? It’s ridiculous.

            Also, you and I both know that this only applies to people who do things for reasons you do not agree with or hold views directly opposed to ones you favor. Homosexuals refusing to promote heterosexual principles would not receive the same treatment in this twisted society. Now we are down to using the law to force people to do things against their deeply held religious beliefs. Free society for sure.

          • momatad

            and the two people they ‘refused’ service to AREN’T ‘good people’…….?

          • nevergiveup

            Oh please! Where did I write that? They put a family out of business because they got offended. Complete overkill. That’s my point okay? So while people like this family get nailed for living their convictions, murderers corrupt politicians rapists etc geto away with far more than offending someone. Pathetic.

          • momatad

            by stating that ‘they are destroying the livelihood of two good people’ it is inferred that those ‘doing the destroying’ are bad. I beg to differ on who is actually ‘destroying’ the business…….let’s let our business go down the tubes (I wonder how profitable it was before all this hit the fan) and claim it’s all because of “gasp, sob” ‘we love JESUS and they’re, they’re (sob) GAY’ …..and sit back and wait for the rubes to send the shekels flying their way.

          • nevergiveup

            Getting pleasure from seeing a family business get closed down ? Interesting how some people get their kicks. They had served the two ladies before – it was only the wedding cake they refused to make because of their convictions. Yes – according to the law a penalty was due. As Christians we are expected to abide by the law until we believe it conflicts with Gods law – so it was a catch 22. It is not a hate crime. My point stands – US$135k is complete overkill. Whether the complainants are bad people or not – who knows – do you? But to come up with a list of 100+ forms of harm caused is unbelievable.

          • momatad

            like I said, these people wanted to be viewed as ‘crucified’ for their views……thank goodness most people aren’t buying their marrtyrdom.

          • momatad

            The bigots, by not following a law, put themselves out of business. You take out a license with the state to operate a business, you have to follow the laws that pertain to that license. If they didn’t, it should be pulled…..lesbian cake or not.

          • Randolf Estrañero

            Kara, There is no discrimination here. The baker is not rejecting homo to eat cakes. well in fact, the gay couple are usual customers of the baker. It is not about the cake, nor the gender, it is about the action (same sex “marriage”) which is against the baker’s belief and faith. And as law said, ALL have the right to practice their religion. It is not about the eating of the cake, but about the event where the cake will symbolize the marriage. If somebody will ask you to sharpen a knife for the purpose of killing someone, will you do it? sharpening the knife is not a sin, but where it will be used. God bless Kara

          • Kara Connor

            They are breaking the law on discrimination. That is the legal determination. Why are you so keen to defend discrimination and law-breaking?

          • Dan

            Randolf, are you seriously comparing same-sex marriage to murder? I’ve read some rather asinine comparisons on these threads, but that one takes the cake (pun intended).
            Yes, they DID discriminate, no they do NOT have the right to do so. If their bakery was a private, non-profit religious bakery, then yes, they would be within their rights. But they are not. The bakery was a licensed business, and part of the regulations of a business license is that you may not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, sex, or sexual identity. They did, and they were fined.
            The fine is excessive in my opinion, but I’m not concerned. You bigots have made sure that they will reap a windfall for being so very narrow-minded and bigoted.

          • momatad

            wonder if to celebrate their ‘bail out’ by GoFundMe and Samaritan’s Purse they are gonna have pizza flown in from the Indiana knotheads.

          • momatad

            if they are against ‘gay marriage’……well, duh, don’t marry a person that’s gay. Simple as that.

      • Starstorm

        Except that they weren’t discriminating against them, or did you conveniently ignore the part where they had done business with homosexuals? I could understand if they were actually discriminating against them but they weren’t.

      • Trolly

        Can we also sue those clubs that won’t let you in unless you’re in a proper attire? Aren’t that also discriminating?

        • Kara Connor

          No, because the rules apply exactly the same to everyone.

          • Trolly

            but that is a discriminating rule? agree? why not make laws for christian bakeshop just like a christian schools where they have policies.. that way we can segregate people completely and divide the world. between man woman and gay, between rich and poor, and between races… see how fuck up the society is…

          • Kara Connor

            You also forget that clubs are often covered by different laws than businesses, and truly private clubs are sometimes allowed to discriminate. You seem very keen on getting special rights for religious people to discriminate.

          • Trolly

            allowed to discriminate… That’s a funny response coming from you.. That was a sarcastic statement if you did not understand it. Im not keen on getting special rights I am saying that law is fuck up. The law is the one that discriminate us. Im not only talking about religious people like you are defining them as a different people. I’m talking about the general. Your talking about law is law like you are on a neutral side but in fact you are siding on one position. Society is fuck up and that is because of people seeing them self as higher or superior to others. These people are talking about equality when in fact what they want is for people to accept their idea and force it onto them. If that is not fuck up then I dont know what that is.

      • bowie1

        Even lawyers can turn down business, so why not bakers?

        • Kara Connor

          They can’t turn down clients on the basis of their sexual orientation. Why are you defending law breaking?

          • bowie1

            Some business owners believe they must disobey an unjust law like some Dutch citizens went into the resistance against the Nazis during the 2nd World War (my dad before he was married sometimes stole a few basic staples like sugar when the nazis were looking the other way for instance). Of course they do so at their own risk.

          • Kara Connor

            The Nazis enshrined legal discrimination. And you just Godwin-ed yourself 😉

          • momatad

            “Vat ist Diss? VE HAVE VEYS OF MAKING YOU PERFORM HOMOSEXUAL ACTS” Puh-leez……….

          • Jon Edwards

            I don’t understand why these people would argue with you Kara… being both a lesbian and atheist and having “the law” on your side who can stand against you. Surely not god…

          • Kara Connor

            It is a mystery, isn’t it 🙂

            Have a great 4th July, everyone, by the way!

      • thewho

        moral principles do not depend on majority votes. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right. -Venerable Fulton J. Sheen-

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        They’ve decided to appeal, of course, and like Hobby Lobby, will ultimately prevail. Our legal system is (usually) based around harm, and there’s no harm when all the girls had to do was walk ten feet to another place that bakes wedding cakes and order one. Eventually, some one will sort out this insanity.

        But, more to the point, what people of Faith need to do in the interim is understand that the State is demanding is that they provide a PRODUCT, but can’t dictate the PROCESS.

        So, if you’re the baker, you smile, take the order, and the moment the customers leave your shop, you call up another baker who has no issue with the matter and subcontract the work to them. If the baker takes no profit (it’s a pass-through) then they are not facilitating what they believe to be sin. Then, when the customer comes to the shop for pickup, give them the subcontracted cake (or, have it delivered by a third party.)

        Simple. And no court of law in the world will get in the way of that baker’s right to subcontract our work. It would toss centuries of legal precedent out the door.

      • Linsey Laville

        The law works in favour for the Lawgiver who sets it. Those poor homosexuals who were traumatised by been refused service. I’m sure all that money that they have received will ease there suffering. Make me laugh such hypocrites. They should have gone elsewhere. For their sodomite cake. And let the Christians have the freedom of choice to refuse service to whom they wish. This is the real infringement of rights not the other. So jump off your pedestal we are sick and tired of your values from the pit.

    • StereoMan

      I believe God will continue to punish the unrepentant bakers.

    • Becky

      Spot on.

    • Kimberly Littlejohn

      I agree. Hateful people.

    • Kal

      So after this incident, anyone can go to a Christian store then sue them for discrimination just because they cannot make a cake for them? And get $100,000? Isn’t that a human rights law when forcing someone to do what they can’t? Taking advantage of one’s disability to do such thing. They shouldn’t have that word same-sex marriage in the first place. Marriage is an established ceremony just for man and woman. They should come up with a different word and just have the supreme court hold the ceremony. What I am afraid of is when ISIS or terrorists wants to have a special or equal rights. Then you know what happens next.

    • JustSoYouKnow

      The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

      This story in Genesis 19 is probably the most popular passage used to condemn homosexuality. Here is how Vines explains it:

      “God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. ”

      So gang rape = not good (also not the same thing as homosexuality). But the recap of Sodom & Gomorrah found in Ezekial 16:49 highlights what Vines believes is the realpoint of the story:

      “Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy.”

      In other words, everyone using this story as evidence of the sin of homosexuality, might be missing the point entirely.

      When God calls homosexuality an abomination
      (Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)

      Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus is where the Bible straight-up says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. And yes, it does. It also says that homosexuals should receive the death penalty (!!!). It also says the same thing about eating pork or shellfish, charging interest on loans, and a whole bunch of other restrictions that were a part of the Old Testament Law Code. But for Christians, the Old Testament doesn’t (dare I say “shouldn’t?”) settle any issue because Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law. Which is probably why most Christians today eat meat, use credit cards, wear makeup, and support equality for women. Because, as Hebrews 8:13 says, the old law is obsolete and aging.

      When people turn away from God (Romans 1:26-27)

      “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

      This is where Vines really digs in on the the cultural context angle. In Biblical times, same-sex behavior was primarily seen as happening between adult men and adolescent boys (masters and servants — yikes), via prostitution, and by men who were married to women. In all of those cases, we can see why it would have been viewed as sinful, excessive, lustful, and against God’s law. But he makes no mention of love, commitment, faithfulness, or the type of same-sex relationships that are at question in the debate around marriage. (By the way, Paul also says that men having long hair is “unnatural” and that women shouldn’t speak in church, so it’s clear Paul himself may have had some issues of his own.)

      Uses of the Greek works “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”
      (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (1 Timothy 1:10)

      These words are included in the New Testament’s lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. And there has been much debate over their original meaning. (Translating ancient words is hard, guys.) Some believe them to mean homosexuality and sodomy, whereas others have said that the closest modern translation would be “dirty old men.” Ha! Here’s how Vines explains it:

      Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations (nor did he support women speaking in church…), but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters.

      Fascinating, right?

      Here is the video:

      http://www . upworthy . com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say?c=ufb4

    • glebealyth

      …and an even better example of religious bigots who think themselves to be above the law.

    • DNelson

      You disagree with their behavior all the time. Have you been suppressed and punished?

    • gEnStRiNx

      the same people who demands respect for their own personal belief and ideology does not know to respect another’s personal faith and belief! 🙁

    • pal1210

      Agree, God will prevail in the end!!

    • Daniel Jenkins

      So if you are Christian, you get to disobey the law. How convenient. Special rights for Christian activists. Discrimination against gay citizens.

    • Daniel Burns

      Yes and if you are refused service because you shave or have tattoos or are wearing a cross around your neck, ( worshiping false idols) or had sex before you got married, ate shellfish, ate bacon, worked on the sabbath, wore two different types of fabrics, then you can sue them too. All of those sins are in the bible too. Guess you forgot those passages.
      Discrimination is discrimination. We aren’t bigoted and hateful. We just want to be treated like any other person.
      So when you need a life saving operation and that Gay doctor or nurse refuses you service then you might reconsider your hateful views.

    • Chimpy

      Pot calling the kettle black. You do not live in a theocracy and you do not have the right to impose your arcane religious views on the rest of us. Spare us the sanctimonious, pity party, war-on-Christians crap and start acting like a decent human being. Your Taliban version of Christianity don’t wash here anymore.

    • Peter Leh

      “They aren’t out for acceptance, but to suppress and punish anyone who disagrees with their sinful behavior.”

      i thought they were just ordering a cake off the menu provided for everyone.

      But it is all over now. Today it is just an intellectual exercise.

    • PlatformOfTruth

      They broke the law, and how is making a cake forcing them to participate in a fucking wedding???? No way they deserve the fine, they should pay, and serve as an example to business owners, everyone should be served no mater what! You don’t want same sex marriages don’t have one, you own a business you better believe you need to serve all.

  • DNelson

    There are consequences to breaking the law. What a shocker, huh?

    • All In

      This wasn’t about the law, it was about vindictiveness! A good indiction of the evil within them.

      • momatad

        they violated Oregon’s law regarding discrimination against someone based on their sexual orientation. How is being penalized for breaking the law ‘vindictive’.

        • 116-unashamed

          let me guess, paul hiett?
          and I didn’t know you were blind. Why didn’t you tell me? If you read the article you wouldn’t have made such a stupid comment…

        • All In

          If these gay were tolerant and accepting of others, they could have just gone to a different bakery. But they were vindictive, bigoted, intolerant, and hate-filled.

          • Guest

            If the bakery was tolerant and accepting of the others they freely advertised to they would have made the cake.

          • All In

            They were tolerant and accepting, as they served the couple many times before. They drew the line when asked to participate in a sinful activity. At that point, the gays should have respected their wishes and shopped elsewhere.

            But gays aren’t about tolerance, acceptance, and respect. They are about suppressing and punishing anyone who disagrees with their chosen lifestyle. In this regard, they aren’t much different than ISIL, except they used the law instead of weapons.

          • Guest

            The business wasn’t asked to participate and civil rights says full access to all services. Can’t refuse to sell a wedding cake any more than they can refuse a class of people from sitting at the lunch counter but will serve them at a table.

          • All In

            This was nothing but oppression and punishment by vindictive gays. Trying to spin it any other way is futile. No one is buying it.

          • Guest

            Drama queens not withstanding, this is about a business whose owner chose to run it illegally and got caught.

          • All In

            No, it’s about vindictive behavior by selfish gays.

          • DNelson

            So what they did WASN’T illegal?

          • All In

            Do you have people taking you to court over everything you’ve done that is illegal?

            Have your friends turned you in for cheating on your taxes? Speeding?

          • Guest

            No, the business was the vindictive one by not providing an invited service in a legal manner.

          • All In

            No, it was the gays who were vindictive. They could have found a cake elsewhere, as most civilized people would have done.

            But when sin corrupts the mind, it can only see more sin. So much for tolerance, acceptance, respect, and compassion.

            There’s a reason why homosexuals have the highest incidence of domestic violence and that doesn’t stem from love.

          • Guest

            No it was the business that made a fraudulent offer to the public that is the bad actor here. Just as they have been in all these cases.

            Don’t offer something for sale you aren’t going to sell legally is the lesson here.

          • All In

            Vindictive gays. That is the gay agenda: suppress all beliefs and actions to the contrary.

          • Guest

            You mean the business when it illegally and immorally applied a religious litmus test on the customers, who have a right to not share anyone’s at the businesses beliefs and still do business.

            Again, the customers just wanted to buy a cake for their wedding, it was the business that was the bad actor from the very beginning.

          • StereoMan

            “They could have found a cake elsewhere, as most civilized people would have done.”

            In other words, just put up with the slap in the face as well as the breaking of the law, and suck it up, huh? I’d love to see what would happen if YOU were told to do that if the tables were turned.

          • DNelson

            Please explain to me how it is not a violation of their beliefs to serve gay people, but it is a violation of their beliefs to make a cake for a same-gender wedding reception. Where is that distinction supported in the Bible?

            “At that point, the gays should have respected their wishes and shopped elsewhere.”

            So if an interracial couple went to a bakery and the owner said that it was his sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix, should they just allow that person to break the law and simply go elsewhere?

          • All In

            The bakers repeatedly served the gay women. But they refused to participate in a gay wedding by providing a cake specific for an overtly sinful activity.

            The former serves a sinner, and the later participates in a sinful activity. Do you see the difference?

            “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” – Ephesians 5:11

          • DNelson

            Where does the Bible say that it is a sin for two people of the same gender to enter into a civil contract of marriage?

            “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness,”

            Based on that, how would it NOT be a violation of religious belief to serve homosexuals?

          • All In

            “Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?” – Matthew 19:4, 5

            > how would it NOT be a violation of religious belief to serve homosexuals?

            Serving is one thing, since we’re all sinners. Participating in the sin, is another.

          • DNelson

            “Participating in the sin, is another.”

            So, then, they were turning away orders for couples where either one or both had been divorced for reasons other than adultery, right? And orders for cakes for an engagement party if the couple were having sexual relations prior to marriage, right? And a cake for a baby shower if the mother was not married, right? And cakes for weddings where the couple were not taking their vows before the Christian god, right, as all those things would involve “participating” in something that involves biblical sin.

      • DNelson

        So when black people sue because they are turned away in violation of the law, is that also not “about the law” but rather simply “vindictiveness”?

        • All In

          Once again you are confusing ethnicity with behavior. Are you having difficulty learning the difference?

          • DNelson

            From a standpoint of anti-discrimination laws, there is not difference. They are each covered categories. But, if you have difficulty grasping that legal concept, I’ll give you a simpler example: A couple comes into a bakery – one is Muslim and one is Christian. The owner says: “I won’t make you a cake because it is my sincerely held religious belief that people should not marry outside of their own faith”. The couple sues.

            Would that not be “about the law” and rather simply “vindictiveness”?

          • All In

            Have you ever heard of that happening? No. Why? Because the Muslim and Christian would respect the owner’s wishes and just go to a different bakery.

            The suing part is the vindictive part.

          • DNelson

            “Have you ever heard of that happening? No. Why?”

            Because it has nothing to do with religious belief. It has to do with prejudice against gay people. Do you think the baker declines to do wedding cakes for people who have divorced for reasons other than adultery? Do you think they turn down orders for engagement party cakes if the couple is having sexual relations? Do you think they turn down an order for a cake for a baby shower is the mother is not married?

            Of course not. Why? Because they are hypocrites.

          • All In

            Obfuscate as you might, the gay women were vindictive. No amount of spin is going to change that.

          • DNelson

            You are certainly free to believe that holding a business owner accountable to the law is vindictive.

      • DNelson

        if you want to believe that holding people accountable to the law is vindictive, you are certainly free to.

    • John

      The consequences for breaking God’s laws are much more serious. Please choose correctly.

      • DNelson

        And where, exactly, did God say: “Thou shalt not bake a cake for a wedding between two people of the same gender”?

        • All In

          “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

          “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” – Ephesians 5:11

          • DNelson

            Then how can they justify doing any business with homosexuals?

          • All In

            Christians serve all sinners. But shouldn’t participate in sin. That’s the entire point we’ve been trying to make with you today. There is a difference

            Jesus hung out with sinners. But condemned the sin.
            Jesus came to save sinners. But doesn’t allow sin to enter heaven. You can see why.

        • John

          Thank you for the excellent question DNelson. Here is an answer:
          Ephesians 5:11 ESV “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
          and here is another:
          1 Timothy 5:22 ESV “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”

          • DNelson

            Based upon Ephesians, they should not have been serving gay people at all. Nor adulterers. Nor non-Christians. Correct?

            Based upon Timothy, they should been inquiring, when asked to make a wedding cake, if either of the couple had been divorced for reasons other than adultery and refusing the order if so, correct? If asked to bake a cake for an engagement party, they should have been asking if the couple were engaging in sexual relations and refusing the order if so, correct? When asked to make a cake for a baby shower they should have been inquiring if the mother was married, and then refusing the order if not, correct?

          • John

            You have very good questions DNelson and I hope to give you just as good of answers. As for Ephesians, eating together is not an “unfruitful work” so I would not see an issue with serving them in general. Having a same sex marriage ceremony is an “unfruitful work.” You may then ask something to the effect that “Isn’t their dating a ‘unfruitful work’?” The answer to the rest of your excellent questions should answer this as well:
            1 Corinthians 10:27-28 ESV “(27) If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. (28) But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience”

          • DNelson

            Thank you for your response. But, no, 1 Corinthians did not answer my question. Perhaps you could answer it in your own words, rather than relying on the words of others.

          • John

            From the principle shared in 1 Corinthians 10:27-28, we learn that it is not the Christian’s responsibility to go digging into everyone’s lives before taking part in what they are doing. If in the process of spending time with them you discover that you will be put into the position of “taking part in the sins of others” (1 Timothy 5;22), then you must not take part in what they are doing. That is exactly what happened here. When the ladies came in, the bakers prepared to make the cake. Only after the customer shared that the cake was going to be for a homosexual wedding, in response to normal questions the bakers would have asked anyone, did a matter of conscience come into play.

          • DNelson

            Corinthians speaks to receiving something from someone. In the case of the bakers, they were providing something to someone. They are not the same.

            However, if not violating their religious conscience is so very important, and you want to interpret the passage from Corinthians as applying to providing, as well as receiving, then the bakers could have easily put up a sign that says:

            We Do Not:

            1. Make wedding cakes for people who have been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery
            2. Make engagement party cakes for couples who are having sexual relations outside of marriage
            3. Make baby shower cakes for a baby that is being born out of wedlock
            4. Make wedding cakes for any wedding that is not being held in a Christian church and blessed by the Christian god

            But, of course, they didn’t. Why? Well it would have cost them too much business. Seems pretty hypocritical to me. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • John

            We can go on forever with your questions, but the fact that we have gone this far speaks volumes. Yes, receiving and providing are different but there is no need to bring in a red herring since the principle is not as rigid as you suspect. I think we can both agree that the bakers are Christians and they base their decisions on the Bible. By the way, that’s why I have referenced it so many times. Now, where in the Bible does it say for a Christian to make a sign as you say? The passage in Corinthians already answers your most recent post as well so I won’t go into it. I will point out that you seem to be very judgmental and hypocritical of the bakers and assuming you know their motives. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • pal1210

        True, thank you. Many don’t get the point, God loves us, but hates the sin, homosexuality is a sin. God bless this couple for standing up for what they believe in.

      • DNelson

        Quite a bit a hubris to suggest that because you have chosen to believe the Bible contains God’s law, that it actually does. Unless you are God, John, you cannot say with 100% certainty. Are you God, John?

    • Linsey Laville

      Well my unlearned friend. We follow a higher Law and power. It is our right as a human being, tax paying citizen, to be able to follow our conviction. She didn’t refuse to sell her goods to them. Just not bake a cake specifically for a homosexual event. Which is in direct contradiction to our faith to do so. Why is it okay to ignore her rights and brand her and every other Christian as bigots. But it’s okay for these people to have a lucrative gain which I dare say was their only motive. And try and put these people out of business. Double evil standards.

      • DNelson

        “Well my unlearned friend.

        Odd that you accuse me of being “unlearned” in an incomplete sentence, which is certainly a sign of being “unlearned”.

        “We follow a higher Law and power.”

        Follow whatever law you care to. However, if you violate civil law, you may be held accountable.

        “It is our right as a human being, tax paying citizen, to be able to follow our conviction.”

        As long as it doesn’t violate the law.

        “he didn’t refuse to sell her goods to them. Just not bake a cake specifically for a homosexual event. Which is in direct contradiction to our faith to do so.”

        Really? Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should not bake cakes for same-gender weddings? Where does it say that it is a sin for two people of the same gender to enter into the civil contract of marriage? How would it possible to serve homosexuals and not view that as a contradiction of religious beliefs, but making a cake for a same-gender wedding, would be?

        “Why is it okay to ignore her rights and brand her and every other Christian as bigots.”

        She doesn’t have the right to refuse service based upon her religous beliefs.

        Who has branded “her and every other Christian as bigots”? Certainly not the plaintiffs in the case.

        “But it’s okay for these people to have a lucrative gain which I dare say was their only motive. And try and put these people out of business.”

        Do you believe that people should NOT be held accountable for breaking the law?

        • Linsey Laville

          Well I see in your quest to seem Learned, as to my derogatory terminology. You have dissected my comments, to challenge me. Okay at the risk of going to and fro . Here it is. You are a hypocrite. They are breaking civil Law. Were they asked to post jihadist literature in there store. Would that be okay? This wreaks of one Law for one and another for us(Christians). I would like to pull up every angst I have concerning your reply. But I simply don’t have the time at present. Was that a real questionAbout homosexuality in the bible? Read old and New Testament where the Lord says this unnatural act is an abomination and will have there part in the Lake of fire. 1Timothy. States we are to separate from them lest we be par takers of there sin. This will mean nothing to the unsaved world as they glory in idolatry, Adultry, Lasiciviousness. Etc. you first have to believe we serve an Almighty God. And know without his son and forgiveness of sins we will perish. If we don’t accept that you won’t accept anything else. I pray that one day you will see the Light as this same JESUS died for all mankind.

          • DNelson

            “You are a hypocrite.”

            How so?

            “Were they asked to post jihadist literature in there store. Would that be okay?”

            A business owner is not required to post literature in their place of business.

            “Read old and New Testament where the Lord says this unnatural act is an abomination and will have there part in the Lake of fire.”

            So nothing about it being a sin to bake a cake for a same-gender civil marriage. Got it. Thanks

          • Linsey Laville

            Good morning. I didn’t realise that you don’t understand the difference between the sublime and the ridiculous. It may seem a petty thing to you that they wouldn’t bake a cake. Well obviously the devil is in the detail. Why should they have to write upon a cake congratulations to the happy couple or such like, that is partaking in this behaviour. And I thought you were just been fecious. As to where can you find this in the bible. My Lord spoke in Parables not hieroglyphics. Even the very basic education. Should know that partaking is partaking. My reference to the jihadist Literature, was to show that neither, the Literature of terrorists or having to bow down to contrary beliefs, should be expected by this couple. Hypocrisy is based on double standards. They take bibles out of schools and public places so not to be seen to be following one faith. Yet the LGBT lifestyles are thrust on our way of life. And takes away our rights and freedom. This is obviously a difference in opinions between you and I that will not change. As I stand strongly in my beliefs. As I am sure you do. Have a nice day.

    • BeccaJoe

      The “law” in question was the unnecessary expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include those with disordered sexual orientations. And its sole purpose was to force Christians to do what this bakery was asked to do, in violation of their 1st amendment right to religious freedom. Christians must violate their religious conscience or lose their business. This is the essence of totalitarianism. Congratulations. You are a tyrant.

      • SFBruce

        We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we obey. If you think the law is wrong, lobby legislators to change it; vote for legislators you think share your view. I hope you don’t prevail, because I agree with the law. Public accommodations should be open to the entire public.

        • BeccaJoe

          Uh….I think that is what is happening in America currently. People are fighting to restore what we used to have, which is a fundamental right to eschew that which is immoral in all venues of our lives. At least until recently with public accommodation laws which are being hijacked by those for whom it was not intended. If we don’t prevail, we can all kiss freedom good-bye.

          • DNelson

            “At least until recently with public accommodation laws which are being hijacked by those for whom it was not intended.”

            So a vote by the majority of the people amounts to “hijacking”? I thought that one of the big arguments regarding keeping same-gender marriage illegal was that the majority voted to do so. Does a majority vote only count when it is something you agree with?

      • DNelson

        “The “law” in question was the unnecessary expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include those with disordered sexual orientations.”

        Well apparently your position is in the minority as those protections were put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. You know, that whole “will of the people” thing that so many trotted out as being so important when the vote was against same-gender marriage, but now want to completely throw away regarding anti-discrimination laws that they don’t agree with. Quite hypocritical, wouldn’t you agree?

        “And its sole purpose was to force Christians to do what this bakery was asked to do”

        Since these laws were put into place long before same-gender marriage was legal, and further apply to all business owners, not just Christians, your statement is false.

        “in violation of their 1st amendment right to religious freedom.”

        Please tell me where the constitution states there is a right to religious freedom that includes a business owner turning away customers based upon the owner’s religious beliefs.

        “Christians must violate their religious conscience or lose their business.”

        Simply not true. A bakery is not required to offer wedding cakes. A photographer is not required to provide services for weddings. So, no, no one “must” violate their religious conscience or lose their business”. Your statement is false.

        “This is the essence of totalitarianism.”

        Since what you said wasn’t true, your characterization that being held accountable for violating anti-discrimination laws that were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives is “the essence of totalitarianism” is false.

        Congratulations. You are misinformed hypocrite.

        • BeccaJoe

          Anti-discrimination laws violate the private property rights given to us in the constitution. But the enacting of the civil rights act in the 60’s was understandable because of the horrible treatment of blacks. The current expansion of the anti-discrimination laws are a leftists wet dream. The first anti-discrimination law to include disordered sexual orientation was put in place in the early 1980’s. A couple of years later, domestic partnerships, the precursor to same-sex marriage, were beginning to be recognized. They went hand in hand.

          Faithful Christians would never bend a knee to this movement. So they must be neutered and gotten out of the way. No other business owner poses a threat to leftists and their useful idiots in the same sex marriage movement.

          The “free exercise clause” gives one the right to freely exercise their religion in all areas of their life without governmental intervention. Please tell me where the constitution bestows on you the “right” to be my customer?

          Many services that are provided to weddings require a level of participation by the provider of the service that isn’t required in other business transactions.

          Your quaint notion that, if a law is put in place by elected representatives, it can’t be totalitarian in its application will come as a surprise to historians. As well as to those who have actually lived under governments that became totalitarian. The German people elected the Nazi party to represent them. And those they elected did enact laws that were “the essence of totalitarianism.”

          • DNelson

            “Anti-discrimination laws violate the private property rights given to us in the constitution.”

            The courts disagree.

            “The “free exercise clause” gives one the right to freely exercise their religion in all areas of their life without governmental intervention.”

            No, it does not. If that were true, then you would be free to exercise your religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place you care to. You are not.

            “Please tell me where the constitution bestows on you the “right” to be my customer?”

            It’s not in the Constitution. It is in the Civil Rights Act.

            “Many services that are provided to weddings require a level of participation by the provider of the service that isn’t required in other business transactions.”

            If doing so is an issue for someone, and they live in a location where sexuality is a covered category, then they should’t offer such services.

            You would benefit from a better understanding of the word “totalitarian”.

  • Dave_L

    Any money paid goes to the Devil. If they lock you up, they have to pay, plus it is an opportunity to witness and build faith.

    • John

      Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. It is apparent the Klein’s have given God what is His. There is no need to go to jail over this.

      • Dave_L

        I stand corrected; “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.” (Matthew 5:40, KJV 1900)

        I being unable to survive by paying a fine of that amount would choose jail.

  • All In

    Is there a fund being set up for them? Fellow Christians need to rally around them.

    • momatad

      probably………sad. Violate the law of the land and get rewarded for it……Pay the damned fine already.

      • Pobama

        Get lost. If your not for Jesus your against him. If you want to bake a cake for them you do it. I wouldn’t sell guns to a murderer or serial killer either.

        • Tracy Wrigley

          Good thing violent felons have their 2nd amendment rights removed. LOL
          *you’re

        • momatad

          You don’t know my religious beliefs……you honestly think Jesus is ‘for’ the mistreatment of gays? I think YOU are the one who has to seriously look at what you believe. And the NRA would have no problem selling guns to ANYONE regardless of how they were used.

      • Angel Jabbins

        OK, I will go into a gay bakery and request a cake with the writing, “Defend Traditional Marriage: One Man One Woman”. Do you really think they would bake that cake for me? And do you really think those bakers would get fined $135,000 for refusing? As a test, someone approached a Muslim bakery (several bakeries, in fact) asking for a cake for a gay wedding. They were told they would not bake their cake. The Muslim bakery did not pay a huge fine No complaint was issued from the ACLU. So…you see it is only Christians the gays are targeting. Pretty telling.

        • Welle Blue

          IN (KJV) BIBLE IS WRITTEN THE YHWH CRATED ADAM AND EVE BUT (NOT ADAM
          AND STEVE) . first things first your mom is a women and your father is a
          man. (A gay couple) women and women never gonna be born a child
          properly and even a man and man never be a childern EVER and even will
          be with nano technology never be beautiful and natural has it should be
          WITH MAN AND A WOMEN PERFECTLY . And even so you will change your organs
          and still you will be has at is MAN IS A MAN AND A WOMEN IS A WOMEN ON
          EARTH ! YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT THIS THE EVIL < DEVIL destroying
          CHURCHES BECAUSE THE DEVIL HATING A WOMEN AND MEN BECAUSE THE HOLY
          FATHER IN HEAVEN YHWH CHOSEN MEN BUT NOT THE SATAN FALLEN ANGEL . EVEN
          SO YOU WILL SLEEP WITH ENEMY AND WITH FALLEN ANGEL YOU WILL COMMIT THE
          SIN A CRIME . AND OBAMA IS ANTICHRIST WHO WILL DESTROY THE AMERICA AND
          THE EARTH AND SOME CHURCHES (HUMANITY). AND THEN YOUR WILL CORRUPTED
          YOUR SOUL THE FLAME IS IN SIDE

          YOU WILL BE TAKEN A WAY WITH LORD
          YESHUA AND HOLY SPIRIT AND YOU WILL DIE SECOND DEATH (YOU WHO DID not
          appreciated) BECAUSE YOU CHOSE THIS WOLD BUT NOT THE LORD SAVIOR FOREVER
          LIFE WITH HIM WHO GAVE YOU THE BREATH OF LIFE.

        • momatad

          funny, I see a ‘gay bakery’ being advertised in the neighborhood. Besides, if the order was placed, and paid for, why wouldn’t they.

        • user1243

          As long as you refuse to write that same message on any cake, it is not discrimination. Your example does not match the case here. They were not asking for any message to be put on the cake and were simply asking for the same wedding cake the baker would bake for a hetero couple.

          The ACLU only takes cases when asked. If somebody sues the Muslim bakery, let us know. If it turns out the same way as this case, will you then realize that civil rights laws apply to everybody?

      • Welle Blue

        ye know WHAT THE LORD AnD GOD YHWH AND HOLY GHOST SEE EVERYTHING KNOWS EVERYTHING AND THEY ARE ALFA AND OMEGA ( Almighty FATHER) BEGINNING AND END AND THE FATHER WILL
        judge ALL OF US WHO WILL BE BAD WILL GO SECOND DEATH AND THE GOOD WHO BELIEVING IN ALMIGHTY GOD THEY WILL GO WITH HIM . SEPTEMBER 28 2015 BLOOD MOON 4 SUKKOT IN JEWS

        • momatad

          sittin’ nekkid baying at the moon…….?

          • Welle Blue

            reap what you sow . One day or another we all get what we deserve for good works we will be with God YHWH and LORD YESHUA BUT DOES Who DO BAD WORKS WHEY WILL GO BURN TO HELL AND BEFORE THAT THEY WILL BE LEFT BEHIND BECAUSE OF THEM disobedience DEEDS and they will get what they chose to get of them labour .Don’t mess with THE Almighty YHWH. HE IS YOUR CREATOR .

    • keats5

      Franklin Graham has set up a fund for persecuted Christians in AMERICA on his Samaritan’s Purse site for such cases. Also, consider giving money to the Alliance Defense Fund or American Center for Law and Justice- ACLJ (NOT ACLU!!) , who represent people suffering religious persecution in America.

      • momatad

        Good ol ACLJ, they collect money, of which Pat Robertson gets his cut, his publicity and maybe, just, maybe they pass on a few shekels.

    • Guest

      There already is a fund, several and it might be in consideration of this that the award stayed high after the review.

      The owners can afford the fine already – no stress.

      • Cindy Kittinger

        I WILL GIVE THEM MORE!!

        • Guest

          Great! The fine is for the violated customers, if you want to retire the business owners, God bless. Either way they will still either run their business legally or be fined again, or eventually lose the ability to license the business at all.

          • 116-unashamed

            I do not get why people cannot exercise their first amendment rights freely….

          • Guest

            The customers? Yeah I don’t get it either, they were just accepting a business’s offer of sale, why would they expect to have to pass a religious test of beliefs they didn’t share to actually buy the product?

      • Tere Griffith

        Oh you better believe there is stress, but it’s not about whether some antichrist fine can be paid or not.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        “The owners can afford the fine already – no stress.”

        Would you apply that same “standard” to your taxes if you were wealthy? Your tax rate would be based on “what you can afford?”

        • Guest

          What do you think property taxes and income tax are based on other than ability to pay?

          But that’s another issue.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No they are not. Property taxes are based on property value and other city factors, not ability to pay – some people lose their houses because they cannot afford their property taxes. Income taxes are based on income levels, NOT ability to pay, i.e., wealth levels. (Although in Western Europe, people ARE taxed on their wealth levels.)

    • StereoMan

      When the florist tried to set up a fund, it was shut down because she broke the law. I’m sure the same applies here.

  • henry berthy alexandre

    world of sinners

  • SFBruce

    This was a pretty clear legal issue: Oregon forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Kleins turned away customers simply because those customers are lesbian. For the Kleins’ sake, I hope their legal counsel has warned them they are highly unlikely to prevail. I don’t see how they have a chance to prevail; they’d be better off if they looked to ways to mitigate these damages, although that ship may already have sailed.

    • 116-unashamed

      Apparently you did not read the article or watch the video either… They did not turn them away based on sexual orientation, they turned them away because of the EVENT not the PERSON.

      • SFBruce

        I’m very familiar with this case. I know they’ve tried that defense, but it remains a distinction without a difference. They sell wedding cakes to the public. They chose not to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on nothing more than the fact that the couple was two women, which is against Oregon law. I’m not a lawyer, but legal issues don’t get much simpler than this one.

        • 116-unashamed

          Apparently you did not read my last comment as it was said that they turned them away because of the EVENT and NOT THE PERSON’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION…we know this because they have served homosexuals on a weekly basis…

          • SFBruce

            And you don’t seem to be reading mine. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a crime in Oregon, even if it’s the first time you’ve done it. The fact that they’ve served this couple before, doesn’t change the fact that on this day, they turned them away because they are gay. I fully understand the distinction you and they are trying to make, but I don’t buy it, and neither does any panel that’s heard and judged this case.

          • 116-unashamed

            really….man, plz read the article… they turned them away because of the EVENT and NOT THE PERSON’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION

            Yes, there is a difference….

          • SFBruce

            Obviously, we completely disagree on how this should be handled. I’ve explained my position several times in several ways. If you don’t understand, I can’t help you any further.

          • 116-unashamed

            “I apologized for wasting their time and said that, unfortunately, we do not do same-sex marriages,” Klein explained.

            it’s the event not the person

          • SFBruce

            I know the Kleins have said over and over, that they turned them down “politely.” But there’s really no polite way to tell someone their money is dirty, so we don’t want your business, and it doesn’t change the fact that it’s against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Of course, you’ll say, it’s the event not the person. But who is that gets gay married? Gay people, that’s who. Again, it’s a distinction without a difference.

          • 116-unashamed

          • All In

            > But there’s really no polite way to tell someone their money is dirty,

            Nice attempt at spin. They declined because it was contrary to their religious beliefs. The gays sought to punish them because they are vindictive. Any other type of spin speaks volumes about the ‘spinner.’

          • Guest

            And they knew it was illegal to discriminate against customers who didn’t share their faith when they opened for business.

          • Guest

            And there is no different in the event because of the sexes of the customer. You can no more refuse a ‘gay’ wedding than you can a ‘black’ one, or say you only make ‘straight’ wedding cakes, or ‘white’ sandwiches. Can’t add a civil rights violating adjective to the product or service and use that as a justification for illegal discrimination.

          • 116-unashamed

            Now you are trying to relate racism(a civil rights issue) to homosexual BEHAVIORS. THey are not related in any way…

          • Guest

            Sexual orientation is no more a behavior than religion is the drive to church on Sunday. There will be no ‘behaviors’ involved at their wedding then there would be for any other couple. Handholding, kissing, smiling, laughing are common to all sexual orientations.

          • 116-unashamed

            I don’t even know why I try to argue with you narrow minded people…

          • Guest

            YOu are the one arguing for religious discrimination by a business. The tightness is yours.

          • 116-unashamed

            Im arguing for the free exercise of religion which is something this country is/has been trying to rid of for years…

          • Guest

            Again no one forced the business to sell something their beliefs won’t let them sell legally. The offered it of their own free will knowing the regulations governing that transaction.

            Again a bakery that can’t sell wedding cakes to people of all beliefs wouldnt sell wedding cakes to the public at all.

          • All In

            This was nothing but vindictive. This type of oppressive behavior does nothing for the gay cause, but clearly demonstrates their true motives.

          • Guest

            Since it was the business operating illegally your comment is misdirected.

          • 116-unashamed

            1 Timothy 5:22King James Version (KJV)
            22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

          • Guest

            And since baking a cake isn’t sinful they are fine. And as Paul corrected the Corinthians they can do business with those of this world their sins are not for us to judge. They can sell meat for an altar and buy it back to eat.

            And it’s all irrelevant, if the business owners have religious restrictions on who they can sell to they won’t make a public offer in the first place. There are other business models for people who must religiously discriminate they can use.

          • 116-unashamed

          • Guest

            Again, what behavior are you talking about. Please explain to me a single behavior that homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals do not also?

            Again, sexual orientation is not a behavior.

          • 116-unashamed

            GAY marriages… the difference is not necessarily the behavior, it is who it doing it.

          • Guest

            Then it isn’t a behavior, but merely a label you’ve chosen. So now that you’ve admitted it wasn’t a behavior it very much is like race, and sex, and veteran status, creed, and all the other qualities that a licensed public accommodation can not use to exclude a customer walking through their door.

            You’ve basically confirmed what I’ve contended all along.

          • 116-unashamed

            That is not exactly what I meant when I said that, It is soooo hard to get ideas communicated clearly through typing…

          • All In

            > Again, sexual orientation is not a behavior.

            Yes it is. Pure behavior. No one is forcing them to make love to a same sex partner just as no one forces a thief to steal your car.

          • Guest

            And a person has s sexual orientation regardless of any behavior. I think the problem is you haven’t a clue what sexual orientation means.

          • StereoMan

            Why does the dictionary disagree with you, Richard?

      • Guest

        The only event they were going to participate in was baking a cake. And as courts have ruled events tied to protected classes are also protected. How did Scalia put it? “A rule against wearing yarmulkes is a rule against Jews.”

        Sorry that excuse doesn’t fly or excuse a business making offers to the public from respecting the civil rights of the customer. If they can’t sell to people of all beliefs they shouldn’t have been making the offer in the first place.

        • 116-unashamed

          I am sorry, I did not know that wedding cakes were linked directly and only to gays…unlike yarmulkes, which are linked with only one ethnicity, wedding cakes are for straight couples too.

          • Guest

            weddings are linked with the customer – you are the one saying it was the ‘event’, in this case the ‘event’ is the yarmulkes.

    • Tom Almond

      And the US Constitution protects your right to exercise your religious beliefs

      • Guest

        Including the customers. That’s the issue, once a business owner has used their ‘freedom of association’ by advertising to the public its too late to whip out a religious litmus test the responding customer must pass to buy the advertised product or service – their own right to religious freedom shields them from such odious and invidious acts.

        If a business owner is compelled to religiously discriminate they need to find the ‘right’ believers FIRST and then make just them the offer of sale.

        • jeb

          ‘Gay’ is not a religion.
          They were served over and over again as customers, just no wedding cake. Duh, why are ‘gays’ so vindictive

          • All In

            They said they just wanted to be accepted. As you can see, it was much more than that. They seek to suppress anyone who doesn’t agree with them. This is just an attempt to suppress God overall…in an attempt to suppress the truth they know inside.

            But it’s a futile endeavor. Sin is like that.

          • Guest

            But weddings possible between people regardless of sex is part of belief systems. Again, it was the business that applied the illegal religious litmus test. The customer has a constitutional right to NOT share the businesses belief and to do business with them regardless.

          • All In

            Vindictive gays. Nothing new.

          • Guest

            Vindicitive Christianist business owners, nothing new.

  • Queenotfu

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    ― Mahatma Gandhi

    • 116-unashamed

      Can you plz explain what you are trying to say through this comment?

    • New Centurion

      Gandhi what a great example? Didn’t he abuse his wife and kids? He was a racist and he liked to sleep with underage girls. I’d take Gandhi’s highhanded criticism of Christians more seriously if he wasn’t such a DB himself.

  • Linsey Laville

    Our God reigns. And the faithful shall have a more bountiful reward. It certainly tests every Christian faith to have to endure this injustice. And yet we are instructed to pray for those who persecute us. A great act of faith is required. God bless this couple for their unwavering faith and conviction. And we pray oh Lord that finances are released to help them continue with thier Livelihood.

  • aliceinwonder

    is there some way we can make donations to help these folks? Even if everyone pitched in $5 toward this bill, we can stand together as Christians to fight this and help them.

  • Angel Marrero

    The two women, who have been identified as Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, submitted individual lists of just under 100 aspects of suffering in order to receive the damages. They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

    Sounds bogus to me, like, really?

    • Guest

      People are saying that the business released the personal information they had collected about the customers before kicking them out to the public in a malicious way. If that is true, it probably explains the complaints and the high award.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        By “people,” you mean “gay activists commenting on the story.”

        • Guest

          Actually in the official proceedings, albeit by the plantiffs themselves.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, and we can believe them, can we not? 🙂 The ones who want to strike it rich because their feelings were hurt, sniff, sniff? 🙁 Do you have any tissues? 🙂

          • StereoMan

            No tissues necessary. Watching them pay the fine is enough.

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

      They forgot “whiplash.”

      • All In

        LOL

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Let’s not get into their sex lives, OBOB. (Could not resist.) 🙂

  • JRey

    “Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” Did they ask if heterosexual couples were in a 2nd or subsequent marriage? Did they check criminal records to see if anyone was a pedophile, rapist, fornicator, murderer, or child molester? Did they check to see if they were a Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic, new age practitioner, a satanist or secular humanist? Why get held up on gay marriage when you give the rest of these categories a pass without discrimination?? Each of these categories choose to live in Biblical sin rather than repent so by your estimation they should all be worthy of your discrimination but yet they are not. Please explain.

    • All In

      There are many reasons for divorce that are allowed by God. The rest of the sins you mentioned are recognized as sin.

      No Christian participates in pro pedophilia celebrations, pro rapist celebrations, pro murder celebrations, etc.

      But gays want Christians to participate in pro homosexual sin celebrations. Do you see what the fuss is all about?

      • StereoMan

        “No Christian participates in pro pedophilia celebrations, pro rapist celebrations, pro murder celebrations, etc.”

        None of these celebrations exist, and if they did, no homosexual person would participate in them, either.

  • Thys Du Plessis

    I suggest those
    of you who love God contact Aaron and Melissa and help them financially.

  • Thys Du Plessis

    This is how
    homosexuals destroy the honest living of a happy God veering family. My hart goes
    out to these people. If the God fearing people of the US is no going to stand together
    on this you are going to suffer severely under this evil.

  • Conservative

    Do not worry, GOD WILL BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY, 120% or more, for uplifting Him. HE WILL NOT FAIL YOU. HE HAS YOUR BACK!!!!!

    • pal1210

      Very true, God will be with them and judge the sinners. This is awful what happened to them, it is totally wrong, the gays should have just shut up and gone to another baker. They are making an issue of this, shame on them for what they are doing. They are wrong and the bakers are right, they must appeal. God will be with them and show the world. God bless them!!!!!!!

      • pal1210

        GOD BLESS THIS COUPLE FOR STANDING UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN, SHAME ON THE ONES WHO CONDENMED THIS COUPLE, GOD IS THEJUDGE AND HE WILL BLESS THIS COUPLE!!

  • Truthhurts24

    The sodomites are doing the work of their father and will reap what they sow in hellfire if they do not repent for their wickedness. This Christian couple will be blessed for not going against Gods law.

  • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

    This whole shebang wouldn’t have happened if they just baked a damn cake.

    • All In

      It wouldn’t have happened if the gays respected their beliefs and shopped elsewhere.

      • StereoMan

        Why should they simply turn their backs when the law was broken and they were being insulted at the same time?

      • Jim H

        I guess the abolitionists should have respected slave owners’ beliefs and just found a different cause to champion.

    • 116-unashamed

      This whole shebang wouldn’t have happened if they just respected their 1st amendment rights…

      • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

        I see…and exactly which 1st amendment rights were being disrespected? Freedom of religion? You mean using your “religion” as an excuse to justify refusing service to someone else? Would you consider that same excuse valid if this were an interracial or interfaith couple? What if an atheist baker refused to bake a cake for a conservative Christian couple’s wedding simply because of their difference in religious beliefs, and the couple went to the courts over it citing illegal discrimination? Would you still defend the baker in that circumstance?

        Believe it or not, there’s a difference between being religious and attempting to use that “religion” as an excuse to justify stabbing someone else in the back.

        • All In

          prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

          Homosexuality is a sin. Forcing someone to participate in a homosexual activity violates the ‘free exercise.’

          • Jim H

            “Homosexuality is a sin. Forcing someone to participate in a homosexual activity violates the ‘free exercise.'”
            It sounds like “forcing someone to participate in a homosexual activity” would violate more than “free exercise”. It sounds like something that happens to you in prison.

            Worshipping false Gods is also a sin. Would making a cake for a Muslim wedding be participating in a Muslim activity? How about a Hindu wedding? Or do those not count? I guess God has gotten over worrying about false Gods, but still can’t stand gays.

        • Mr. Avatar

          Your trying to skew this without knowing how seriously many bible believing Christians hold dear to their faith. In the middle east many are tortured and killed for refusing to deny their faith. That is how much real Christians try to honor their God. To you rainbow people hating the sin by Christians is not the same as hating gays. Christians are commanded to hate sin, but not the sinner. You want sin to be declared normal and to Christians it will never be.

          • DNelson

            “Christians are commanded to hate sin”

            Really? Please show me in the Bible where there is a commandment for Christians to “hate sin”.

          • All In

            “Hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” – Romans 12:9

          • Mr. Avatar

            James warns us of the danger of embracing the world: “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). No one can serve two masters (Luke 16:13), and we must choose between sin and righteousness.

          • DNelson

            “No one can serve two masters (Luke 16:13), and we must choose between sin and righteousness.”

            Then these bakers made a poor choice when they decided to offer a product in a “world” where sexuality was covered under anti-discrimination laws.

          • Mr. Avatar

            But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” —Romans 5:8

            God loves you, no matter who you are. Does God love a thief? Yes, He does! Does God love an adulterer? Yes, He does! Does God love a homosexual? Yes, He does! Does God love a murderer? Yes, He does! Please understand that when I say “love,” I mean agape love, that is, God’s unconditional love for all mankind. God loves us because of Who He is, and not because of who we are. Phileo love is fondness. God loves (agape) homosexuals, but He is not fond (phileo) of them. God loves all sinners, but He is not fond of them. God is fond of those who obey Him.

          • DNelson

            Unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty who he is fond of and who he is not. Are you God, Mr. Avatar?

          • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

            Yes, Christians in those areas are victims of much harsher penalties for lesser reasons. In America, the backlash isn’t so much due to them being Christians so much as it is due to them acting like entitled and sanctimonious twats while trying to use their supposed “Christianity” as a crutch for it. You’re not so much experiencing persecution for your faith as you are justice for your behavior. And if the worst thing that happens to you is that you can’t use your faith to dictate how the government controls everyone else, you’ve got it pretty good compared to the Christians in those other countries.

            As for your second point, really? Then point me to the part in the Bible where Jesus says “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Nobody’s saying you have to believe that anything is “normal”, they’re just saying that’s not a valid excuse to refuse service to them. To put it bluntly, if you break the law, you pay the penalty, Christian or not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You’re not so much experiencing persecution for your faith as you are justice for your behavior.”

            Really? Under a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties, so you do not get to condemn ANYONE’s behavior in your view. And, leading a-theists 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).

            So, when you make objective moral claims like that, you are stealing them from an Objective Moral Law Giver, or God. (They do not exist in your view.) Thank you for acknowledging Him today!

          • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

            Wait, hold up. So I’m an atheist all of a sudden? I don’t ever recall saying that. And even if I was, does that automatically mean I have to be in lock-step views with Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse on every single thing? Nice try, but I don’t need you putting words in my mouth or lecturing me on atheism.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So I’m an atheist all of a sudden? I don’t ever recall saying that.”

            Well, when you talk about Christians receiving “justice for our behavior,” you certainly sound like a New A-theist or radical secular humanist. And you mentioned the role reversal above. I mean, I debate a-theists all the time, and if you are not an a-theist, then please feel free to come out of the closet so that I may apologize to you. 🙂

            “And even if I was, does that automatically mean I have to be in lock-step views with Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse on every single thing?”

            Not at all! You just need to tell my why they are wrong when they say there are no objective purposes, meanings, or moral values and duties under a-theism. And why do you need to defend that view? Because you used the term “justice” in an objective moral manner. You can’t do that as an a-theist, unless you can show me how to ground objective moral values and duties if God does not exist.

        • Mr. Avatar

          Another bit of info – our founders who first came to this country came here because of religious persecution to find a place where they could worship without the Government persecuting them. Well guess what – now we have the Government persecuting us again.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “You mean using your “religion” as an excuse to justify refusing service to someone else?”

          They never refused service to this couple or other homosexuals before. it was not the person they were serving – it was the act of participation in an event that is clearly sinful to their religious beliefs. No fire hoses, no lunch counters were involved.

        • 116-unashamed

          There have been Christians that went to an atheist bakery and asked for a cake that looked like a bible with bible verses on it that say homosexuality is sinful. The Christians took them to court and they lost…

          ” What if an atheist baker refused to bake a cake for a conservative Christian couple’s wedding simply because of their difference in religious beliefs”

          Ya, it has been tried. However, Why can the atheist turn away a christian BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGE THE CAKE IS SENDING, but a Christian cannot?

  • Conservative

    P.S.–He will even supply the funds for the court-appointed costs and damages!!!

  • Shaun D.

    God cursed all homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).

    There’s nothing cute about lesbian perverts or their desire to shut down NORMAL people’s businesses that oppose sexual perversion (homosexuality).

    • Jim H

      God cursed all homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).

      Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 both refer to homosexuality as an abomination. If we are disusing abominations you missed: wearing a woman’s cloak (Deuteronomy 22:5), Having a “crooked heart (Proverbs 11:20), Unequal weights and unequal measures (Proverbs 20:10 & 20:23), devising of folly (Proverbs 24:9) being a devious person (Proverbs 3:32), taking back a former wife (Deuteronomy 24:4), sacrificing a blemished ox or sheep (Deuteronomy 17:14), haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:16-19) Eating anything that lives the waters that has not fins and scales (Leviticus11:9–12).

  • Bruce Morrow

    I call this government shake-down for money. Let’s go after the Christians!

  • Conservative

    If it were true that the Kleins gave out personal information publicly, then why is that fact not listed in the “sufferings complaint”???

  • Ted

    is there a go-fund that could help this dear brother and sister in Christ?

    • Mr. Avatar

      There was but when gays got ahold of them – they closed it down as their policy is not raise funds for someone convicted of a crime.

  • Conservative

    I wonder if Oregon had a law on the books at the time of this incident that same-sex marriage was adopted in that state. Personally, I believe that the gay community is PURPOSELY targeting Christians to make these cases in the courts because they know that the officials are as unbelieving as they are and will pass laws for them. It’s a shame that the “10%” are given rule at this point in history, but, then again, it is Scripture being fulfilled before Jesus comes to get his Church.

  • wisp

    I have mixed feelings. Hands down, they broke the law and should have just baked the cake, but the list of damages seems overstated. I absolutely believe the court was right to rule in favor of the couple, but it sounds like they milked it a bit too much; the point of the suit should be to get them to follow the law, not to totally bankrupt them and ruin their lives.

    • All In

      The gay couple could have respected the bakers’ wishes and shopped elsewhere. But they were vindictive. That is the real crime!

      • wisp

        Yes, they could have, but I don’t think it’s wrong to report a business for breaking an anti-discrimination law. Refusing service based on the fact that it’s a same-sex wedding is a crime. Sexuality is not a legitimate basis upon which to refuse service to a customer, and the business should have been made to pay a fine. $130,000 is incredibly steep, though. I do agree that it was kind of vindictive to seek that much money in the lawsuit.

        • All In

          > but I don’t think it’s wrong to report a business for breaking an anti-discrimination law

          They didn’t do it for business or law sake, they did it to prove a point. That is vindictiveness in its highest order.

          Participating in sinful activity breaks a much higher law where the consequences are more dire. The bakers did the right thing, as they serve God, not man.

          • wisp

            …. and the point was that the business was practicing discrimination, which is against the law. We can go around and around on this all day, so we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

          • All In

            This boils down to nothing but vindictiveness by hate-filled, bigoted, and intolerant gays. There is no excuse that will condone their behavior.

          • Jim H

            Wouldn’t they say the same about most of the comments made here by supposed Christians?

          • jeb

            It’s a dumb law and should be modified, tell me if you’ve heard this one,
            A pedophile walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake so he can marry 2 twin 8 year old sisters. Does the bakery have the right to say ‘no’, it’s against my moral beliefs?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Only if the bakery owner is NOT Christian – then it is fine to refuse to participate 🙂

          • Guest

            They have the right to call the cops. These silly examples that involve secular crimes have nothing to do with the situation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nope, they served homosexuals, including this lesbian couple, all of the time in this business. They merely declined to participate in their gay “wedding.” No fire hoses or lunch counters were involved. BTW, can I sue this lesbian couple for the “emotional distress” I received while reading about their vindictiveness?

        • Oboehner

          “Klein states that he regularly serves homosexuals. He believes that there is a difference between serving homosexuals in general and having to personally facilitate same-sex ceremonies, which is an act of participation.”

          • wisp

            If they offer wedding cakes to straight couples, they can’t refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples simply on the basis that they are gay. If they don’t want to make wedding cakes for one group, then they shouldn’t be making wedding cakes for other groups. They aren’t being forced to participate in the ceremony or even approve of the couple in question. They are simply being asked for a cake.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If they don’t want to make wedding cakes for one group, then they shouldn’t be making wedding cakes ”

            1. That option does not appear to have been presented to them.
            2. At what point can a person of any religion decline certain participatory services? Our religious freedom is NOT confined to the Church walls.

          • Guest

            Baking a cake isn’t participating. The SCOTUS recently ruled that if you aren’t part of the religious ritual itself it isn’t forced participation.

            If someone can’t sell wedding cakes to all comers, they why are they offering them to the public in the first place?

          • Oboehner

            So toss THEIR beliefs aside to accommodate the twisted sex of another? Saw two lesbos at the store today, and wouldn’t you know it one had butch hair and men’s clothes – but that has nothing to do with natural law being male and female.

  • Alani

    “They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.””

    Really? All of that, because someone didn’t bake them a cake?

    How insecure can people be?

    Give me a break!

    Yet the vandalizing and threats that the family who owned the bakery suffered means nothing in monetary terms. Yeah, okay.

  • Woodsman69

    The lesbian and her mother did not get upset and start crying until the baker quoted scriptures to them. Once the word of God was brought into it the pervert flipped out. Nothing makes sinners mad like God’s word calling them what they are!

  • Z39

    I want a homo bakery make me a cake that says “Homo’s make me sick, I can’t help it, I was born this way.

    • All In

      Something similar was already tried. The gay bakers faced no consequences. Talk about double-standard.

      • wisp

        There’s a difference between refusing to write on the cake what is essentially hate speech and refusing to bake the cake without even discussing the design just because it’s being ordered for a gay wedding.

        • All In

          >what is essentially hate speech

          It’s not hate speech but holy scripture, in fact, inspired by God Himself. Truth has a way of sounding like hate to those who hate truth.

          When the truth isn’t in you, it will sound like hate.

          But here’s the thing, God gave us His word out of pure love. If you view it as hate, you may want to look inward and find out why you have been disconnected from truth and God.

        • Z39

          “Hate Speech” is stealing the rainbow that GOD created and making it into a gay symbol, THAT IS “HATE SPEECH”!

          That is mocking Christianity to the fullest.

          • Guest

            Like anyone ‘owns’ a rainbow.

            You really can’t differentiate between what you believe and what others do, can you?

      • Lark62

        The standard is treating all customers alike. “We don’t put hate speech on cakes” is fine as long as they same policy to all customers.

        • All In

          It wasn’t hate speech. It was holy scripture. Can you see the contradiction between these two cases? The double-standard?

          • Lark62

            Perhaps you could cite the verse that contains the phrase “homos make me sick”

    • Z39

      “Hate Speech” is stealing the rainbow that GOD created and making it into a gay symbol, THAT IS “HATE SPEECH”!

      That is mocking Christianity to the fullest.

  • Woodsman69

    I bet ya these two girls ain’t even together anymore!

  • Dale Evans

    That is an outrageous amount of money. Futher more I really dont believe the two homosexuals had all those promblems because Sweet Cakes refuse to bake their wedding cake. They could of gone someplace else and they know. 2016 cant end soon enough for me and The Lord’s coming not quick enough.

    • Oboehner

      What does 2016 have to do with anything?

    • All In

      Not only were the gays vindictive, but they lied for personal gain. Their evil is obvious.

    • DNelson

      Just like those coloreds, right? I mean why did those business owners in the South that didn’t want to serve them, have to? Couldn’t the darkies have just found another business that would take care of them?

      • All In

        You keep confusing ethnicity with behavior. They are vastly different.

        It’s sad that you keep using that faulty argument in defense of sinful behavior.

        • DNelson

          I’m not confused at all. Both race and sexuality are covered categories in Oregon. They are treated legally as being the same in that regard. Religious belief is not an ethnicity, yet it is a protected category. Should religious belief be removed since it is not an ethnicity?

          • All In

            We had this conversation already. There is a vast difference between behavior and trusting in the living God.

            The only thing that really matters is coming to God, loving Him, trusting Him, and serving Him. All the rest is mostly a waste of time.

          • StereoMan

            Except that homosexuality isn’t a “behavior” in any sense. It’s an attraction. Look it up in the dictionary, Richard, or tell me why you in your infinite knowledge think the dictionary is wrong.

          • DNelson

            Choosing to believe in the Bible and behaving in accordance with that believe is a personal choice, regardless of how you want to attempt to spin it.

        • StereoMan

          Except that homosexuality isn’t behavior. If you don’t believe me, look in the dictionary. Homosexuality is attraction.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        They served the gays, Sir, all of the time, including these lesbians before. They just didn’t want to participate in the “wedding.” No fire hoses, no lunch counters were involved. Sad that a man of your apparent complexion knows not the difference and has such disrespect for the legitimate cause and suffering of the black man – under the Democratic Party, I might add.

        • Guest

          They weren’t asked to participate in the wedding just to bake a cake as advertised.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That IS participation if it is a gay “wedding” cake. It is actually pornographic in the Christian view. Also, are you saying they did not have to deliver and set up the cake, because that is usually part of the process too?

          • StereoMan

            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

            Yes, if he puts an illegal silencer on the gun (equivalent to decorating the cake with an immoral, on the Christian view, graphic) and delivers the gun to the scene of the crime (equivalent to delivering the cake to the gay “wedding”) and sets up the gun on a mount of some sort pointed at the victim (equivalent to setting up the cake at the “reception”). Yep, accessory to murder.

          • StereoMan

            Bakers bake cakes. And decorate them. The decorations may be gay or lesbian-themed, but gay marriage is and was legal in that state. Immoral and illegal are not the same. The wedding takes place and the couple is married, neither of which has anything to do with the baker.

            Gun stores sell guns. Selling the gun is legal as is purchasing it. The gun seller must reasonably deduce that the customer is going to fire the gun which in itself is legal. The customer commits murder, but the seller had nothing to do with the murder.

            Neither participated in the event.

        • DNelson

          “They just didn’t want to participate in the “wedding.””

          Then they shouldn’t operate a business that offers wedding cakes in a location where sexuality is a covered category.

          “No fire hoses, no lunch counters were involved.”

          You seem to be suggesting that that a certain level of suffering is required in order for a citizen to be included in a covered category. If that is true, then why are there protections based upon religious belief, gender and disability?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Then they shouldn’t operate a business that offers wedding cakes in a location where sexuality is a covered category.”

            The 1st Amendment still applies to these folks – they are free (except in Washington and Oregon) to practice their religious freedoms 24 / 7 under the Constitution. That right is clearly being ignored in this case. The politically correct law is overriding the 1st Amendment right. Surely, even you find this fine outrageous? So, the law is objectively immoral, just like you believed that the law denying SSM were immoral.

            “You seem to be suggesting that that a certain level of suffering is required in order for a citizen to be included in a covered category.”

            No, I am just sickened to see this “movement” appropriate the Civil Rights Movement, which was noble and real and not a money-making venture. I don’t remember too many blacks hitting the jackpot because they were refused service at lunch counters, and I was there.

            “If that is true, then why are there protections based upon religious belief, gender and disability?”

            Religious belief, not so much, huh? 🙂

          • DNelson

            “The 1st Amendment still applies to these folks – they are free (except in Washington and Oregon) to practice their religious freedoms 24 / 7 under the Constitution.”

            Within the confines of the law. There is no where in the US where people are free to practice their religious believe in anyway, at any time, and in any place they choose.

            “That right is clearly being ignored in this case. The politically correct law is overriding the 1st Amendment right.”

            Citizens have not been free to turn away any customer they choose utilizing religious belief as a basis since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Do you believe that the CRA should be overturned, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation?

            “No, I am just sickened to see this “movement” appropriate the Civil Rights Movement”

            The goals of the civil rights movement were equal treatment under the law and protection from discrimination in public accommodation, housing, and employment. Those are the same goals as the gay rights movement. Why does it “sicken” you that people are attempting to ensure that they are treated equally under the law and not subject to discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation based upon their sexuality?

            “and not a money-making venture.”

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that protections from discrimination are about making money for those who are discriminated against. Was that the goal of people who are not white, or disabled, or of a certain age, or of a certain religious belief when they sought equal protection? When individuals in those groups sued when they faced discrimination after laws were passed simply doing so for the money?

            “I don’t remember too many blacks hitting the jackpot because they were refused service at lunch counters, and I was there.”

            As was I. They were not awarded legal damages because race was not a covered category, so no law was violated, and therefore there was no basis for monetary awards. However, AFTER laws were passed banning discrimination on race, gender, disability, age, religion, many lawsuits were filed and monetary damages were awarded.

            “Religious belief, not so much, huh? :-)”

            Businesses are not allowed to discriminate in the provision of services based upon the religious beliefs of the customer. That protection is the same as is it for other covered categories. No more – no less.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Citizens have not been free to turn away any customer they choose utilizing religious belief as a basis since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.”

            No one in this story turned away a customer based on their status as a protected class. Please stop being so disingenuous, unless it is your attempt to escape the guilt you feel over being a fascist oppressor.

            This business served homosexuals, including these lesbians, routinely – no straights-only lunch counters, no fire hoses, no police dogs. For someone like you to believe that being fined $135K for declining to participate in affirming a gay “marriage” is acceptable, he would have to have a great deal of hate and intolerance stored up, the kind that needs professional counseling. This level of hatred would seem to coincide with the much higher incidence of violent behavior in gay relationships, as reported by the USDOJ. No, the gay “rights” movement was never about acceptance or tolerance, but about forcing those who disagree with them to affirm their lifestyle. And, here are 300 examples of gay “rights” “tolerance”
            to prove it:

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

            “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” — MLK,
            Jr “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

          • DNelson

            The order was declined because the couple was homosexual. That is a protected class in Oregon.

            “For someone like you to believe that being fined $135K for declining to participate in affirming a gay “marriage” is acceptable, he would have to have a great deal of hate and intolerance stored up, the kind that needs professional counseling.”

            I never made any comment as to my thoughts regarding the amount of the monetary award.

            “No, the gay “rights” movement was never about acceptance or tolerance, but about forcing those who disagree with them to affirm their lifestyle.”

            Since on one can be forced to affirm anything they don’t want to, your statement is false.

            MLK is certainly entitled to his views. Our laws in the US do not use the teachings of the Bible as a sole basis for what is legal and what is not. Dr. King is describing a Christian Theocracy, which the US is not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The order was declined because the couple was homosexual.”

            False. They served homosexuals, including these lesbians, routinely. The order was declined because it crossed the line of participating in sin, under an authentic and deeply held Christian conviction. If the couple had been heterosexual but wanted a cake decorated with porn, then the order also would have been declined. I am surprised that you and your ilk still do not comprehend something so simple.

            “That is a protected class in Oregon.”

            All Americans are protected by the Constitution. “Protected classes” and Human “Rights” Commissions are the products of liberal fascism, and they mean the opposite of what they say. Weird how “protected classes” and “human rights” don’t extend to the 58 million human beings who have been murdered in the womb – the practice which is a core doctrine of the Abortion Party (formerly the Slavery Party), huh?

            “I never made any comment as to my thoughts regarding the amount of the monetary award.”

            Not explicitly. But, by coming on this page and defending it, you have made it known implicitly.

            “Since on one can be forced to affirm anything they don’t want to, your statement is false.”

            They can be punished excessively for NOT affirming it, as this case, and the 300 recent examples I provided, demonstrate.

            “Dr. King is describing a Christian Theocracy, which the US is not.”

            Actually, he is NOT lobbying for a Christian Theocracy in that quote. He is pointing out that “legal” does not make “moral.” It is always interesting to me to see gay “rights” advocates use Dr. King’s reasoning to lobby against SSM bans (legal but not moral in their view), on the one hand, yet retreat to “it’s the law” when it comes to punishing Christians on the other. Seems more than a bit hypocritical.

            And, of course, on a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. Since so many in the gay “rights” movement are a-theists, they refute themselves when they appeal to the “morality” of the SCOTUS decision. And, the great a-theistic thinkers across time, including the more recent ones below, agree with me that objective morality does not exist if there is no 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).

          • DNelson

            “They served homosexuals, including these lesbians, routinely. The order was declined because it crossed the line of participating in sin, under an authentic and deeply held Christian conviction.”

            A heterosexual couple would not have been turned down. A homosexual couple was. From a legal standpoint, they were turned down because they were homosexual. Regardless of the purpose of the cake, if you offer wedding cakes you may not refuse based upon the sexuality or gender of the customers.

            “All Americans are protected by the Constitution.”

            The Constitution does not provide protections against discrimination in public accommodation, employment, or housing. That is why the Civil Rights Act was passed.

            “”Protected classes” and Human “Rights” Commissions are the products of liberal fascism”

            The laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives.

            “Not explicitly. But, by coming on this page and defending it, you have made it known implicitly.”

            I have never defended the amount of the fine.

            From King’s quote you presented: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

            That is the description of a Christian Theocracy that bases its laws on the Bible.

            ” It is always interesting to me to see gay “rights” advocates use Dr. King’s reasoning to lobby against SSM bans”

            What are some examples of gay rights advocates using King’s reasoning?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “A heterosexual couple would not have been turned down.”

            They most certainly would have – had they ordered a cake for a porn “wedding.”

            “A homosexual couple was.”

            But, not for being homosexual. See it yet? They, and other homosexuals, had been routinely served by these bakers and florists and photographers. Why can you not understand the difference between a person being denied service because they were homosexual and one being denied service due to the specific event that would have had to be affirmed?

            Case in point: Barronelle Stutzman routinely served the gay man who came in for flowers. She even provided the floral arrangement (that is participatory) for his birthday party, because a birthday party is NOT, under Christianity, sinful. But, when it came to providing the floral arrangements for his “wedding,” she had to decline that because a gay “wedding” IS sinful under Christianity.

            Do you see the difference, or do you just not WANT to see the difference? I think you might need to come to terms with yourself that you and yours are on the wrong side of “tolerance.”

            “The laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives.”

            Same as slavery and Jew gassing. “Legal” does not make “moral.” In fact, this is the Achilles Heel of a-theism, and precisely what Dr. King was talking about (see below).

            “I have never defended the amount of the fine.”

            Please stop being so disingenuous: you are on a story about a gargantuan fine and you are defending this couple being fined. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 🙂

            “What are some examples of gay rights advocates using King’s reasoning?”

            I’m sorry: did not gay “marriage” advocates fight FOR the SCOTUS ruling last week – to overturn the gay “marriage” bans in numerous states, because those bans were “immoral?” Clearly, your side fought for this, because you felt that laws against gay “marriage,” while legal, were immoral, just as Dr. King did. 🙂

            “That is the description of a Christian Theocracy that bases its laws on the Bible.”

            Not at all – his is a claim about the difference between “legal” and objective moral values and duties:

            Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do
            not exist.
            Premise 2: Objective 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).

            Additional reasons:

            1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

            2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of
            macro-evolution and social conditioning – no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different:

            “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to
            kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

            3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever – animals are not restricted by some sort of “traffic cop” in doing so. There is no one saying “OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat ALL of him.” 🙂

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

            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.

          • DNelson

            “had they ordered a cake for a porn “wedding.”

            What is a “porn wedding”?

            “Why can you not understand the difference between a person being denied service because they were homosexual and one being denied service due to the specific event that would have had to be affirmed?”

            Why can’t you understand that if a business offers a product, it must provide that product in accordance with the law. Had the couple been of opposite gender the order would have been fulfilled. Because they were the same gender, the order was turned down. The event does not order the cake. The people order the cake.

            Making a cake provides no personal affirmation of the event.

            “she had to decline that because a gay “wedding” IS sinful under Christianity.”

            There is nothing in the Bible that says a civil marriage between two people of the same gender is sinful.

            “Same as slavery. “Legal” does not make “moral.”

            Slavery wa determined to be unconstitutional. Laws required public accommodation have not been ruled to violate 1st amendment protections.

            “and Jew gassing”

            How about we confine our discussion to laws that are in place in the US under our constitution?

            “Please stop being so disingenuous: you are on a story about a gargantuan fine and you are defending this couple being fined.”

            I do believe the couple should have been fined. I personally believe the amount of the fine was too high.

            “I’m sorry: did not gay “marriage” advocates fight FOR the SCOTUS ruling last week – to overturn the gay “marriage” bans in numerous states, because those bans were “immoral?”

            No. They sought to overturn bans on same-gender marriage because they were unconstitutional.

            “Not at all – his is a claim about the difference between “legal” and objective moral values and duties:”

            Of course he is. He is defining “moral” as being based upon Biblical teachings.

            I have no idea how the theory of evolution and Atheism are relevant to our discussion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “What is a “porn wedding”?”

            If a heterosexual couple had ordered a porn-decorated cake to be delivered to their porn-decorated wedding, it would be turned down. (Or a porn cake for ANY event for that matter.) A gay decorated cake, even if it just has two men or two women on it – is literally pornographic in Christianity. Anything that reflects sexual immorality is covered under the Greek word for that.

            This couple was compelled to turn down the gay cake / gay “wedding” precisely because of that. I realize that you do not understand it, from the a-theist view, but I would expect you to respect it as an American.

            “Why can’t you understand that if a business offers a product, it must provide that product in accordance with the law.”

            There is where you lose: nowhere do they offer pornographic cakes for pornographic events, and this cake / “wedding” would be one.

            “Had the couple been of opposite gender the order would have been fulfilled.”

            Nope – not if it were a pornographic cake or a cake violating their conscience that said, for instance, “Jesus was for abortion.”

            “Because they were the same gender, the order was turned down.”

            False – they served homosexuals all the time – just not gay cakes for gay “weddings.” See this case, and the Baronelle Stutzman case.

            “There is nothing in the Bible that says a civil marriage between two people of the same gender is sinful.”

            There is also nothing in the Bible that says Jew gassing and owning black people on cotton plantations is sinful. That is a classic “absence of evidence = evidence of absence” fallacy you have fallen into. Obviously, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexual behavior, which is considered to be pornographic. So, affirming pornography by baking a gay cake / delivering it to gay “wedding” is obviously sinful.

            “Slavery wa determined to be unconstitutional.”

            Yes, and decades of being legal. See it yet? So, are you saying that there are no laws today that are objectively immoral?!? Care to get into a debate on abortion? You will lose that one, and badly so, Sir. 🙂

            “How about we confine our discussion to laws that are in place in the US under our constitution?”

            Why? We are discussing whether “legal” makes “moral.” That is a philosophical question that transcends cultures.

            “No. They sought to overturn bans on same-gender marriage because they were unconstitutional.”

            Oh, I see. So, all of those gay “rights” advocates calling Christians “homophobic,” “bigoted,” “intolerant,” “hateful,” etc were making claims that had nothing to do with morality, huh? They didn’t think that the SCOTUS decision was a great “moral” victory? Really?!? 🙂

            “Of course he is. He is defining “moral” as being based upon Biblical teachings.”

            Well, it would seem that he is making the claims based on theism. We know that, under a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. (That is the proof I gave you.)

            No comment on Baronnelle Stutzman? Did that example show you that a Christian can turn down a gay “wedding” without being homophobic?

            “I have no idea how the theory of evolution and Atheism are relevant to our discussion.”

            They are most relevant. Without a God to ground objective moral values and duties, not to mention the laws of our government and Constitution, anything goes. In that case, the a-theist has no grounds for saying that slavery or homophobia or Jew gassing or anything else is morally wrong in an objective sense. Morals are just ice cream flavors in the world of the a-theist. That is the purpose of those quotes I gave you.

            You seem to desire to separate laws from an underlying objective moral grounding, but when you do, it is just might makes right, and whoever gets their law passed wins. This is why we see so many cases, like the one in this story, of homofascism. And, it is why we saw slavery last so long, Jew gassing in Germany, and legal abortion last for 42 years and counting.

          • DNelson

            “If a heterosexual couple had ordered a porn-decorated cake”

            A baker is not required to put decorations on a cake that the baker does not want to.

            “A gay decorated cake, even if it just has two men or two women on it”

            A baker is not required to offer cake toppers that are of two men or two women.

            “from the a-theist view”

            I’m not an atheist.

            “but I would expect you to respect it as an American.”

            As an American I expect people to follow the law.

            “So, are you saying that there are no laws today that are objectively immoral?!?”

            What would be considered moral or immoral varies based upon personal views.

            “We know that, under a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties.”

            That is untrue.

            “No comment on Baronnelle Stutzman?”

            The same applies to a florist. It was illegal for her to turn down the order.

            “Without a God to ground objective moral values and duties, not to mention the laws of our government and Constitution, anything goes”

            That is false. The Constitution contains protections that serve as a basis for our laws.

            “You seem to desire to separate laws from an underlying objective moral grounding”

            Our laws are based upon the Constitution, not what some, or even the majority, believe at any given time is moral or immoral. Your choosing to believe that the Bible contains THE objective moral grounding does not provide a sole basis for determining our laws.

            “This is why we see so many cases, like the one in this story, of homofascism.”

            Anti-discrimination laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. Holding people accountable to the law is an essential part of our system. You are certainly free to view this as “homofacism” but your false persecution complex is just that – false.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “A baker is not required to put decorations on a cake that the baker does not want to.” and “A baker is not required to offer cake toppers that are of two men or two women.”

            Now, you have gone off the rails. Do you REALLY believe that what these bakers did was deny the mere selling of an un-decorated cake to gays, especially given the fact that they had sold DECORATED cakes (just not for gay “marriage”) to gays routinely?!? Do you have that much of an emotional need to distort what they did? You are getting quite desperate now. 🙂

            “I’m not an atheist.”

            Seriously? Because, as a former a-theist, who engages with a-theists on a daily basis, I smell an a-theist. Care to open up? 🙂

            “As an American I expect people to follow the law.”

            You would have made a “fantastic” advocate for slavery and for returning runaway slaves to their “masters” in our country at one time. Your “moral” compass appears to be quite broken.

            “What would be considered moral or immoral varies based upon personal views.”

            Indeed! And Hitler had his personal view of “morality” when dealing with the Jews, as did the cotton plantation owner when he was “dealing with” his slaves. 🙂 That is where YOUR “morality” leads you. And, since personal views are all that matter with regards to morality, why can’t YOU accept the personal views of this baker couple when it comes to their view of morality?!? A bit hypocritical, no? 🙂

            “The same applies to a florist. It was illegal for her to turn down the order.”

            She did not turn down the order, she turned down the event, something you just can’t comprehend. BTW, her fine WILL be overturned when this makes it further along in the legal stream. And, when it does, I know YOU will be the first to desire the imposing of severe fines on the Human Wrongs Commission and the nanny state for their fascism, won’t you. 🙂

            “That is false. The Constitution contains protections that serve as a basis for our laws.”

            And what, prey tell, forms the basis for the Constitution in your non-atheistic worldview – a Ouija Board? 🙂

            “Your choosing to believe that the Bible contains THE objective moral grounding does not provide a sole basis for determining our laws.”

            And what is YOUR belief for the basis of the Constitution? 🙂

            “not what some, or even the majority, believe at any given time is moral or immoral.” AND “Anti-discrimination laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. ”

            My, how you DO talk out of both sides of your mouth! I guess it is “majority rules” when that fits your distorted “moral” compass, and not otherwise. 🙂

            “You are certainly free to view this as “homofacism” but your false persecution complex is just that – false.”

            300 reasons that you are a liar:

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

          • DNelson

            “Now, you have gone off the rails. Do you REALLY believe that what these bakers did was deny the mere selling of an un-decorated cake to gays”

            They didn’t even make it to a discussion of how the cake was to be decorated. The bakers turned them down before that even came up. Do try to keep up, dear.

            “Seriously?”

            Yes, seriously.

            “Care to open up?”

            About?

            “You would have made a “fantastic” advocate for slavery and for returning runaway slaves to their “masters” in our country at one time.”

            You do realize what a logical fallacy that is, right?

            “Indeed!”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “That is where YOUR “morality” leads you.”

            Really? Please, tell me more about my morality since you seem to know it so well.

            “She did not turn down the order, she turned down the event,”

            So she accepted the order?

            “And, since personal views are all that matter with regards to morality”

            i never said that. Why do you feel the need to make up things in order to present an argument? Is it because you have no argument if you don’t?

            “And what, prey tell, forms the basis for the Constitution in your non-atheistic worldview”

            The basic belief in freedom, liberty, and equality.

            “My, how you DO talk out of both sides of your mouth! I guess it is “majority rules” when that fits your distorted “moral” compass, and not otherwise. :-)”

            Not at all. Any law is subject to judicial review. My agreeing with a law doesn’t make it constitutional. On the other hand, there are many who bemoaned the judiciary reviewing bans on same gender marriage citing that the “will of the people” should not be subject to judicial review as to their constitutionality, yet these same folks are now attempting to enlist the judiciary to overturn anti-discrimination laws that were put into place by the “will of the people” based on the premise that they violate the Constitution. Hypocrites, one and all.

            “300 reasons that you are a liar”

            Seriously? You can’t point to one instance of my having lied.

            As for the barbwire link, you really should gain a better understanding of the word “fascism”. Those are not examples of fascism.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “They didn’t even make it to a discussion of how the cake was to be decorated. The bakers turned them down before that even came up.”

            That’s because they were not asked to merely sell an un-decorated cake to a couple who came into the store. Do try to keep up, honey. My, how disingenuous, and desperately unhinged, you are in your hate. 🙂

            “About?”

            Afraid to admit you are godless? What’s the matter, sweetie? 🙂

            “You do realize what a logical fallacy that is, right?”

            Oh, please do educate me on fallacies – I so love it when non-atheist a-theists lecture me on their “logic.” Let’s see: you said “I expect people to follow the law,” and I replied that you would have done a nice job of returning slaves to their masters, because that was a requirement of the law at one time. The only “fallacy” is the one associated with your “moral” compass. 🙂

            “Please, tell me more about my morality since you seem to know it so well.”

            Your “morality” follows the law blindly, even when the law is objectively “immoral.” Pretty simple, huh? 🙂 You would have made a fine Nazi. 🙂

            “So she accepted the order?”

            She accepted orders from gays all the time, including providing the floral arrangement for this gay man’s birthday party – since birthday parties are NOT sinful under Christian theism. You just keep leaving that part out – in your need to hate. I forgive you. 🙂

            “i never said that. Why do you feel the need to make up things in order to present an argument?”

            You most certainly did! Two posts ago, you wrote “What would be considered moral or immoral varies based upon personal views.” Have you been drinking tonight? Sometimes there is a short – term memory loss in excessive drinkers, I hear. 🙂 If you have not been drinking, then your desperation knows no limits.

            “The basic belief in freedom, liberty, and equality.”

            Excellent! And, what forms the basis for THOSE moral values? 🙂

            “Not at all. Any law is subject to judicial review. ”

            Oh, how you evade the question: two quotes in one post of yours – one that says “majority rules,” the next that says “majority doesn’t rule.” 🙂

            “Seriously? You can’t point to one instance of my having lied.”

            No, I am giving you 300 reasons that your claim of no persecution is falsified.

          • DNelson

            “That’s because they were not asked to merely sell an un-decorated cake”

            What part of they never got around to discussing how the cake would be decorated do you fail to understand?

            “My, how disingenuous, and desperately unhinged, you are in your hate”

            In what way am I disingenuous and unhinged? I hate no one.

            “Afraid to admit you are godless? What’s the matter, sweetie?”

            I’ve already state that I am not an atheist. If you aren’t able to explain what is it you want me to “open up” about, then you can’t. No worries.

            “Your “morality” follows the law blindly, even when the law is objectively “immoral.” Pretty simple, huh?”

            Yes, that is quite simple. It is untrue, but it is quite simple.

            “She accepted orders from gays all the time”

            But did she accept THIS order?

            “Two posts ago, you wrote “What would be considered moral or immoral varies based upon personal views.””

            That does not lead me, as you stated, to supporting Hitler’s actions.

            “Excellent! And, what forms the basis for THOSE moral values?”

            Centuries of philosophical thought and review of various forms of government. Certainly not Christianity, as the protections provided by our Constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments.

            “Oh, how you evade the question?”

            What question did I “evade”?

            “two quotes in one post of yours – one that says “majority rules,” the next that says “majority doesn’t rule.””

            I have never said that majority rules without question. As I stated above, every law is subject to challenge in court.

            “No, I am giving you 300 reasons that your claim of no persecution is falsified.”

            Your claim was of “homofacism”. The link you provided does not support your claim.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “What part of they never got around to discussing how the cake would be decorated do you fail to understand?”

            That’s because they knew the cake would be for a SSM. I repeat my point from before which you did not address: That’s because they were not asked to merely sell an un-decorated cake to a couple who came into the store. They sold stuff like that all the time – gay or straight. You just have a deep need to feel persecuted by these folks when you aren’t. 🙂

            I think you don’t address this because you DO see the difference, but it would force you to remove your hate for Christians.

            “I’ve already state that I am not an atheist.”

            Then why do you post like one? 🙂

            “But did she accept THIS order?”

            No, because THIS order crossed the line from a floral arrangement for a birthday party (not sinful in Christianity) to a floral arrangement for a gay “wedding” (sinful in Christianity). Pretty simple, except for the excessively simple-minded. 🙂

            “That does not lead me, as you stated, to supporting Hitler’s actions.”

            It most certainly does when you say that one should obey the law unconditionally – which you have said. Or is it just Christians who must unconditionally follow the law, and not non-atheist a-theists? That is it – the rules for us do not apply to you! 🙂

            “Centuries of philosophical thought and review of various forms of government.”

            Nothing objective there. Those same centuries led up to Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s and slavery in America in the 1800’s. “Centuries” cannot make moral law, nor does the mere passage of time mean progress toward more morality. If it did, then abortion never would have become legal.

            “What question did I “evade”?”

            How you can resolve the two quotes in one post of yours – one that says “majority rules,” the next that says “majority doesn’t rule.” 🙂

            “Your claim was of “homofacism”. The link you provided does not support your claim.”

            If by “not support your claim,” you mean “provides 300 examples to support my claim,” then I agree. 🙂 You seem to be an absurdist? I dabbled in existentialism myself in my a-theist days – it is quite the dead end.

            God bless!

          • DNelson

            “That’s because they knew the cake would be for a SSM”

            So you admit that your earlier contention that they were asked to decorate a cake in a certain way was false.

            “That’s because they were not asked to merely sell an un-decorated cake to a couple who came into the store. They sold stuff like that all the time – gay or straight.”

            They sold undecorated cakes? So just a cake with no icing? Or just icing but no decoration of any kind?

            “Then why do you post like one?”

            Please cite any post I have made that would be consistent with suggesting that I do not believe in a higher power.

            “No”

            So then you admit that your earlier statement of “She did not turn down the order” was false.

            “It most certainly does when you say that one should obey the law unconditionally”

            I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I should have been more specific: Follow the law based upon our constitution.

            “That is it – the rules for us do not apply to you!”

            The rules apply to all of us. I have never made any statement to the contrary. You are creating arguments that have no basis in what I said.

            “How you can resolve the two quotes in one post of yours – one that says “majority rules,” the next that says “majority doesn’t rule.””

            I’ve already answered that.

            “If by “not support your claim,” you mean “provides 300 examples to support my claim”

            The 300 examples are not examples of fascism.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So you admit that your earlier contention that they were asked to decorate a cake in a certain way was false.”

            Not at all! I don’t know – and neither do you – just how far along the conversation went. I know it went a little ways, but not sure how far. It really does not matter – they were not merely asked to sell a cake to someone who came in – they dutifully fulfilled orders like that all the time – they were asked for their participatory services in a gay “wedding,” which is literally pornographic on the Christian view. No different than if a straight couple came in and asked for a porn-cake.

            I repeat my point from before which you did not address: That’s because they were not asked to merely sell an un-decorated cake to a couple who came into the store. They sold stuff like that all the time – gay or straight. You just have a deep need to feel persecuted by these folks when you aren’t. 🙂

            “They sold undecorated cakes? So just a cake with no icing? Or just icing but no decoration of any kind?”

            Bakeries sell un-decorated cakes with and without just icing all the time. People walk in, buy the cake, and walk out. Some people just eat it like that, and others decorate it themselves at home. Have you never been to a bakery? If not, then you sure are speaking out of ignorance on this story.

            “Please cite any post I have made that would be consistent with suggesting that I do not believe in a higher power.”

            It is actually in one of your earlier posts where you place man’s law as the highest. That means you are clearly godless. This thread does not go back to it – at least I cannot see it. I see you are trying to backpedal in another part of your response.

            “So then you admit that your earlier statement of “She did not turn down the order” was false.”

            No, I said that she did not turn down the order, she turned down the event. And she did not turn down the event because the customers were gay, she turned down the event because they requested a gay “wedding.” In fact, she had previously provided the floral arrangements for the gay man’s birthday party.

            Do you see the difference yet between serving gay people all day, any day, and refusing to provide services for an event which is objectionable, regardless of if the person is gay or straight?

            “I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I should have been more specific: Follow the law based upon our constitution.”

            Oh, great: so since the recent SCOTUS ruling clearly was NOT based on the Constitution, we don’t need to follow it. Thank you! That goes right into the wastebasket with the Dred Scott decision, the laws requiring slaves to be returned to their masters, etc. Good, I like that! I will not be following it. Neither will any other authentic Christians.

            “The 300 examples are not examples of fascism.”

            That is what the Gestapo said too. It is an interesting phenomena that fascists always think they are doing the right thing. 🙂

          • DNelson

            “I don’t know – and neither do you – just how far along the conversation went. ”

            Yes I do, and you would as well if you read the article: ““My first question was what’s the wedding date,” Klein told television station KTW in Portland. “My next question was [the] bride and groom’s name. … The girl giggled a little bit and said, ‘It’s two brides.’” He then informed the women that the bakery does not make cakes for homosexual events.

            “Bakeries sell un-decorated cakes with and without just icing all the time.”

            i have never gone into a bakery and seen a cake with no icing for sale. And, trust me, I am a way to frequent visitor of bakeries.

            “You just have a deep need to feel persecuted by these folks when you aren’t. :-)”

            I don’t feel persecuted at all by these people. I don’t know them and I never visited their bakery.

            “It is actually in one of your earlier posts where you place man’s law as the highest. That means you are clearly godless.”

            Grasping at straws I see. Oh well. That tends to happen when you have no argument. I never said that man’s laws are ‘the highest”. I said that, from a legal standpoint, the law is what the law is and that people are expected to follow the law. And, please, spare me the Nazi Germany analogies. I am referring to the laws in the US under our Constitution.

            “No, I said that she did not turn down the order”

            But she did. Either she turned down the order or she accepted the order. The reason does not change the fact that she turned down the order. She did.

            “Do you see the difference yet between serving gay people all day, any day, and refusing to provide services for an event which is objectionable, regardless of if the person is gay or straight?”

            From a legal standpoint regarding anti-discrimination laws, no.

            “so since the recent SCOTUS ruling clearly was NOT based on the Constitution,”

            The majority of the court disagree with you.

            “we don’t need to follow it.”

            Of course you don’t need to follow it. You are not required to marry someone of the same gender.

            “That is what the Gestapo said too.”

            The Gestapo said that the 300 examples in the link you provided were not examples of fascism?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “He then informed the women that the bakery does not make cakes for homosexual events.”

            Thank you for that post! And, so, what is wrong with that? How is that discriminating against the individual given that he had served them and other gays numerous times but was not willing to cross the line on participating in the sin of a gay “wedding”?

            “i have never gone into a bakery and seen a cake with no icing for sale. And, trust me, I am a way to frequent visitor of bakeries.”

            Who cares what you have seen or how many cakes you have eaten?!? We are really not interested in your gluttony. 🙂 That is no answer to my point that not all cakes are decorated for their events. And that bakeries sell un-decorated cakes all the time – icing or no icing – they are not decorated for the event in question. Silence on your part, because you know your argument fails here. (and elsewhere too)

            “I said that, from a legal standpoint, the law is what the law is and that people are expected to follow the law. And, please, spare me the Nazi Germany analogies. I am referring to the laws in the US under our Constitution.”

            Yes, precisely – thank you for proving that you do indeed place the law as your highest moral standard. That is proof that you are godless, because even your (imaginary) god would surely be “higher” than man’s laws?!? 🙂

            And, of course we are going to talk about the Nazis – all perfectly legal, their Jew gassing. And, slavery – all perfectly legal for decades in America! This demonstrates the failure of your “moral” compass.

            “Either she turned down the order or she accepted the order.”

            She turned down the event. How many times do I have to ask you if you see the difference between her serving this customer numerous times, including providing the floral arrangements for his birthday party, versus turning down doing the floral arrangements of his gay “wedding?!?” Is your hatred this deep for her and other Christians? Or is it that, deep down, you know there IS a difference, but you just do not want to admit it because you revel in your hatred? You do know that God will not force you into Heaven against your will, don’t you?

            “From a legal standpoint regarding anti-discrimination laws, no.”

            There is your moral compass again – the one that says “legal” makes “moral.” Actually, given the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom, you SHOULD be able to see the legal difference, even if your homofascist friends do not.

            “The majority of the court disagree with you.”

            But that is not what you said: you said I get to consider legal SUBJECT TO the Constitution. 🙂

            “Of course you don’t need to follow it. You are not required to marry someone of the same gender.”

            Talking about participating in gay “weddings,” for businesses, Silly. Nice try at shifting the goalposts – is that what you do when you have lost the intellectual debate? 🙂

            “The Gestapo said that the 300 examples in the link you provided were not examples of fascism?”

            Nope, the Gestapo said they were not fascists, that they were the “good” guys, just like you think you are. 🙂 Now, here is a good site on the Gaystapo:

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

            So, DNelson, tell me: what’s the big deal over this cake to you? If these folks hold a sincere belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, and if such a belief is reasonable in 2000 years of Christian theology (as I have shown you it is), then what’s the big deal to you? Why can’t you let them, and Muslims who agree with them, to “live and let live,” like you guys CLAIMED was your goal? Isn’t it because it is unacceptable to you that someone does not affirm your sin of homosexual behavior? isn’t that really it?

            I mean, if I walked into a Jehovah’s Witnesses bakery and tried to order a birthday cake, I might very well get turned down, since they believe that birthdays are not to be celebrated. My response to that would be “Gosh, I didn’t know this was a bakery owned by JW’s,” and I would move on. Of course, this would be the Christian thing to do anyway. Who would want to buy a birthday cake from someone who believes that birthday celebrations are immoral anymore than some one would want to buy a gay “wedding” cake from someone who believes that gay “weddings” are immoral?!? This just shows how disingenuous you are.

            So, that tells me right there, plus the 300 examples of homofascism, and counting, that you guys are not interested in respecting religious freedoms of people you disagree with – it is all about affirming your sin. You really NEED people to tell you that your homosexual behavior is “normal,” don’t you?

          • DNelson

            “And, so, what is wrong with that?”

            We’ve already discussed that.

            “And that bakeries sell un-decorated cakes all the time – icing or no icing – they are not decorated for the event in question.”

            What is your basis for that statement?

            “There is your moral compass again – the one that says “legal” makes “moral.””

            I have never stated that.

            “Talking about participating in gay “weddings,” for businesses, Silly.”

            That is not a function of marriage laws. That is a function of anti-discrimination laws.

            “Why can’t you let them, and Muslims who agree with them, to “live and let live,” like you guys CLAIMED was your goal?”

            I have no beef with these people, nor have I ever made the claim that “live and let live” was my goal. Anti-discrimination laws were not put into place by “you guys”. They were put into place by a majority vote of either the people or their elected representatives.

            “Isn’t it because it is unacceptable to you that someone does not affirm your sin of homosexual behavior? isn’t that really it?”

            People are free to affirm or not affirm my homosexual behavior. It makes no difference to me.

            “I mean, if I walked into a Jehovah’s Witnesses bakery and tried to order a birthday cake, I might very well get turned down, since they believe that birthdays are not to be celebrated.”

            Most likely the baker would not offer birthday cakes at all, nor are they required to. But if they do offer birthday cakes, they must do so in compliance with the law.

            “some one would want to buy a gay “wedding” cake from someone who believes that gay “weddings” are immoral?!?”

            i certainly wouldn’t, but that is irrelevant to whether the business broke the law and should be held accountable to the law.

            “You really NEED people to tell you that your homosexual behavior is “normal,” don’t you?”

            Not at all. Being homosexual is not normal. Neither is being left-handed nor green-eyed.

            ‘Fascism: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government”

            The examples you provided are not examples of fascism. You are free to disagree with anti-discrimination laws and you are also free to work to get them changed. That is not fascism.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “We’ve already discussed that.”

            That’s an “I don’t know” – thanks. 🙂

            “What is your basis for that statement?”

            My buying them and letting my wife decorate them (if she can before I get my gluttonous hands in them :-)), and the fact that her best friend owns a bakery. 🙂

            “I have no beef with these people, nor have I ever made the claim that “live and let live” was my goal.”

            Clearly it is NOT! Thank you for admitting it. 🙂

            ” Anti-discrimination laws were not put into place by “you guys”. They were put into place by a majority vote of either the people or their elected representatives.”

            Were you good with the “majority vote” when it said that gays could not get “married?” 🙂

            “People are free to affirm or not affirm my homosexual behavior. It makes no difference to me.”

            Great – then please join me in condemning the attack on Christians who do not affirm your behavior by being a party to a gay “wedding.”

            “Most likely the baker would not offer birthday cakes at all, nor are they required to. But if they do offer birthday cakes, they must do so in compliance with the law.”

            So, are you saying that I should get all weepy-eyed and run off to a Human Wrongs Commission and pretend I was so deeply offended that only $135K would make me whole?!? 🙂 Seriously, what is it about your “movement” that makes you think it is moral in any objective sense to go after bakers and florists and photographers who do not wish to violate their religious faith by being involved in a gay “wedding?” I mean, that is a bit unhinged, no?!?

            “i certainly wouldn’t, but that is irrelevant to whether the business broke the law and should be held accountable to the law.”

            There you go, placing the law ahead of your imaginary “god” again. You know, those folks that hid runaway slaves were also “held accountable to the law.” You would have made a great slave trader or Jew gasser.

            “a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government”

            The Human Wrongs Commissions, in collusion with the state governments certainly ARE not allowing Christians like this baker, the florist, etc to disagree with them! I mean, the state ordered the financial ruin of Baronnelle Stutzman, as well as to send these business owners off to their re-education camps (pc training) – if that is not fascism, I don’t know what is. The fact that you are in agreement means you are no different from the Gestapo of 1930’s Germany – you think you are as “right” as they did. And that is because your moral compass has been shattered by the a-theism you refuse to admit to. You should actually consider Christianity – it would take care of your “hate” problem.

            No reply to the Baronnelle Stutzman distinguishing factor of having served numerous gay customers including her plaintiff, including for his birthday party, versus discriminating against gays because they are gay. Got it.

          • DNelson

            “That’s an “I don’t know” – thanks”

            No, that’s a “we’ve already discussed that” and there is no reason to repeat it.

            “My buying them and letting my wife decorate them (if she can before I get my gluttonous hands in them :-)), and the fact that her best friend owns a bakery”

            Very unusual in my experience.

            “Clearly it is NOT! Thank you for admitting it.”

            You’re quite welcome.

            “Were you good with the “majority vote” when it said that gays could not get “married?”

            No, as I believed the law was unconstitutional. In the same way, people are free to challenge anti-discrimination laws if they feel they are unconstitutional.

            “Great – then please join me in condemning the attack on Christians who do not affirm your behavior by being a party to a gay “wedding.””

            That people are free to affirm or not affirm whatever they care to does not mean that they way they express that affirmation is one that is supportable. Why do you view holding people accountable to the law as an ‘attack”. if a baker turned down an interracial couple because they baker believed that the races should not mix, and the couple brought action based upon anti-discrimination laws being violated, would you say that the couple was “attacking” the owner?

            “So, are you saying that I should get all weepy-eyed and run off to a Human Wrongs Commission and pretend I was so deeply offended that only $135K would make me whole?!?”

            If the bakery did not offer birthday cakes, you would have no basis to bring action against them.

            “Seriously, what is it about your “movement” that makes you think it is moral in any objective sense to go after bakers and florists and photographers who do not wish to violate their religious faith by being involved in a gay “wedding?” I mean, that is a bit unhinged, no?!?”

            So you believe that businesses should NOT be held accountable to the law?

            “There you go, placing the law ahead of your imaginary “god” again.”

            it’s not a question of putting one thing ahead of something else.

            “The Human Wrongs Commissions, in collusion with the state governments certainly ARE not allowing Christians like this baker, the florist, etc to disagree with them!”

            Obviously they can disagree, as they have and still do. Your statement is false.

            “if that is not fascism, I don’t know what is.”

            The you don’t know what fascism is, despite my providing a definition of it.

            “No reply to the Baronnelle Stutzman distinguishing factor of having served numerous gay customers including her plaintiff, including for his birthday party, versus discriminating against gays because they are gay.”

            That is untrue. I was clear that the case of the florist is the same as the baker. She refused the order based upon the gender of the couple.

            It is clear that we don’t agree on this subject. If you feel that anti-discrimination laws should allow an opt-out for people who do not want to provide service for customers if the product is going to be used for an event that violates the owner’s religious beliefs, then you should put time and effort into changing those laws. Unlike in a fascist system, that is your right under our Constitution.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No, that’s a “we’ve already discussed that” and there is no reason to repeat it.”

            No, that is you singing “If I only had a brain” from the Wizard of
            Oz. 🙂

            https://www .youtube .com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

            “Very unusual in my experience.”

            We are not interested in your feelings here, but the facts. Unless you are going off to Oz again and are going to say that bakeries can’t sell undecorated cakes?!? In the old days, women made their cakes from scratch and decorated them themselves. Now, many still like the decoration part but not the baking part. I know it’s hard for you to understand – just channel your feminine side. 🙂

            “No, as I believed the law was unconstitutional. In the same way, people are free to challenge anti-discrimination laws if they feel they are unconstitutional.”

            And, what will you do when this case is overturned by a higher court?!? Will you say “justice was done, and I need to check my moral compass?!?”

            “Why do you view holding people accountable to the law as an
            ‘attack”.”

            Because “legal” does not make “moral.” Simple.

            ” if a baker turned down an interracial couple because they baker believed that the races should not mix, and the couple brought action based upon anti-discrimination laws being violated, would you say that the couple was “attacking” the owner?”

            No, because there is no evidence in the Bible that interracial marriage is outside of God’s will and there is much evidence, including the fact that ALL races emerged from Adam first and Noah later and the many interracial marriages in the Bible, to show that it is perfectly acceptable and normal. Gay “marriage” does not have that support. So, if a baker declined because of an interracial marriage, their belief might be deeply held on their part, but it is also deeply wrong in a Biblical (and natural law) sense. So, they would have to prove that it is Biblical to support their defense, and that could not be done. Gay “marriage,” on the other hand, is a slam dunk no-no.

            “So you believe that businesses should NOT be held accountable to the law?”

            Not when the law is objectively immoral, as this case, and the Stutzman case, CLEARLY show to all rational people. Frankly, I would prefer to get your Nanny State out of most of our lives. I mean, going after bakeries but not after baby sacrificers (abortionists) – how crazy is that?!?

            “Obviously they can disagree, as they have and still do. Your statement is false.”

            What WILL you say when it is overturned? Please be sure to come back here and comment. 🙂

            “The you don’t know what fascism is, despite my providing a definition of it.”

            No, you don’t know that you are a fascist, despite my providing evidence to support it. 🙂

            “That is untrue. I was clear that the case of the florist is the same as the baker. She refused the order based upon the gender of the couple.”

            No, she did not – what a colossal liar you are! She served gays all the time including this gay man and even doing the floral arrangements for his birthday party. You have failed to refute the difference between what she declined (due to deeply held, and accurate, religious beliefs) and her frequent serving of
            gays. You NEED to hate.

            “then you should put time and effort into changing those laws.”

            We are. And, you should put time and effort into deciding if there is a God Who will hold you accountable for your many sins, including a hatred of Christians.

          • DNelson

            “We are not interested in your feelings here, but the facts.”

            Who is “we”? Do you have multiple personalities? My statement was not my “feelings”, it was my experience.

            “And, what will you do when this case is overturned by a higher court?!? Will you say “justice was done, and I need to check my moral compass?!?””

            No. I will say: Well, that’s how the court ruled.

            “Because “legal” does not make “moral.” Simple.”

            I thought “we” weren’t interested in opinions, but facts. Or does that only apply when you feel it supports your point, but not others? So then if you feel that a law is moral, holding someone accountable is not an “attack”, but if you feel the law is immoral, then holding someone accountable is an “attack”, is that correct?

            “Not when the law is objectively immoral, as this case, and the Stutzman case, CLEARLY show to all rational people.”

            I thought “we” weren’t interested in opinions, only fact. So you are suggesting that every person who voted to include sexuality as a covered category is irrational?

            “No, you don’t know that you are a fascist, despite my providing evidence to support it. :-)”

            You have not provided any evidence that supports the definition of fascism.

            “No, she did not”

            If the couple had been of opposite gender she would have served them. Because they were of the same gender, she refused the order.

            “You NEED to hate.”

            I don’t hate anyone.

            “And, you should put time and effort into deciding if there is a God”

            I’ve already decided that I believe there is. I told you that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Who is “we”? Do you have multiple personalities?”

            Not sure. Let me check: Roses are red, violets are blue, I’m a schizophrenic, and so am I. Nope, everything looks normal. 🙂

            “No. I will say: Well, that’s how the court ruled.”

            And you will be for punishing the HRC and other members of the Gaystapo for operating outside of the Constitution and needlessly persecuting innocent Christians, right?

            “I thought “we” weren’t interested in opinions, but facts.”

            “Moral” is only an opinion if there is no Objective Law Maker. God’s facts supersede man’s laws. You are presuppositional on a-theism. More evidence that you are godless. And a-theists 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).

            “I thought “we” weren’t interested in opinions, only fact. So you are suggesting that every person who voted to include sexuality as a covered category is irrational?”

            No opinions involved. Objective morality does not exist under a-theism (see above). I am not for putting those who voted to include sexuality as a covered category in jail – they are free to hold their opinions, but yes, of course they are irrational. You seem to think that “fact” is grounded by man’s law, but that is only true under a-theism. So, again, you are presuppositional on a-theism.

            “If the couple had been of opposite gender she would have served them. Because they were of the same gender, she refused the order.”

            False and disingenuously so – for the umpteenth time. You do not listen well – a characteristic of the most extreme liberal species. If the couple had been heterosexual and ordered a porn floral arrangement for a porn “wedding,” they would have been refused, just as she refused a “wedding” (a gay one) that is literally pornographic on Christian theism. So, she did not refuse the event based on gender, but on its pornographic nature, under Christianity. You continue to not address this, because you continue to know that you are wrong and have no argument for addressing it. Your really need to hate this florist (and baker) – it is a psychological condition of yours – and the proof is in the fact that you continue to mis-represent Stutzman’s case and the case of these bakers.

            “I don’t hate anyone.”

            You hate these bakers, you hate Stutzman, but most of all, you hate the truth – as evidenced by your continuing to mis-represent the evidence of their providing services for gays, but not for an event that violates their deeply held (and accurate) religious convictions. You continue to say that these people were denied services based on gender when the evidence shows otherwise. You are, thus, both irrational and disingenuous.

            “I’ve already decided that I believe there is. I told you that.”

            Your comments above show otherwise, as you do not know the difference between “legal” and “moral” and you continue to either deny the existence of objective morality (a-theism) or believe that objective morality is a mere opinion (moral relativism).

            ““When you’ve recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to “bless” them?” – Michelle Malkin

          • DNelson

            “And you will be for punishing the HRC and other members of the Gaystapo for operating outside of the Constitution and needlessly persecuting innocent Christians, right?”

            if the court ruled in that way, there would be no basis for future legal action against business owners.

            “”Moral” is only an opinion if there is no Objective Law Maker. God’s facts supersede man’s laws.”

            Your belief that the Bible contains God’s laws is an opinion.

            “False and disingenuously so”

            No, that is completely true. If an opposite gender couple had ordered flowers for a wedding, she would have accepted the order. While I realize that you very badly want to believe that the nature of the event makes a difference, from a legal standpoint it does not. Again, as I have said many times, if you and/or others believe that there should be an opt-out based upon the type of event, then you are free to work to get such an opt-out put into place. But until it is, this is how the law operates.

            Personally, I am torn on the issue. I certainly understand how some business owners would not want, based on their religious beliefs, to be involved in something that is contrary to their beliefs. On the other hand, i also understand the desire to ensure that all people are able to request, from a business that has chosen to be open to the public and chosen to offer certain products, a service/product the business offers and should not be required to find a business that is willing to serve them.

            Religious beliefs are a very personal matter. As such, it is not possible to determine what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief. If we provide this opt-out I have concern that about the implications. Should a business be able to turn away an interracial couple because the owner doesn’t believe that the races should mix? Should a business be able to turn down a couple who are of different faiths because the owner believes that only people of the same faith should marry? Should a business be able to turn down a couple who are atheist? Should a business be able to turn away a couple who are of a different faith than the owner and thus not getting married according to the faith of the owner? Let’s say I go into Hobby Lobby and am buying artificial flowers. As part of the conversation with a clerk who is helping me, she asks what they are for. I tell her that I am getting married to my long-time boyfriend. Should the clerk be allowed to refuse to sell me the flowers?

            If we allow a business owner to opt-out of events that involve Biblical sin, do we require that standard to be applied evenly to ensure that it is not simply a matter of discrimination? Do we require that the owner then turn down all events that involve Biblical sin? No orders for couples where one or both have been divorced for reasons other than adultery? No baby shower cakes for a woman who is unmarried? No engagement party cakes for a couple who are having sexual relations prior to marriage? If a same-gender married couple come into a business, should the business be able to refuse them service because the owner believes they are living in sin?

            As you can hopefully see, this is not a simple question of turning down a same-gender wedding. There are broader ramifications.

            “You hate these bakers, you hate Stutzman, but most of all, you hate the truth”

            Your statement is simply false.

            “Your comments above show otherwise”

            You are free to your opinion, but I assure you that I have a strong belief in God. That we do not share the same beliefs about God, does not translate into my being an atheist.

            “you continue to either deny the existence of objective morality”

            Please cite where I have denied the existence of objective morality.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “if the court ruled in that way, there would be no basis for future legal action against business owners.”

            That was NOT the question. The question is “will you be for punishing the HRC and other members of the Gaystapo for operating outside of the Constitution and needlessly persecuting innocent Christians?” Or, are you more beholden to the Nanny State than to your “god?” It is an important question.

            “Your belief that the Bible contains God’s laws is an opinion.”

            You are confusing moral ontology (the existence of objective moral values and duties) with moral epistemology (how we know the objective moral values and duties). No one, but you, brought up the Bible – that is epistemology, where we get the moral values and duties from. We are talking about ontology here. And if any God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist. You claim to believe in a “god,” so you cannot use man’s law as the grounding of your objective moral values and duties. Thus, when you claim that man’s law is the ultimate authority (by equating morality with legality – and looking quite bad in a historical sense, I might add), you are denying even the existence of YOUR “god.”

            “No, that is completely true. If an opposite gender couple had ordered flowers for a wedding, she would have accepted the order.”

            That is because an opposite gender wedding is not pornographic on Christianity, but a same sex “wedding” is. If an opposite sex couple had ordered a bouquet with dildos in it, she most certainly would have rejected it. That is also why I provided you with a couple of examples of situations in which Baronnelle WOULD most certainly turn down the floral arrangement of an opposite sex couple (e.g., a pornographic floral arrangement, a floral arrangement celebrating divorce, etc). And THAT is where you are being disingenuous – by claiming she turned down the gender and not the event – despite all of the evidence showing that she repeatedly served gays including that particular man’s floral arrangements for his birthday party.

            “from a legal standpoint it does not.”

            We shall see, and I am afraid you shall eat crow. 🙂 Regardless, we are talking morality here, not legality. What happened to that “god” you believe in?!? His “morality” trumps your legality – even in YOUR worldview! 🙂

            “then you are free to work to get such an opt-out put into place. But until it is, this is how the law operates.”

            Tell it to the Jews and slaves! They both desired an “opt out.” and it was long in coming after much suffering. 🙂 Once again, you betray your “god” by holding man’s law as the highest standard for morality.

            “As such, it is not possible to determine what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief.”

            It is not as hard as you think – based on testimony of witnesses to how they live their lives and customers. And accuracy of the belief is important too – as I showed in my mixed race marriage example. That was clearly racist, because there is not only nothing in the Bible against it, there is much for it. I believe that the standard for opt out should be a deeply held conviction that is clearly accurate within the religious worldview of the individual opting out. AND, this kind of thing is only used as a defense – which is not allowed without a legitimate RFRA. So, it is not an automatic win for the person claiming a religious objection – not by a long shot. The business owner has to prove it – the burden is his or hers.

            “Should a business be able to turn away an interracial couple because the owner doesn’t believe that the races should mix?”

            Absolutely not, because even if it is a deeply held conviction, it is not rooted in Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy. (I cannot speak for other religions on that.)

            “Should a business be able to turn down a couple who are of different faiths because the owner believes that only people of the same faith should marry?”

            When you say “turn down,” I am assuing you mean a participatory request has been made? (Obviously, selling to anyone would not invoke an opt out and never has to my knowledge, unless it was a decorated object with objectionable material. But, if it has, it is wrong.) You mean, like, provide the floral arrangement for an unequally yoked wedding? I think that would apply ONLY if the information were forthcoming, and I am not sure why that would be so. (I think that a pastor or priest probably should turn down an unequally yoked marriage (I realize that this is a different issue), just like he should refuse a gay “wedding,” and as we have seen in the UK, at least one church was sued for not providing a gay “wedding” over there. That will be the next battleground, and it is quite unconscionable. Stay tuned!)

            “Should a business be able to turn down a couple who are atheist?”

            I do not see why that applies under Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy, but it could, I guess, if you mean participatory or even an immoral cake. Let’s say the a-theist couple asked for a cake that said “There is no god.” Then, it would seem to apply, wedding or no wedding. I think that could and should be turned down by any Christian. Just writing those words on a cake would be torture for a true Christian.

            I DO think that an a-theist business should be able to turn down a Christian wedding, particularly as most a-theists today are not positive evidential a-theists, but merely anti-Christians. I think that shows the (blind) faith of the a-theist, and I know for a fact, from my own testimony, that it can be a deeply held faith of a-theism and an accurate orthodoxy representing at least some a-theists. (And, I believe that a-theism IS a religion, BTW, so I could not get out of it that way. it is certainly a deeply held worldview.)

            “Should a business be able to turn away a couple who are of a different faith than the owner and thus not getting married according to the faith of the owner?”

            Well, suppose a Muslim couple wanted a cake made or delivered saying “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” Then, that should be allowed to be turned down by a Christian, wedding or no wedding. Not sure about a wedding without that – good question.

            Similarly, a Muslim bakery should be allowed to turn down a cake that said “Only Jesus saves,” wedding or no wedding.

            “Let’s say I go into Hobby Lobby and am buying artificial flowers. As part of the conversation with a clerk who is helping me, she asks what they are for. I tell her that I am getting married to my long-time boyfriend. Should the clerk be allowed to refuse to sell me the flowers?”

            Nope. Not even close. Remember that the selling of these goods (flowers, cakes, etc) has NEVER been shown to be the problem, UNLESS it is a decoration or arrangement that is clearly antagonistic toward the person’s deeply held and accurate religious convictions. Quite the opposite in fact: all of the cases I am familiar with show sales of goods to gays on a regular basis, without discrimination. It is only when one crosses the line and asks for affirmation by tying it to an event that is CLEARLY outside of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy OR requiring a product to be decorated with something that is outside of same.

            “If we allow a business owner to opt-out of events that involve Biblical sin, do we require that standard to be applied evenly to ensure that it is not simply a matter of discrimination?”

            Well, remember that EVERY worldview discriminates, some in good ways, some in bad. That is the entire purpose of a worldview – it is something that sets it apart from other worldviews. Otherwise, the person does not have a deeply held religious faith. And, I am NOT restricting this to Biblical sin – I am including Quronic sin, a-theistic “sin,” etc. And, it is only used as a defense. The burden is still on the one rejecting the event or decoration type or whatever.

            Consider the case where a guy called gay bakeries and asked them if they would decorate a traditional marriage cake for him – one that said “Marriage is one man, one woman,” or something like that. He got rejected outright and often rudely from like 13 bakeries owned by gays. Was that correct or should the Human Wrongs Commission have stepped in and fined these gay bakeries hundreds of thousands of dollars each?!? The one that did go to an HRC, in Colorado, they correctly ruled, IMO, that the gay bakeries should be allowed to turn it down because it was offensive to them. Well, why is it that it’s only Christians who are not allowed to be “offended” to the tune of $135K in America?!? You need to really consider that question, Sir, as we see more and more of this. And we will – that is a prediction that is 100% guaranteed, since it follows the pattern in other countries around the world who have already traveled this path.

            “Do we require that the owner then turn down all events that involve Biblical sin? No orders for couples where one or both have been divorced for reasons other than adultery? No baby shower cakes for a woman who is unmarried? No engagement party cakes for a couple who are having sexual relations prior to marriage?”

            Yes, if that information is forthcoming – for sure. If it is a Christian, and they have this information, of course they should turn it down. But, I am not for the Nanny State coming into the situation and performing background checks on everyone who gets ACCEPTED as customers. Remember, the Nanny State is precisely what led to this fascism that Christians are experiencing. Let’s get rid of it by requiring only conservative lawmakers. 🙂 (Yes, it’s a joke.)

            “If a same-gender married couple come into a business, should the business be able to refuse them service because the owner believes they are living in sin?”

            Only if it is a participatory request in a Biblical sin, which would include some sort of decoration. Notice that Baronnelle Stutzman, that “evil” grandmother (:-)), did NOT refuse to provide the floral arrangements for a gay man’s birthday party. That is because birthday parties are not sinful orthodoxy or orthopraxy in Christianity, AND because he did not request a bunch of dildos or something like that in the floral arrangement, which would obviously be out of bounds. Her case actually shows a wide range of scenarios in how this should be played out.

            “As you can hopefully see, this is not a simple question of turning down a same-gender wedding. There are broader ramifications.”

            Yes, but religious freedom is a deep Constitutional right – not something to be cast aside by those who do not share the same religion. “First they came for the Christians, but I wasn’t a Christian, … then they game for the gays, and no one was left to speak out for me,” or something like that, following on Niemoller. Secularism has no objective grounding on itself. If you think it does, just check out this night-time satellite image of the Korean peninsula:

            http://earthobservatory .nasa .gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83182

            “Please cite where I have denied the existence of objective morality.”

            Each time you have made man’s laws our highest authority, you have done so, implicitly.

            Good talking with you – those were some great examples!

          • DNelson

            “The question is “will you be for punishing the HRC and other members of the Gaystapo for operating outside of the Constitution and needlessly persecuting innocent Christians?”

            If the SCOTUS provided an opt-out, there would be no basis to bring legal action against a business. Therefore, there would be nothing to “punish” the HRC, or others, for.

            “You claim to believe in a “god,” so you cannot use man’s law as the grounding of your objective moral values and duties.”

            Nor have I.

            “We shall see, and I am afraid you shall eat crow”

            Given the numerous court rulings that have found religious belief to not be a valid basis for violating anti-discrimination laws, it is doubtful that I will be eating crow.

            “Once again, you betray your “god” by holding man’s law as the highest standard for morality.”

            That is simply not true. I am talking legality only. There have been many laws in the past that were contrary to my beliefs regarding morality. Your continued reliance on references to Nazi Germany is disingenuous. I am speaking about laws here in the US under our Constitution.

            “It is not as hard as you think – based on testimony of witnesses to how they live their lives”

            Two issues. You know are suggesting that the judiciary will be determining what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief. How would a person prove that they live their life in a way that does not approve of interracial marriage?

            “Absolutely not, because even if it is a deeply held conviction, it is not rooted in Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy. (I cannot speak for other religions on that.)”

            So then we get into the business of determining what is and what is not a sincerely held religious belief. There are many people who believe that the Bible is very clear that the races should not mix. Who are you to say that their beliefs are not valid?

            “Let’s say the a-theist couple asked for a cake that said “There is no god.” Then, it would seem to apply, wedding or no wedding. I think that could and should be turned down by any Christian. Just writing those words on a cake would be torture for a true Christian.”

            No baker is required, by law, to put any message on a cake that the baker does not care to.

            “Nope. Not even close.”

            You said the issue was the event. In my example, the Hobby Lobby clerk was told that the flowers would be used for a same gender wedding ceremony. On what basis would the clerk not be allowed to refuse to sell the flowers?

            “Was that correct or should the Human Wrongs Commission have stepped in and fined these gay bakeries hundreds of thousands of dollars each?!?”

            A baker, as you pointed out in the Colorado ruling, is not required to put a message on a cake that the baker does not want to. They cannot refuse an order for a cake, but they are completely free to refuse to put a certain message on it.

            “Yes, if that information is forthcoming”

            Why only if the information is “forthcoming”? The owner is certainly free to ask questions. If the business owner is so very concerned about participating in events that involve Biblical sin, shouldn’t they be asking questions that would ensure that they do not participate in those events?

            “But, I am not for the Nanny State coming into the situation and performing background checks on everyone who gets ACCEPTED as customers.”

            They wouldn’t need to. The owner could simply ask.

            “Yes, but religious freedom is a deep Constitutional right – not something to be cast aside by those who do not share the same religion.”

            Agreed. I am a big proponent of the protections provided by the Constitution regarding religion. With that said, the Constitution does not provide that people are free to express their religious belief at any time, in any place, and in any manner they care to. There are restrictions. So the question becomes, if a person CHOOSES to open and business and CHOOSES to offer certain products, are they able to claim religious belief as a valid legal defense for violating anti-discrimination laws.

            “Only if it is a participatory request in a Biblical sin, which would include some sort of decoration.”

            I thought you said that the question was the event, not the decoration. How are floral arrangements “decorated” for a wedding? They look the same regardless regardless of what type of wedding is taking place. If a couple wanted floral arrangements with a banner (similar to what one may see at a funeral – a banner saying “Rest In Peace”) the owner would be free to not provide such a banner if the wording was against their religious belief.

            “That is because birthday parties are not sinful orthodoxy or orthopraxy in Christianity”

            What if a legally married gay couple requested flowers for a party celebrating their 5th wedding anniversary?

            “Each time you have made man’s laws our highest authority, you have done so, implicitly.”

            That is disingenuous. My conversation has been limited to the legal application of our laws, under our Constitution. I have made no reference to the morality of laws.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If the SCOTUS provided an opt-out, there would be no basis to bring legal action against a business. Therefore, there would be nothing to “punish” the HRC, or others, for.”

            But, they have not, and the persecution continues. How do these folks get their lives back? What government officials go to jail for violating these Christians’ right to religious freedom? Do the government bureaucrats get to face the same financial ruin as Baronnelle Stutzman, and, if not, then why the Heaven’s not?!?

            “Given the numerous court rulings that have found religious belief to not be a valid basis for violating anti-discrimination laws, it is doubtful that I will be eating crow.”

            But, when you DO eat crow, you will post a picture, right? 🙂 You will come out and admit that the Nanny State overstepped its bounds, right? And, you will be calling for government officials to go to prison, right? If not, why not?

            “I am talking legality only.”

            Well, let’s get on board with morality, huh? You claim to believe in a god, so IF you know the difference between “legal” and “moral,” then grow a pair and speak out against this ridiculousness. I mean, is not baking a gay cake (for sincere deeply held and authentic religious reasons) REALLY on the same order as the Democrat Party’s unholy sacrament of abortion?

            “Your continued reliance on references to Nazi Germany is disingenuous.”

            Not really, between abortion, which has the same kill rate (per year) as Jew gassing and the homofascism we have seen in recent years, the “moral” landscape looks strikingly similar – to those of us with a God anyway.

            “How would a person prove that they live their life in a way that does not approve of interracial marriage?”

            They could easily rely on family members and friends in that case. Nevertheless, they would fail the test of Christian authenticity, so they would lose in that case, and badly and deservedly so.

            “So then we get into the business of determining what is and what is not a sincerely held religious belief. There are many people who believe that the Bible is very clear that the races should not mix. Who are you to say that their beliefs are not valid?”

            Easy. Examine the Church documents (statements of faith, creeds, epistles, and hymns, etc) and see if the Christian Church has held for 2000 years to a separation of races – in doctrine and practice. That is a slam dunk. Racial slavery and segregation were anomalies brought about due to the African slave trade. It was the “progressive” thing to do and progressives did not like it one bit when “radical fundamentalist extremist” Christians said “no” to slavery. Just like we are saying “no” to abortion, I might add. (Same political party too.)

            “No baker is required, by law, to put any message on a cake that the baker does not care to.”

            Your theory doesn’t seem to be holding up in the “Bert & Ernie” cake case now does it?!? 🙂

            “You said the issue was the event. In my example, the Hobby Lobby clerk was told that the flowers would be used for a same gender wedding ceremony. On what basis would the clerk not be allowed to refuse to sell the flowers?”

            It is not a participatory act in that case – the flowers do not have to be delivered and arranged at your gay “wedding,” so it is not a problem. No one has turned down merely selling a cake or flowers (without objectionable material on it) to any gay that I am aware of. Same with the pizzeria: in that case, the gay “couple” could order all the pizza they wanted for their reception and just have someone pick it up and deliver it to the reception, but the pizzeria would NOT cater the event, and rightly so. (Keep in mind that it was a HYPOTHETICAL question only, as the pizzeria has never catered ANY wedding. Nevertheless, the death threats ensued. But, there is no Gaystapo. Right.)

            “A baker, as you pointed out in the Colorado ruling, is not required to put a message on a cake that the baker does not want to. They cannot refuse an order for a cake, but they are completely free to refuse to put a certain message on it.”

            And no one has refused an order for a cake or flowers on the Christian side either. 🙂 They have sold cakes and flowers to gays all day long.

            “Why only if the information is “forthcoming”? The owner is certainly free to ask questions. If the business owner is so very concerned about participating in events that involve Biblical sin, shouldn’t they be asking questions that would ensure that they do not participate in those events?”

            Are you suggesting another Nanny State agency to investigate whether or not there is any sin involved in a couple to be “married?” Can the government EVER get too big for you? 🙂 Are you aware of the importance of the concept of intent in the Christian faith? Just as one example, in an ectopic pregnancy, the child in the tube has a very low chance of survival. There is a big difference between removing the tube and trying to save the child in it (which may someday be possible with improving technology) and scraping the child out of the womb or giving an abortifacient to kill the child.

            The first case is perfectly acceptable in Christianity, while the second and third cases constitute an abortion – absolutely unacceptable. Yet, in both cases, with current technology, the child will die. Intent is very important in our faith, but not to be used as an excuse for atrocity. Thus, if the baker or florist is made aware of the fact that this is a “wedding” outside of the confines of Christian orthodoxy – for any reason not just homosexuality, then of course, he or she should turn it down or religious grounds. But, if you are suggesting that the baker or florist has to hire an investigator to find out, then I think we are back into a Nanny State situation. A Christian is to not knowingly participate in sin and to do as much due diligence as is reasonably possible to prevent the possibility.

            “They wouldn’t need to. The owner could simply ask.”

            I am with you there. We agree.

            “There are restrictions. So the question becomes, if a person CHOOSES to open and business and CHOOSES to offer certain products, are they able to claim religious belief as a valid legal defense for violating anti-discrimination laws.”

            Yes, indeed, because otherwise you will have a chilling effect on Christians opening businesses, and that seems to be what is happening here. The Christian does NOT leave their belief at the front door of the business. And, the state should require the least punitive way of accommodation, not the most punitive, as we are seeing in these cases. The history of secular humanism is a bloody one – and not to be pursued indiscriminately.

            In fact, your argument could be equally applied to public officials and military personnel too (and we are seeing both under attack) – such that at some point, you would eliminate authentic Christians from those spheres as well. You DO realize that such is the history of both Communism and fascism, and while they are bad for Christians, it is not much better for those of other worldviews (except for the Communists and fascists, of course)?

            “I thought you said that the question was the event, not the decoration.”

            I am showing you the various types of situations in which true Christians would find their faith compromised. A floral arrangement with dildos. A cake with porn material. A floral arrangement with little sticks that say “There is no god.” So, it COULD be the item and / or it could be the participation in the event. It is a question of selling versus participation, but there are instances where even selling would not be allowed in Christianity and cases where participating would not be allowed, and cases where neither would be allowed. That is why there should be given some leeway by the state to use this defense. Just to use it – not to guarantee victory. The particulars of each case will vary.

            “If a couple wanted floral arrangements with a banner (similar to what one may see at a funeral – a banner saying “Rest In Peace”) the owner would be free to not provide such a banner if the wording was against their religious belief.”

            Maybe, but that would not be a Christian florist. Not sure what type of florist that would be actually. The Christian florist should lose that defense. Unless I am missing something here?

            “What if a legally married gay couple requested flowers for a party celebrating their 5th wedding anniversary?”

            If they wanted to purchase flowers for that and if the floral arrangement did not have anything objectionable (on Christian theism) about it, then fine. Stutzman did that all the time. But, if the floral arrangement has to be delivered and set up or if it contained a banner referring to the “marriage,” then no. Remember “legal” does not make “moral” on Christian theism.

            Great talking with you again!

          • DNelson

            “But, they have not, and the persecution continues.”

            Holding people accountable to the law is not “persecution”. It is prosecution.

            “What government officials go to jail for violating these Christians’ right to religious freedom?”

            The judiciary has determined that religious beliefs are not a legally valid reason for violating anti-discrimination laws. Should the States, or the judiciary determine that there should be an opt-out, then that will become the law. Who was jailed for owning slaves when that was legal? What government officials went to jail for passing laws that said two people of opposite race should not be allowed to marry. Who is going to jail now that the court has determined that laws disallowing two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage violated constitutional rights?

            “But, when you DO eat crow, you will post a picture, right?”

            it’s not a question of eating crow. The court is free at anytime to determine that laws violate constitutional protections.

            “Your theory doesn’t seem to be holding up in the “Bert & Ernie” cake case now does it?!? :-)”

            That was in England, not the US. The US constitution provides protections that are not provided in England.

            “Well, let’s get on board with morality, huh? You claim to believe in a god, so IF you know the difference between “legal” and “moral,” then grow a pair and speak out against this ridiculousness.”

            I don’t think it is ridiculous.

            “I am with you there. We agree.”

            Then why all the rhetoric about a “nanny state”? The owner could simply ask, as we both agree. if either of us is suggesting a “nanny state”, it is you, as you believe the judiciary should be in a position to determine what is, and what is not, a sincerely held religious belief.

            “Easy. Examine the Church documents (statements of faith, creeds, epistles, and hymns, etc) and see if the Christian Church has held for 2000 years to a separation of races – in doctrine and practice. That is a slam dunk.”

            Really? So why are there so many different sects of Christianity? Obviously they do not all agree on the totality of what is right an wrong and what is moral and immoral. Which sect gets to decide in this issue? Would it be the sect with the most members? Here’s a quote from the Virginia judge, Leon M. Bazile, regarding Loving v Virginia:

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.

            When the SCOTUS overturned the laws of Virginia, did Bazlle go to jail? Should he have? What about his sincerely held religious beliefs? Should those who took an oath to uphold the laws of state and thus did not issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, have been jailed after the law was overturned? Should they, after the law was overturned, have been provided an “opt-out” from having to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples based upon their religious beliefs?

            “Yes, indeed, because otherwise you will have a chilling effect on Christians opening businesses”

            Given that over 70% of the US population identifies as Christian, it would be without merit to suggest that anti-discrimination laws that cover sexuality would have a “chilling effect” on Christians opening businesses.

            “And, the state should require the least punitive way of accommodation, not the most punitive, as we are seeing in these cases.”

            You are certainly free to put effort into changing anti-discrimination laws. They were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. They can be changed in the exact same way.

            “But, if you are suggesting that the baker or florist has to hire an investigator to find out, then I think we are back into a Nanny State situation.”

            I am not. As I clearly stated, and you agreed, they could simply ask. Even easier, they could post a sign informing customers of their parameters for providing service. No wedding cakes for couples where either have been divorced for reasons other than adultery. No baby shower cakes for women who are unmarried. No engagement party cakes for couples who are having sexual relations prior to marriage. No wedding cakes for people who are getting married though a faith other than the Christian faith, because they are putting a god before the Christian god. Quite easy to do. After all, they really should take every step they can to help ensure that they don’t participate in an event that involves a violation of their faith, right?

            “A floral arrangement with dildos. A cake with porn material. A floral arrangement with little sticks that say “There is no god.””

            Business owners are free to turn down requests for specific decorations.

            “And no one has refused an order for a cake or flowers on the Christian side either”

            Obviously not true, or these cases wouldn’t exist.

            “It is not a participatory act in that case – the flowers do not have to be delivered and arranged at your gay “wedding,” so it is not a problem.”

            So then if the gay couple agreed to pick up the flowers or the cake, and there was no specific message on either, just a generic arrangement or generic wedding cake, then it would not be a problem, correct?

            “such that at some point, you would eliminate authentic Christians from those spheres as well.”

            Again, since over 70% of US citizens claim to adhere to the Christian faith, it is without merit to suggest that I would eliminate “authentic” Christians from those spheres as well. And, oh, who would be responsible for determining who is an “authentic” Christian, and who is not? You?

            “The history of secular humanism is a bloody one – and not to be pursued indiscriminately.”

            As is the history of Christianity as well as other religions. Do the crusades, inquisitions, and slaughter of Native Americans ring a bell? Please cite one example of “secular humanism” having a “bloody history”.

            “You DO realize that such is the history of both Communism and fascism”

            Yes I do. Neither, however, are relevant to our discussion.

            “If they wanted to purchase flowers for that and if the floral arrangement did not have anything objectionable (on Christian theism) about it, then fine.”

            Neither the cake nor the flowers was requested with anything objectionable on them. How would you justify saying that it is OK for flowers or a cake to be provided celebrating the anniversary of a same-gender marriage, but not OK for celebrating the marriage itself?

            “Remember “legal” does not make “moral” on Christian theism.”

            Remember, the US is not a Christian Theocracy.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, DNelson, you will be surprised to know that we agree on the big stuff here, and I am just going to hit you on a few minor points.

            “Holding people accountable to the law is not “persecution”. It is prosecution.”

            That statement applied equally well under the laws of Nazi Germany and equally well under the laws of America when slavery was legal. It was persecution then and it is persecution now.

            It is nice to see the hearts and minds of rational gays coming around on this: http://christiannews .net/2015/07/17/you-are-being-a-nazi-homosexual-baker-blasts-those-bullying-christians-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes/ 🙂

            “What government officials went to jail for passing laws that said two people of opposite race should not be allowed to marry. Who is going to jail now that the court has determined that laws disallowing two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage violated constitutional rights?”

            In neither of those cases was the financial ruin of supposedly free individuals commanded by the Nanny State.

            “it’s not a question of eating crow.”

            I just want to see a picture of you eating crow, OK? 🙂

            “Then why all the rhetoric about a “nanny state”?”

            Because it is a Nanny State that has placed the political correctness of the “endangered species” of gays above the Constitutional rights of supposedly free citizens. I actually think this kind of craziness backfires on the gay community, just as I believe that some of the affirmative action programs hurt the black community. I can find evidence to support this. I was raised to be color blind but I know a lot of younger people who are somewhat prejudiced against blacks precisely because of the unfair advantages they gained through affirmative action. Preference toward one group is discrimination toward another.

            “as you believe the judiciary should be in a position to determine what is, and what is not, a sincerely held religious belief.”

            Not true. I believe that the state (Nanny State in blue states) should give deference to religious freedoms and provide the LEAST imposition on those who desire to exercise it, should the state’s interest serve an imposition. We are WAY beyond that situation right now. I noticed you did not respond substantively to the story on the gay baker who called gay activists “Nazis?!?” I guess we Christians are not the only ones who can smell fascism a mile away. 🙂

            “Really? So why are there so many different sects of Christianity? Obviously they do not all agree on the totality of what is right an wrong and what is moral and immoral.”

            The different denominations of Christianity all have a common set of doctrines, fundamentals if you will, that we agree on. They are called essentials of the faith and are captured in creeds, statements of faith, and other Church documents. They differ not in the meat but in the type of potatoes – it is remarkable how much they agree and have agreed for 2000 years. And abortion and SSM are not even remotely negotiable in the Christian Church. At some point, the word “reasonable” has to come into play, and gay activists have been anything but, or at least some of them have.

            “”Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.”

            This is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible or in Church documents or in Church history. It is as unfounded as Mormonism or Christian Science or Scientology. Cults are excluded.

            In fact, all of the forbears of all of the races were found in one small location – first in Adam and Eve, who were presumably NOT on different continents (:-)), and second, on Noah’s Ark. Leon M. Bazile was no more writing on Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy and Church history than the Episcopal Church is operating on orthodoxy and orthopraxy and Church history when they show support for abortion and gay marriage – all of these atrocities were considered to be “progressive” in their time era. And, it is interesting that the victims of slavery, segregation, abortion, and gay “marriage,” all share many similarities.

            “When the SCOTUS overturned the laws of Virginia, did Bazlle go to jail? Should he have? What about his sincerely held religious beliefs?”

            Yes, he should have, because his sincerely held religious beliefs were not authentic, by ANY stretch of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, Church history, and documentation. That bastard. Pardon my French.

            “Should they, after the law was overturned, have been provided an “opt-out” from having to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples based upon their religious beliefs?”

            Nope, because these are not authentic religious beliefs, at least not on Christian theism.

            “Given that over 70% of the US population identifies as Christian, it would be without merit to suggest that anti-discrimination laws that cover sexuality would have a “chilling effect” on Christians opening businesses.”

            Then, do away with the HRC’s. You are presuppositional on the morality and effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws. But, if you cannot see that a $135K fine, in this case, and “financial ruin” in the Stutzman case are “chilling,” then I believe that you are edging toward irrational thinking on this subject matter.

            “Even easier, they could post a sign informing customers of their parameters for providing service. No wedding cakes for couples where either have been divorced for reasons other than adultery. No baby shower cakes for women who are unmarried. No engagement party cakes for couples who are having sexual relations prior to marriage. No wedding cakes for people who are getting married though a faith other than the Christian faith, because they are putting a god before the Christian god.”

            I love it!!! We are in FULL agreement – 100% agreement – for once! Was this a trap?!? 🙂 I have seen this sort of thing on some businesses – regarding certain Christian holidays that they were closed and the reasons for it. Pretty kewl, in my view, to see an expression of Christian faith on the front of a business.

            Now, after we list the most likely reasons for rejection of services, let’s list a carefully worded catch-all, since we cannot list every possible combination of things that would be considered sinful. How about something like this?

            “As a Christian business, we reserve the right, under the Constitution of the US, to reject any services that clearly, directly, and authentically conflict with the right doctrine and practice of the Christian Church for the overwhelming majority of the last 2000 years. As Christians, we love and respect every customer who comes in our doors as a human being made in the Image of God, and we expect the same respect from you for us and for our religious freedoms in a country that values them so much.”

            Or something along that line. That way, the customer could have the most common reasons for rejection and the general conditions under which some other situation would be rejected and explained to them. Just as Baronnelle Stutzman did when she sat down, held the hand of her gay customer, and lovingly explained to him why she could not be a part of this special day with him. (She also provided the names of a number of florists who would be glad to do the wedding for him, and some of them actually offered their services for free. Which is why you know this was NEVER about the flowers, and it was NEVER about mutual respect. Tolerance only flowed in one direction in that case.)

            I don’t know if you have ever owned a business or not, but I have. I can assure you that business owners, particularly small business owners, are NOT in the habit of looking for flimsy excuses to turn away ANY business, particularly ones with long-term customers like Stutzman had. It is my understanding that Stutzman, along with her husband, was actually looking for any way possible to escape Christian requirements and do this wedding for him while they were praying on what to do. Sadly, in such a case, there is no escape hatch.

            “”And no one has refused an order for a cake or flowers on the Christian side either”

            Obviously not true, or these cases wouldn’t exist.”

            Simply not true. Neither this case, nor the Stutzman case involved the mere selling of a cake or floral arrangement to gays. In fact, that was done on a regular case by both businesses.

            “So then if the gay couple agreed to pick up the flowers or the cake, and there was no specific message on either, just a generic arrangement or generic wedding cake, then it would not be a problem, correct?”

            Not only would it NOT be a problem, but those services were routinely provided for gays by both the baker and the florist. (The florist even set up the floral arrangements at the gay man’s birthday party, because that is perfectly acceptable on Christian theism.) Absolutely! Now, I see you DO understand the difference! And, I will note, that the pizzeria in Indiana that received all of those death threats, including some public ones, also said that the folks could order and pick up all the pizzas they wanted for their “wedding,” but the pizzeria just could not cross the line to cater it. And the “wedding” was not even real: it was hypothetical. Still, the death threats, which is stunning!

            I am glad to see that you realize that this is not a lunch counter situation.

            “Again, since over 70% of US citizens claim to adhere to the Christian faith, it is without merit to suggest that I would eliminate “authentic” Christians from those spheres as well.”

            Here is merit: Nazi Germany and parts of the USSR. Unless you are saying that these were not largely Christian spheres prior to Nazi-ism and Communism taking them over? Hey, even North Korea was at least significantly Christian at the beginning of the 20th century. That is the model you need to consider, because, while you are correct that it would not happen overnight, just look at how Christianity has been largely driven out of, and sometimes underground in Western Europe.

            “And, oh, who would be responsible for determining who is an “authentic” Christian, and who is not? You?”

            Essentials. Church history and documents, creeds, etc. Mere Christianity. (I am a “Mere” Christian myself.) But, if you insist, I can be the Church Czar. (That is a joke!)

            “As is the history of Christianity as well as other religions. Do the crusades, inquisitions, and slaughter of Native Americans ring a bell? Please cite one example of “secular humanism” having a “bloody history”.”

            America and the West (including Western Europe) with respect to abortion and euthanasia. Far, far greater number of (legal) murders than all of the examples you provided under Christianity – times a thousand. Are you going to let me include Communism? If so, then Stalin and Mao alone took out, what, 100 million or so, which, I admit, pales compared with abortion, but is MUCH worse in numbers than the examples you provided in total. Additionally, Nazi-ism was driven by a Darwin-inspired eugenics program and that fits hand-in-glove with secular humanism. But, even if you do not include the Nazis, that is rounding error compared with secular humanism.

            “Yes I do. Neither, however, are relevant to our discussion.:”

            Well, I beg to differ: the drive to eliminate Christian influence in our country is most relevant to the discussion. The history of cultures that have gone that route has not been good – for anyone, because the cultures did not survive (Rome, Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea, etc).

            “Neither the cake nor the flowers was requested with anything objectionable on them. How would you justify saying that it is OK for flowers or a cake to be provided celebrating the anniversary of a same-gender marriage, but not OK for celebrating the marriage itself?”

            I think we already agreed above that as long as the item for sale does not have to be delivered to or catered to a gay “wedding,” and does not have objectionable material on it, then there is no allowable religious objection. In fact, these services were routinely provided to gays by both the bakers and Stutzman. So, here is the flowchart:

            1. Does the item for sale have material on, or associated with, it that is objectionable to the authentic religious business owner? If yes, then an exemption from providing services is allowed. If no, then:

            2. Does the event require the item to be delivered to, catered to, or arranged at an event that is objectionable to the authentic religious business owner? If yes, then an exemption from providing services is allowed. If no, then:

            3. Provide full service.

            I THINK that covers all of the cases, but I might be forgetting something. It is a start though. Let’s see about the birthday party floral arrangement for the gay man who is suing her business under. 1. Nothing objectionable on the floral arrangement. 2. Event is not objectionable. 3. Therefore, provide. Yep, that works. Or, we could just go back to the Constitution, which has been trashed the past 7 years.

            Now, one question that the gay baker brought to mind is that he believes a business should be able to decline services for other reasons – full schedule, etc. I assume you are on board there, provided there is no history of negative discrimination?

            “Remember, the US is not a Christian Theocracy.”

            No one said it was: but secularism has no moral grounding in and of itself – please do not forget that. This is why the country was most certainly founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. On a-theism, it is anything goes, and I can provide the quotes from a-theists to show that they agree with me here. So, something you may not realize is that, without SOME religious-philosophical grounding, secularism MUST ultimately fail, and certainly cannot be shown to be an objectively moral worldview.

            God bless and nice talking with you!

          • DNelson

            “persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people based on their membership in a religious, ethnic, social, or racial group”

            Holding people accountable to the law is not “persecution”.

            “It is nice to see the hearts and minds of rational gays coming around on this”

            One person is not “gays”. You seem to be suggesting that every person who supports including sexuality in anti-discrimination laws is irrational. So, basically, people who agree with you are rational, and people who do not are irrational. Quite the hubris you exhibit.

            “In neither of those cases was the financial ruin of supposedly free individuals commanded by the Nanny State.”

            Your question was: “What government officials go to jail for violating these Christians’ right to religious freedom?”

            If people should face jail time for what you view as a violation of constitutional rights, why would it be different as applied to other constitutional rights? Why would “financial ruin” need to be a part of it? Oh, and by the way, in both of these cases sufficient money has been raised through donations to cover any fines, so they will not be facing “financial ruin”.

            “Not true.”

            Yes, that is true. You made very clear that people could provide testimony in court regarding religious beliefs. Therefore, you are suggesting a system whereby the judiciary will be responsible for determining what is, and what is not, a sincerely held religious belief. That meets your definition of “nanny state”. I, on the other hand, suggested simply that the owners themselves either question each customer or put up a sign indicating in what situations they would not serve customers – that is not a “nanny state” – that is controlled by the individual owner.

            “This is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible or in Church documents or in Church history.”

            Why does your interpretation of the Bible hold more weight than others? Why are you correct, and they are wrong? I’ll guess we’ll let the “nanny state” you support work it out in court, huh?

            So your defense of Christianity’s bloody history is: “Well, it wasn’t as bad as some other people”? Really?

            “the drive to eliminate Christian influence in our country is most relevant to the discussion.”

            Ahhh…..so you are upset that the Christian faith is no longer being given a position of privilege in our nation, no longer being promoted by the government, and no longer is being allowed to serve as a basis for limiting the rights of other citizens. Apparently it’s not enough for you to be able to worship as you desire. Rather, you want to be able to control the lives of ALL citizens based upon the Christian belief system. And if a few are harmed along the way….well so be it. The important thing is that your beliefs serve as a basis what others are allowed to do and how they are treated. Hmmmm……now who’s the fascist?

            “I think we already agreed above that as long as the item for sale does not have to be delivered to or catered to a gay “wedding,” and does not have objectionable material on it, then there is no allowable religious objection.”

            But…but…but….wait….you said the issue was the event. Now you are backtracking and saying that as long as certain decoration is not requested and delivery is not requested, then the order should be fulfilled. So then, really, we are narrowing it down to caterers – and even then only if they have to deliver and provide on-site staff.

            “it was hypothetical.”

            It was beyond hypothetical. No gay person is going to have pizza as a main course at a wedding reception. How gauche.

            “The history of cultures that have gone that route has not been good”

            You do realize, I assume, that there are many nations that do not embrace Christianity and nonetheless thrive, right? Oh, and by the way, when the Roman Empire fell, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire.

            “I think we already agreed above that as long as the item for sale does not have to be delivered to or catered to a gay “wedding,” and does not have objectionable material on it, then there is no allowable religious objection.”

            Well then in both these cases there is no case by the owner. Neither was asked for certain decorations, and neither asked for delivery because the orders never got that far along in the process, nor did the owner say: “I’ll make it, but I won’t deliver it”. So, according to your criteria, they violated the law. and have no allowable religious objection. I’m glad we agree.

            “Neither this case, nor the Stutzman case involved the mere selling of a cake or floral arrangement to gays.”

            Really? What did they involve other than that? Were they asked to make a speech at the wedding? Were they asked to write something on the cake or put a banner on the flowers? Were they asked to bring a gift? What were they asked to do other than provide the product?

            “Now, one question that the gay baker brought to mind is that he believes a business should be able to decline services for other reasons – full schedule, etc.”

            Of course. In fact, if these owners had been smart, they would have provided a reason other than the one they provided. We can’t take orders for that weekend, because we are already booked up with orders for then, would have worked fine.

            “”As a Christian business, we reserve the right, under the Constitution of the US, to reject any services”

            A business is not required to provide any service it does not want to. With that said, whatever services the business CHOOSES to offer must be offered within the parameters of anti-discrimination laws.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Holding people accountable to the law is not “persecution”.”

            It is when the law is persecutorial, as it most certainly was under slavery and Nazi Germany. Once more, your fascism is uncovered. 🙂

            “One person is not “gays”.”

            You have missed the other examples?!? What’s the matter: don’t like being called a Nazi by one of your own?!? If the jackboot fits. 🙂

            “Oh, and by the way, in both of these cases sufficient money has been raised through donations to cover any fines, so they will not be facing “financial ruin”.”

            Oh, please! Are you kidding me?!? it’s OK because so many people recognized your fascism and came to their aid?!? But, by your “logic,” it would NOT be OK is they hadn’t?!? Is your first name Dietrich? 🙂 “It is OK that we gassed the Jews, because there were a lot of Corrie ten Booms out there to save some of them.” 🙂

            “I, on the other hand, suggested simply that the owners themselves either question each customer or put up a sign indicating in what situations they would not serve customers – that is not a “nanny state” – that is controlled by the individual owner.”

            And you are actually naive enough to believe that because a sign is put up, these business owners will not face judicial litigation because some gay person was “offended?!?” That sign will stop them, just like those gun-free zone signs stopped gun-wielding terrorists. 🙂

            “Why does your interpretation of the Bible hold more weight than others? Why are you correct, and they are wrong?”

            It’s not MY interpretation, unless you make me the Czar in your Nanny State. 🙂 It’s evidence – documents, history, statements of faith, creeds, etc – all well-known by everyone except SOME of us (present company) who like to set aside clear evidence in favor of his whiny feelings.

            “So your defense of Christianity’s bloody history is: “Well, it wasn’t as bad as some other people”? Really?”

            No, my defense of Christianity is that the reason you secularists, a-theists, Communists, and fascists have a history thousands of times worse than ours is because we have a Standard and you do not. So, when we aim for our Standard and fall short, we still hit somewhere MUCH closer to It than those of you who have no Standard and are in complete darkness. It’s pretty simple actually. Think of an archer aiming for a target (the Standard) versus one who is blindfolded and spun around several times. Who gets closer? And the facts are undeniable for those willing to live up to history and not re-write it.

            “Rather, you want to be able to control the lives of ALL citizens based upon the Christian belief system.”

            Not true. I am just telling you what happens when an objective moral foundation is removed from secularism. It’s a historical fact across many countries. And it is NOT pretty. Enjoy your “paradise.” 🙂

            “And if a few are harmed along the way….well so be it.”

            Yes, if a few gays don’t get a floral arrangement from a Christian florist, but are offered multiple free ones from other florists, perhaps that “crime” is not as bad as the one your side inflicts on 1.2 million innocent defenseless human being in the womb each year:

            “When you’ve recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to “bless” them?” – Michelle Malkin

            Guilt, much? 🙂

            “But…but…but….wait….you said the issue was the event. Now you are backtracking and saying that as long as certain decoration is not requested and delivery is not requested, then the order should be fulfilled.”

            No, I did not. What are you talking about? I gave you the flowchart, what is so hard about this? If there is no religiously offensive decoration on the object for sale, and it is just being sold, NOT delivered or set up at the event (like a baker would have to do for a wedding cake or a florist would have to do for a wedding floral arrangement), then there is never a problem. Those actions were routinely performed by this baker and the florist. But, if the item for sale is required to have religiously objectionable material on it, OR it is required to be delivered to a religiously objectionable event, then it is fine to decline this.

            With the inability of you to understand this pretty simple concept, are you SURE you aren’t just pissed off at Christians and want to find any loophole whatsoever to persecute them? Religious freedom is religious freedom, even if those who are not religious do not understand the concept of it. The business owner should be required to obey these laws in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs with the state interfering in the least available manner to enforce their interests, not the MOST, as it is clear in these politically correct cases.

            “So then, really, we are narrowing it down to caterers – and even then only if they have to deliver and provide on-site staff.”

            No, because when it comes to weddings, florists usually set up the floral arrangements at the wedding. Not always, but almost always. That is where Stutzman balked – after she had done the same thing for the gay man’s birthday party. And for that, the state has ordered the financial ruin of a grandmother. Figured out that you are one the wrong side of God yet, DNelson? I am just asking, because eternity is a LONG time.

            “It was beyond hypothetical. No gay person is going to have pizza as a main course at a wedding reception. How gauche.”

            No straight person is going to have pizza as any course at their wedding reception either. But, I did have pizza at my bachelor party. 🙂 So, this pizzeria got death threats for answering a hypothetical only in a politically incorrect way. Yet, I keep getting told that the Gaystapo does not exist. Right. 🙂

            “You do realize, I assume, that there are many nations that do not embrace Christianity and nonetheless thrive, right?”

            Like? India, maybe. But, they are growing dramatically in numbers of Christians, and even some influence in the political ranks. China is looking much better with its rapid growth in Christianity. And, my point was that without SOME objectively moral foundation, secularism cannot survive or be humane. I provided sufficient data to support this.

            “Oh, and by the way, when the Roman Empire fell, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire.”

            That is something you see on the a-theist troll boards, but is not taken seriously by scholars. Correlation does not mean causation. Rome split, and the Byzantine / Eastern Orthodox Christian world did not fall for a thousand years after. It is my understanding that the internal problems of Rome were already well in place long before Christianity became its major religion. It is an interesting question. Regardless, we can look around at more recent times to see the effects: North Korea, Western Europe with its culture of death, and even countries in Africa, in which Christians have been decimated by Muslims.

            “Well then in both these cases there is no case by the owner. Neither was asked for certain decorations, and neither asked for delivery because the orders never got that far along in the process, nor did the owner say: “I’ll make it, but I won’t deliver it”.”

            Oh, come on – that is double jeopardy if I ever saw it: they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t! Are you nuts tonight?!? Of course, the bakery and florist deliver wedding cakes and flowers to a wedding! And the request was NOT made to just sell them something. That is a slam dunk and was granted many times to gays – routinely actually. How incredibly disingenuous you are! This is the umpteenth time you have twisted reality to fit your sick little, very little, mind. You really do have a need to hate. You know, Jesus can cure that. No joke. Just sayn.

            “What did they involve other than that? Were they asked to make a speech at the wedding?”

            Nope. Just do what they always did: deliver and set up a cake at the wedding reception. Deliver and set up the floral arrangements for a wedding event. Now, I KNOW you see it – but you keep changing the reality of the situation to fulfill your need to hate. Jesus saves. Just sayn.

            “What were they asked to do other than provide the product?”

            Deliver it and set it up at a sinful event. 🙂 It’s the “wedding,” dude! 🙂 Because if a gay “couple” comes in an asks to be sold a cake or flowers (with no objectionable material on it), these folks are gonna sell that all day any day – and they did.

            “In fact, if these owners had been smart, they would have provided a reason other than the one they provided. We can’t take orders for that weekend, because we are already booked up with orders for then, would have worked fine.”

            That would be lying. Not allowed in Christianity. But, perfectly acceptable on a-theism. 🙂

            “With that said, whatever services the business CHOOSES to offer must be offered within the parameters of anti-discrimination laws.”

            And with respect to religious freedoms and other Constitutional guarantees. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            On the issue of the fall of Rome, we have to consider that what was in place there was Catholicism, more than actual Christianity, with all of the pagan influences allowed in. So, even there, they fail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That is a fascinating point. I thought that most of the pagan influences on Catholicism entered into the picture as a reaction to the Reformation, around the 16th century or so? But, there were some churches in the third century that adopted some strange practices, that’s for sure – kind of like the surrounding culture. Do you have a good source on that? Thanks, LadyGreenEyes!

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Various places online talk about it, though I couldn’t pin down any particular one as better than another. Disregard, as that one has errors

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Note, please, that source does make an error, in claiming Easter came from “Eostre”, who isn’t even listed as a pagan god for the area the one cleric claimed. Best bet, just search around and compare sources, verifying data as you go. That’s what I have done, which is why I don’t have a specific source to offer. The above comment, for example, I extensively researched, using some sites exclusively discussing the various pagan gods to show that one didn’t even exist. Takes time, for certain!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks so much, LadyGreenEyes! You know, Catholicism is an enigma to me. My wife is Catholic, but does not go for the pagan part of it. But, the Catholics that I know who are hard-core conservative Catholics DO go for the praying to saints and Mary intercession, and Mary was a perpetual Virgin, and all of these things that just seem totally made up when I investigate them in a scholarly sense.

            And do you know where I find these hard-core Catholics? On the sidewalk right in front of the abortion mill in our town, where I am blessed to stand side-by-side with them, under VERY harsh circumstances! They even conduct actual services (no Mass) right there! So, it is weird to me: there seems to be so much extraneous non-Biblical stuff in Catholicism (not in the main liturgy – that is all Nicene Creed, etc, good stuff), yet they are the bravest ones out there, and heavily outnumber, demographically, the Protestants in our southern red-state city! And the bravest of the brave are the ones who follow Catholic doctrine to a T!

            How can a faith that seems to have so many add-ons with poor Biblical support do such a great job on the Sanctity of Life and Marriage?!? I guess I will find out in Heaven. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            one reason is that there are people who truly do find faith, and they want to do the works. Another is that the organization pushes works as necessary for salvation, in many cases. That, I base on things I have heard, in person, from former Catholics i have known. One of those, I am sure, said she was saved as a Catholic, though fearful of losing that. Plus, God’s Word never returns to Hi empty, so many hearing, even in a place where there are some negative influences, can still hear and learn some truth. There are indeed some wonderful things done by Catholic churches. Some of the ministries are quite good.

            To be fair, no church is without flaw, though some are farther off track than others. Some good and bad in any.

            I just wish it was easier to discuss the issues, without so many taking it personally. I didn’t, when informed that a Baptist church someplace uses an all-seeing eye on or in their building, as do some Catholic churches. If I was in the area of that one, you can bet I’d let them know how wrong that was, too! If the SBC made a glaring error, I’d address it. Heck, had a pastor that got seriously vocal in a discussion, some years back, correcting some that were way off track.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “one reason is that there are people who truly do find faith, and they want to do the works. Another is that the organization pushes works as necessary for salvation, in many cases. ”

            So true! Good works should flow naturally from an authentic salvation, not the other way around, according to James. Works are part of our sanctification process and VERY important, but not for salvation. In fact, one thing I learned in the past couple of years (I have been a Christian for only 11 after 42 years as an a-theist, so I am trying to catch up!) is that, just as God works out our salvation by His Grace, so He too works out our sanctification. So, in neither case should we even take credit for our works. That was an eye-opener for me and something I forget sometimes – to my shame. But, it makes perfect sense, based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

            “To be fair, no church is without flaw, though some are farther off track than others. Some good and bad in any.”

            I am comfortable in ANY church – denom or non-denom – that approaches Scripture from a conservative theological (high view of God and the Bible, low view of man’s goodness) prism. I have never met anyone on the sidewalk who is pro-life who did not have that conservative theological bent, and I have only seen professing Christians on the pro-abortion side who are theologically liberal.

            One of the very few problems with some of the more conservative churches, but not all of them, is that they place a low value on apologetics and truth-seeking, wherever the truth may lie. (All truth is God’s Truth.) Their legitimate concern is that we will place philosophy above Scripture, but in taking the negative view, they can end up in a blind faith position, which is NOT how Jesus (who performed miracles to authenticate His Authority) and Paul (who used apologetics from the position of the unbeliever, Jew or Gentile) worked. We must be careful, yes, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 🙂

            “Heck, had a pastor that got seriously vocal in a discussion, some years back, correcting some that were way off track.”

            That is true Biblical love: to want what is best for the other person, so that they will not stray from the flock and get eaten by the wolves. Great talking with you, LadyGreenEyes – you are doing a super job of stepping out for the Lord with your posts and other ministries! God bless!

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Eleven years, but you are more serious about your faith than many who have had theirs for lot longer. Happens that way, sometimes! Especially, I believe, when coming from a position such as your previous one. Having seen both sides, personally, I suspect makes a person more “on fire” in such cases. You are doing a great job yourself, especially in demolishing the atheist arguments. I really enjoy those posts!

            I agree on that problem with some conservative churches. I have even seen some who would balk at anyone discussing various little doctrinal points. Tongues, for example. The church was one where a lot of embers had come in from other denominations, and someone brought up tongues. Before she and I could discuss for even a moment, this guy was practically tripping over himself trying to derail the discussion. It was bizarre. Of course, that same place had some evolutionists s older members, too, due to the local college influence, no doubt. That, they’d discuss, but not more firm doctrine.

            Oh, that pastor was a bear in a discussion! Wonderful, fantastic preacher, and a very good pastor, with plenty of discernment and a gentle spirit, but he’d really get riled up if Biblical truths were threatened. That time, he was sharing how a few in the SBC were actually questioning the virgin birth. That got shut down fast, no doubt in large part due to his vocal defense. Seriously, he is the best pastor I have even known. As you might guess, he didn’t last long. Some moles were also in that place.

            Really do love reading your posts, and seeing someone so determined to share the truth!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you so much for the compliments – you are SO awesome and encouraging!!!

            “but you are more serious about your faith than many who have had theirs for lot longer.”

            I have a lot of making up to do. 🙂 Seriously, I did not convert from a-theism to join a group of cowards. Which is why I am SO inspired by courageous women of God like you, LadyGreenEyes! Keep up the great work – the Church is counting on you and growing because of you!

            “That time, he was sharing how a few in the SBC were actually questioning the virgin birth.”

            Yes, that is a slam dunk, isn’t it? You know what I learned recently from my Catholic friends? The Immaculate Conception that they talk about is Mary’s birth, not Jesus’! I never knew this. I guess it is different from the virgin birth. But, Catholics believe that Mary was born sinless. I was flabbergasted when I heard that. They claimed that Jesus could not be sinless if Mary was not sinless. What about that?!? Is there anything to support that thought? They use the phrase “Hail, Mary, full of grace” to support it, as in “how could she be FULL of grace if she is not sinless?”

            Of course, they also believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin and did not have other children – half-brothers and sisters of Jesus – with Joseph. They believe that James and Jude, for instance, who wrote Books of the Bible, were cousins of Jesus, not half-brothers. I must say, with all kindness and love for my many Catholic friends, that I find this a torture of Scripture. Anyway, what do you think of that – am I being too harsh here in my belief that these things are not only not well-supported but contradicted by Scripture? Please forgive me if I am off-base.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I appreciate that. I never understood people that won’t stand up for what they believe. Either you believe it, or you don’t. If someone won’t stand up for something, I am not convinced they actually believe the thing. The church may be, but we’ll have to find another local one. Moving soon, and left the one we had attended, over a year ago. At this point, too close to moving to take the time.

            I have heard that, and it’s beyond bizarre. Recent,y, in my comments, I tried explaining to one Catholic poster that “blessed doesn’t mean without sin, and doesn’t impart some equality with deity. I pointed out all of those mentioned int h Sermon on the Mount as “blessed”, according to Jesus, and he literally ignored that entire section of my post. I pointed out that Mary herself called Jesus her Savior, and I was told that, sure, she needed a Savior, but not because she’d sinned! It’s seriously surreal. Youa ren’t wrong; the Scripture in such cases is very tortured. Of course, they will tell you that you cannot rely only on Scripture, and that you mist also accept *even when it contradicts) the traditions and tachings of “the Church”. In that case, they mean the Catholic church, and assume it’s the one about hich Jesus spoke. You and I, not being Catholics, aren’t really part of His Church, in their eyes.

            No, you aren’t too harsh at all! It’s terrible false teaching, and leaves them relying on people and things other than Jesus for salvation, and that could place them in danger of never learning the truth. I worry about them. That sort of attitude s more suited to a cult than to a real church, and it pains me to see people so mislead. We cannot show someone His love if we don’t warn them when they are in danger. As long as we remain caring, and approach the matter in that spirit, we will be alright. God can, and will, let us know when someone isn’t going to listen, and is discussing just to stir up trouble. You seem to have a decent amount of discernment. Trust it. As long as nothing is against God’s Word, you can trust that. You ever take a spiritual gifts test?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – thanks for the good comments to let me know I was not off track on this. It just seems to be too weird to me – some of the stuff that is believed in without Scriptural support. You know, I am not anti-Church History – I think that stuff is VERY important – just that it should not be placed above Scripture, that’s all. For instance, did you know that the early Church was 100% against abortion (and homosexual behavior obviously) from Day 1? It makes perfect sense, of course, we can prove using the Bible (and also medicine and logic) that abortion is immoral, but it was nice to know that. So, do you think that some of these Catholics really HAVE placed their full trust in Christ, but they just are unnecessarily adding works to their salvation – kind of like having an air bag after they have buckled up with a seat belt?

            “You ever take a spiritual gifts test?”

            The only test I have taken is a theological one. (Turned out evangelical fundamentalist holiness-Wesleyan, the old type, not the modern UMC.) Do you have a site for me to go to? I think right now my biggest spiritual gift is ticking people off for Jesus. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Definitely weird. In some areas, they have been right on track, and in others, so off it’s scary. Ah, but other places have similar issues. I am Baptist, but I have had some ridiculous arguments over the issue of alcohol. Some places, it’s like they can’t read.

            I must have that gift as well, lol! I don’t know any particular site, and the ones I took were at various churches, and one retreat. I would recommend just looking around for one you can either print, or take online. I am sure there are some free ones out there. Four times I took them, all four different tests, but the same results. Based on that, I’d say it’s likely one is as good as another. I did note that some don’t include certain gifts, such as tongues and prophecy. Something to consider. When I get a chance, I can look around myself, and see what I can locate.

          • DNelson

            “It is when the law is persecutorial”

            Since anti-discrimination laws apply to all business owners, regardless of religious belief or the lack thereof, they are not, by definition, persecution.

            “as it most certainly was under slavery”

            Which applied only to one group and thus does meet the criteria for persecution.

            “and Nazi Germany”

            Once again, we are talking about laws here in the US under our Constitution. Your continued reliance on references to Nazi Germany show the weakness of your arguments.

            “You have missed the other examples?!?”

            Yes, I have. Please point them out to me.

            “What’s the matter: don’t like being called a Nazi by one of your own?!?”

            He wasn’t calling me anything. I have taken no such actions. In addition, he is free to call me anything he cares to. His reference is completely without merit as holding people accountable to anti-discrimination laws is nothing at all like what the Nazi’s did.

            “it’s OK because so many people recognized your fascism and came to their aid?!?”

            My comment had nothing to do with whether or not anti-discrimination laws are “OK”. That would be a matter of personal opinion. I was simply pointing out that your statement that they face “financial ruin” because of the fines imposed was incorrect.

            “And you are actually naive enough to believe that because a sign is put up, these business owners will not face judicial litigation because some gay person was “offended?!?””

            That would depend. If the business is located in one of the few places where sexuality is a covered category, they would still be subject to litigation, as they would for turning down an order based upon religious belief or marital status.

            “Correlation does not mean causation.”

            Agreed. There is no correlation between the fall of the Roman empire and religious belief. The Roman Empire fell because it became to large to effectively defend against invaders.

            “Like? India, maybe.”

            Japan would be another example, as would Turkey.

            “China is looking much better with its rapid growth in Christianity.”

            LOL. A relationship of concurrence does not translate into a relationship of causality. Are you actually attempting to say that the reason for rise in the financial standing of China is due to an increasing number of Christians?

            “No, I did not.”

            You: “So, she did not refuse the event based on gender, but on its pornographic nature, under Christianity”

            You: “But, when it came to providing the floral arrangements for his “wedding,” she had to decline that because a gay “wedding” IS sinful under Christianity.”

            You: “It’s the “wedding,” dude! :-)”

            As you can clearly see, early in our discussion and again in your most recent post, your premise was the event. Therefore, your statement “No, I did not.” is a lie. You: “That would be lying. Not allowed in Christianity”. How do you reconcile your lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “And the request was NOT made to just sell them something.” “Just do what they always did: deliver and set up a cake at the wedding reception. Deliver and set up the floral arrangements for a wedding event.” “Deliver it and set it up at a sinful event. :-)”

            in both these cases, the order was turned down as soon as the owner learned the nature of the event. No request for delivery was ever made as neither request made it that far in the process. So, yes, it was merely a request to sell them something that was turned down. Did either of these owners say: “I’ll fulfill your request provided that there is no specific messaging I object to and I do not have to deliver it.”?

            “Just do what they always did: deliver and set up a cake at the wedding reception. Deliver and set up the floral arrangements for a wedding event. but you keep changing the reality of the situation to fulfill your need to hate.”

            What reality have I changed? Neither of the requests made it to the point of asking for delivery and set up. As I have stated several times, I harbor no hatred for these people not any malice toward them. I have stated that i am torn on the issue and that I understand their desire to not want to provide products for a same-gender marriage. Is that indicative of someone who “hates”?

            “This is the umpteenth time you have twisted reality to fit your sick little, very little, mind.”

            What reality have I twisted? Why do you feel the need to resort to insults? Is that something you were taught in Church? Is that the “Christian” thing to do? The reality is that neither of these businesses were asked to deliver and setup. That is something you have simply made up. If anyone is twisting reality in this discussion, it is you. Apparently it is you who has a need to hate.

            “And with respect to religious freedoms and other Constitutional guarantees. :-)”

            Agreed.

          • Guest

            Very TL:DR prone but I slogged through it.

            A Christian wouldn’t have refused the customer the advertised service or product because of their religion – either of ‘theirs’. A Christian wouldn’t be offering something to the public they couldn’t legally sell in the first place. If someone can’t sell something to the general public and respect their civil rights there are other business models where they can religiously discriminate as they choose. A Christian wouldn’t be operating as a public accommodation in the first place for things they must sell according to a religious mandate.

            A Christian would acknowledge the customer’s constitutional right to not share their religious beliefs and still be able to do business as the law requires. That the business owner’s beliefs don’t allow them to have a wedding celebrating their marriage to someone of the same sex has nothing to do with a customer who’s beliefs obviously do include the possibility of same sex weddings.

            No one is trying to buy a ‘same sex wedding cake’, they just want the wedding cake willingly advertised by the company. If any business gave me a lame excuse like that I would just say, “Fine, I’ll take a ‘straight wedding cake’ then.” Go look at the wedding cake gallery at the Sweet Cakes website. Only 3 of the cakes have anything on it that identifies the gender of the couple and one of those is a Halloween themed wedding cake with witches on it!

            And the final idea about secularism is wrong – it is just as ‘moral’ as any other belief system. The ‘Golden Rule’ is intuitively obvious not divine fiat.

            This business knew they couldn’t religiously discriminate against customers when making invitations of business to the general public, that has been against the law in Oregon since before the owners were born. They were found guilty of breaking the law and fined, and the fine is in keeping with previous fines that have been imposed on other businesses though I personally thought it was a bit high. But no problem, the owners have raised 3 times the money in crowd sourcing venues.

            I do prefer my state’s constitution that specifically says that freedom of religious conscious is not an excuse to act without regard of the rights of others because that is exactly what bakery owner’s did.

            That’s the issue with religious freedom, everyone has it – even the customer, and because of that religious discrimination is not a right. If the business can’t sell wedding cakes to the public legally then they shouldn’t be advertising them to the general public. Operate as a private club, a non-profit organization, both can religiously discriminate as they choose.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “A Christian wouldn’t” “A Christian wouldn’t” “A Christian wouldn’t”

            Oh, how I DO love it when a-theists lecture us on the proper behavior of Christians. 🙂

            “If someone can’t sell something to the general public and respect their civil rights” AND “but I slogged through it.”

            You obviously did NOT slog your way through it, nor did you familiarize yourself with the baker and florist cases one iota. You missed the following parts of the dialogue:

            1. Neither the baker nor the florist refused to sell cakes or flowers to ANY gay person. Quite the opposite: both routinely sold their products to gays, including the plaintiffs in both cases. The florist even set up a beautiful floral arrangement at the “offended” gay man’s birthday party. No lunch counters. No fire hoses. No church bombings.

            2. The only time the baker and florist balked was when the line was crossed to provide an onsite product celebrating that which is clearly sin in Christian theism.

            DNelson and I have taken care of these cases. The fact that an a-theist, such as yourself, does not mind given up the religious freedoms of Christians is NOT a sign of “tolerance” or “empathy.”

            Please come better prepared next time, and if you say you have read it, then actually DO read it – and comprehend it at that.

            “And the final idea about secularism is wrong – it is just as ‘moral’ as any other belief system.”

            Well, world history shows otherwise. Just because you assert something does not make it so. I provided evidence – you provided wishful thinking.

            “The ‘Golden Rule’ is intuitively obvious not divine fiat.”

            Prove it! Because your statement is certainly false if a Creator wrote the laws on our hearts (gave us a conscience), as Romans 2:15 shows. (Which would certainly explain its “intuitiveness.” :-))

            And, really, on a-theism, there are no grounds whatsoever for objective moral values or duties anyway, and the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism agree with me here (it also shows why the Golden Rule does not apply in your world – no cops in the animal kingdom, and we are just differently evolved animals on your view):

            “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).

            This is why the a-theist cannot objectively condemn slavery, Jew gassing, abortion (97% of a-theists are actually in favor of this human rights atrocity), or – GASP! – not providing a “wedding” cake or floral arrangement for a gay “wedding.” The young gay baker on the other story on this site has it right: the folks going after this baker and the florist are merely modern-day Nazis. God bless!

          • Guest

            You are so off the mark. I am a Christian, husband’s a pastor, just got back from 3 services today. Yes I do know how a Christian would act.

            1) And you can’t be this unaware – the legal requirement is full access to all accommodations and services regardless of their membership in a civil rights class. Not selling wedding services to a customer because of that is illegal just like saying you’d serve them a sandwich just not at the lunch counter. They can buy the cake regardless of their beliefs that include same sex marriage or their sexual orientation. And the baker admitted that he was refusing these customers because of those two qualities in his first sentence.

            2) If they can’t sell a product or service to someone regardless of their beliefs then they shouldn’t be offering to the general public. That they mistakenly think it a sin is irrelevant to the customer who has a right to buy an advertised service regardless of if anyone at the business likes their faith or not. If they could only sell to people of a certain belief they wouldn’t have offered it to the general public – with their right to religious freedom – in the first place.

            And you seem to miss is that the Golden Rule is about how people treat people, and here you quote just variances in natural selection. None of your quotes have anything to do with what you seem to be trying to respond to. Whether there is a divine origin of the philosophy or not, it still is the natural conclusion of assuming that you exist, and that other people than you exist, and that you have rights so all these others have the same rights. Simple.

            And you have it backwards at the end – religious discrimination is what the Nazis did to the Jews, these businesses choosing to religiously discriminate against customers is what’s like the Nazis.

            But as we know from evangelical polling groups the majority of people calling themselves Christian in the US have more in common with the Pharisees and I see it here every day.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am a Christian, husband’s a pastor”

            I doubt it. (There is no reason not to lie under a-theism, and you sound a LOT like an a-theist who is afraid to come out because you know I will defeat your arguments.) But, even if true, I am VERY unimpressed. Can’t tell you how many pastors and their wives have shunned me when the subject of abortion came up, because they lacked the courage to even speak out on the worst holocaust in the history of humanity. Far, far worse than the “Church” in Nazi Germany, which at least had life-threatening reasons to not speak out against Jew gassing.

            “Yes I do know how a Christian would act.”

            No, you know how a liberal Christian who places man’s law above God’s Law when the two conflict, would act. Or how an a-theist pretending to play the role of a Christian would act. Indistinguishable. 🙂

            “fullaccess to all accommodations and services regardless of their membership in a civil rights class.”

            Not when it conflicts with sincere and deeply held religious freedoms. You don’t get to re-write the Constitution to satisfy your whiny feelings, Dearest “Wife-of-a-Pastor.” 🙂

            “They can buy the cake regardless of their beliefs that include same sex marriage or their sexual orientation.”

            No one is refusing the selling of cakes or flowers. The baker and the florist sold cakes and flowers to gays routinely. The florist even set up the arrangements at the gay man’s birthday party. But, at some point, the line of religious freedom is crossed. Don’t care if you like it or not, but if you were really a Christian, you would at least understand it. The fact that you don’t understand it … 🙂

            “If they can’t sell a product or service to someone regardless of their beliefs then they shouldn’t be offering to the general public.”

            Not true! Business owners do not abandon their religious freedom rights by owning a business. Now, I KNOW you are an a-theist, or a “pastor’s wife” in the Episcopal, UMC, UCC, or some other liberal church, which is all the same – arguably worse (see Matthew 7:21).

            “they wouldn’t have offered it to the general public – with their right to religious freedom – in the first place.”

            That goes to show you are an a-theist. My God, you don’t even know what religious freedom is! You think if you just throw the phrase in there and the phrase has no objective meaning (which it doesn’t under a-theism), then you have satisfied the requirement. 🙂 Hey, I was an a-theist for 42 years. Nice try at pretending. 🙂 You can give up the charade – I can spot an a-theist from a mile away, spent a lot of years with them, and a lot of years debating them. Come on out, Paul, or StereoMan, or whoever you are. 🙂

            Here is a proof for the existence of God for you to chew on:

            Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

            Premise 1 supported by the fact that “out of nothing, nothing
            comes,” otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing, and experience confirms this – no purple elephants popping randomly into our living room. (And, we know that every one of the 7 billion people on this planet came into
            existence causally.) Causality forms the foundation of scientific inquiry. You are not going to throw science away, are you?

            Premise 2 supported by Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem – not to mention that an actual infinite of past events cannot occur and a series formed successively cannot be infinite.

            Therefore, God exists. See what you can do with that!

            “Whether there is a divine origin of the philosophy or not”

            OK, OK, I already out-ed you. Give up the charade! You have given it away many times already. 🙂

            “And you have it backwards at the end – religious discrimination is what the Nazis did to the Jews, these businesses choosing to religiously discriminate against customers is what’s like the Nazis.”

            Haha – you just admitted that gaydom is a religion! I love it! And, I agree it IS a religion. 🙂 You are the gift that keeps on giving! No, it is the folks who hold a gun to the Christians heads and say “Bake me a cake or else!” who are the fascists. And the ones who just HAVE to have those crosses taken down:

            “Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests… the Nazi regime intended to eventually destroy Christianity in Germany…As Bormann…said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’… 13. The National Church demands immediate
            cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in
            Germany…18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints. 19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf…the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” The Rise and Fall of the
            Third Reich, p. 240.

            Thus far, we have:

            1. Crosses and crucifixes taken down and replaced by Swastika. (Just what modern-day organization is demanding that crosses come down? Oh yes, the Freedom From Thought group. 🙂 (OK, FFRF.))

            2. “Irreconcilability of Nazism and Christianity.” (or Darwinism and Christianity. :-))

            3. Termination of Bible publishing. (To be fair, a-theists haven’t pulled this off yet. But, they do like making fun of it, as opposed to the Quran. :-))

            4. Replacement of the Bible with Mein Kampf. (The latter is a
            remarkably similar tome to “On the Origin of the Species.”)

            5. Arrest of pastors and priests. (That is already happening, in
            a small way, in the West. Guess who is pushing it?)

            6. Hitler’s “Jesus” was a fighter and not a sufferer.

            7. Hitler’s “Christ” died to eradicate the Jewish poison.

            8. Defending against the Jew is Hitler’s “Jesus'” highest calling.

            Well, that’s it. Pretty much looks like the Nicene Creed to me!
            🙂 I would say that Joseph Stalin and the president of American A-theists were more “Christian” than Hitler. 🙂

            300 examples of homofascism:

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

            And check out this fb page on the Gaystapo – it is important to keep up with your friends in low places:

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

            I know, I know, “There is NO Gaystapo, and everyone stop asking so many questions!” 🙂

          • Guest

            so blasphemy against the Spirit is your opening salvo?

            From your rambling it’s clear you don’t have a clue about Christianity, U.S. Law or even basic philosophy.

            You are trying to prove faith which means you’re still more of an atheist than you’d like to pretend.

            But to the actual subject it is the first amendment that protects the customers in this case. They have a constitutional right to not share anyone’s at the business beliefs and it was the business that invited them by advertising to a public with this right. Far too late to whip out a religious test the customer must pass – their right to religious freedom shields them from such odious and invidious actions. SCOTUS already ruled on this 9-0, there couldn’t even be a law that permitted this kind of religious discrimination.

            Don’t make an invitation you won’t legally follow through on. Either the business when it invites the public is inviting people of all beliefs to buy wedding cakes from them or it doesn’t offer them for sale to the public at all.

            Pick one.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “so blasphemy against the Spirit is your opening salvo?”

            Ye have not the Spirit within ye, because by your fruits, we know you. 🙂 The jig is up and you were out-ed when you placed man’s law above God’s law and proved you have no knowledge of, nor respect for, religious freedom. You are not even a good a-theist – just a scared one who will not engage on the proofs for God’s existence. Nor, do you understand why your secularism is not groundable without God.

            “You are trying to prove faith which means you’re still more of an atheist than you’d like to pretend.”

            What’s the matter? Nothing upstairs to engage with a good proof?!? 🙂

            If you WERE a “Christian,” you would be trying to justify liberal theology which means you are a wolf amongst sheep. You will pay mightily for it – you have been warned. If you think you can spend your life supporting abortion and gay marriage, and then justify it before God by saying “See? I was married to a pastor and I went to 3 services yesterday and sang some neato 7-11 worship songs,” prepare to hear the following words:

            21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many[a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ –Matthew 7:21-23

            Not sure who is going to be punished worse in Hell: the “Christian” who behaves like the a-theist or the a-theist (that would be YOU) who pretends to be a Christian.

            “their right to religious freedom shields them from such odious and invidious actions”

            OMG – you just admitted that gaydom was a religion – thank you very much!!! Is this Paul, or StereoMan, or Jim H? 🙂

            “SCOTUS already ruled on this 9-0”

            SCOTUS also ruled that murdering a human being in the womb was legal. At one time, slavery was legal. Weird how you set aside God for your precious SCOTUS, huh?!? 🙂

            Oh, BTW, Paul, your Gaystapo activities are backfiring on you – the polling is going away from you fascists:

            http://townhall .com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/21/ap-poll-gay-marriage-religious-liberty-n2027985?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=

            No reply on Kalam. Got it.

            No reply on the proof that the Gaystapo are the fascists. Got it.

            No reply on the 300 examples of homofascism. Got it.

          • Guest

            Lets see, you double down on blaspheming the Spirit, multiple times, and toss out 8 or so red herrings rather than actually discuss the topic the note is about?

            For the things that are on topic:

            There is no Scripture that prevents selling a wedding cake to someone invited to buy a wedding cake. And any Christian that felt they couldn’t wouldn’t be using a business model that offered them for sale to to these people to begin with.

            Thinking God blesses marriages regardless of the ‘male or female’ of the couple is part of many beliefs. Refusing to sell to someone having and acting on these beliefs is religious discrimination.

            And using Nazi imagery to defend religious discrimination is both silly and sad. Again, -fascism and -stapo is saying the law would allow religious discrimination as you want, not saying that it isn’t allowed. Your broken links are to propaganda sites, we both know that you could get similar examples of bad behavior from these forums and others by people calling themselves Christian. One sided examples of individuals behaving both badly and not isn’t proof of any political ideology.

            I suspect that all your sarcastic smilies are a symptom of your underlying issues. May God bless you and you accept the same undeserved gift of Grace that we all have been offered regardless of our trespasses against Him.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Lets see, you double down on blaspheming the Spirit”

            It is impossible to blaspheme that which is not present in you. You have proven your inability to discern. Even if you WERE a pastor’s wife, our country is filled with apostate pastors, wives, priests, even a rare group of abortion-loving nuns. The fact that you discern like an a-theist is your fruit, regardless of what you profess. You should know that being a pastor’s wife will not save you, no matter how many services you attend, whether you serve in a choir or not, etc. Only Jesus saves. And He is not a fan of gay “marriage” and abortion. You might wish to follow Him instead of the world – I pray you will.

            “There is no Scripture that prevents selling a wedding cake to someone invited to buy a wedding cake.”

            Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is also no Scripture that condemns Jew gassing. Think we can make a right judgment on that one – if we truly have the Spirit within us?!? (I actually had a professing Christian once tell me that we could NOT judge what the Nazis did to the Jews. You would like her. :-))

            Furthermore, no one refused to sell a cake to anyone. The refusal was to affirm the sinful act of a gay “wedding” by baking, decorating, delivering, and setting up the cake – that is what happens when someone is asked to be the baker for a wedding. Please get your facts correct. Lying is un-Christian, but perfectly acceptable on a-theism.

            “And any Christian that felt they couldn’t wouldn’t be using a business model that offered them for sale to to these people to begin with.”

            Religious freedom rights are not refuted by business models.

            “Thinking God blesses marriages regardless of the ‘male or female’ of the couple is part of many beliefs.”

            But, not the Christian one. (Or the Islamic one.) I thought you were a “pastor’s wife?!?” 🙂

            “Refusing to sell to someone having and acting on these beliefs is religious discrimination.”

            There was no refusal to sell items by either the baker or the florist. Both regularly sold cakes and flowers to gay customers. The line was crossed when the act became one of affirmation and participation in what is clearly sin (on Christian theism). Also, gaydom is not a religion – you have missed that point several times. I thought being gay was natural? How could what is natural be a religion?!? 🙂

            “And using Nazi imagery to defend religious discrimination is both silly and sad.”

            I am using Nazi imagery to point out the fascism of the radical gay activists, and I am not alone. Even gays are saying that those who are using the state to force Christians to do un-Christian-like things are Nazis: http://christiannews .net/2015/07/17/you-are-being-a-nazi-homosexual-baker-blasts-those-bullying-christians-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes/

            Seems like you are playing for the wrong “team?”

            “Your broken links are to propaganda sites”

            Really? How so, Paul? I mean, StereoMan? 🙂

            “One sided examples”

            I gave you 300. And the examples are growing weekly. How much evidence would you need in order to be more open-minded on this? Do facts drive your search for truth or feelings? Do you believe that the Apollo Lunar Landings actually happened or not? 🙂

            “I suspect that all your sarcastic smilies are a symptom of your underlying issues.”

            I am just a joyful person – what can I say? I love smiley’s! 🙂

            I notice that nowhere in your post did you even mention “religious freedom,” which means you have no understanding whatsoever of that concept.

            “May God bless you and you accept the same undeserved gift of Grace that we all have been offered regardless of our trespasses against Him.”

            May God bless you, and may you come to know the true Jesus and the exorbitant Price with which you were bought and paid for – which is not a cheap Grace, as you think. May you come to know that God’s Law is higher than man’s law, and may you be filled by the Holy Spirit and no longer rely on your position or works or feelings to save you. I pray this in the Name of Jesus. Amen.

          • Guest

            ::shaking head::
            The one thing Christuans know is you cannot decide for another if they are filled with the Spirit. It is obvious you show none of its observable gifts, but still saying you are devoid is the unforgivable sin, that’s why Christians don’t do that.

            ‘Religious freedom’ is what the business owner is disrespecting with the customer’s. All American Christians know that all people have a constitutional right to NOT share share their beliefs, they don’t make offers to the general public they will only fulfill for people of similar beliefs.

            But it’s obvious you don’t understand religious freedom, it most certainly doesn’t mean someone can use that as an excuse to ignore the religious freedom of others.

            Either the business sells wedding services to people of all beliefs or they don’t sell them to the public at all.

            There is no right to religious discrimination, the constitutional right to religious freedom protects others from it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            smh

            “The one thing Christuans know is you cannot decide for another if they are filled with the Spirit.”

            Haha – spoken like a true a-theist! Paul, at least learn how to spell “Christian” – you are showing your a-theism today. 🙂

            “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16–20)

            “My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.” (James 3:12)

            Maybe you could double-check this in your “pastor’s” Bible? Does he own one – not counting the Queen James Version, of course?

            “It is obvious you show none of its observable gifts, but still saying you are devoid is the unforgivable sin, that’s why Christians don’t do that.”

            You do not even know what the unforgivable sin it – and you are married to a “pastor?!?” The only unforgivable sin is the continual and unrepentant rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Please take notice of this, because eternity is a LONG time. (And, no, it does not count if you place your trust in abortion-“jesus” or gay-“jesus.”)

            “‘Religious freedom’ is what the business owner is disrespecting with the customer’s.”

            Gaydom is NOT a religion. Except to you and your hubby / wife “pastor.” Please stop worshiping what God calls sin.

            “All American Christians know that all people have a constitutional right to NOT share share their beliefs”

            That is NOT religious freedom. So not “all” Christians know this. 🙂

            “But it’s obvious you don’t understand religious freedom, it most certainly doesn’t mean someone can use that as an excuse to ignore the religious freedom of others.”

            Nobody is using it as an excuse – just exercising the right. I thought you liberals were for choice?!? Oh, yeah, only when it comes to dismembering babies in the womb. Not a great week for your “church,” is it, what with your pals at PP having a PR problem?!? You know: there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity, so if any members of your “church” are working for an abortion mill, you may wish to share them the recent story of a 94 year old concentration camp guard who just got sent to prison.

            “Either the business sells wedding services to people of all beliefs or they don’t sell them to the public at all.”

            Not when a “wedding” is not a wedding, or when it is pornographic, as in the case of a gay “wedding.” Get your hubby’s Bible out – it’s on the bottom shelf at home, collecting dust.

            “There is no right to religious discrimination, the constitutional right to religious freedom protects others from it.”

            There is no “right” to do a wrong. 🙂

            Great hearing from you, Paul / StereoMan!

          • Guest

            That you don’t know what the Scriprure says what is unforgivable sin is part of what suggests you are just recreational trolling.

            Ignoring all the obvious red herrings and strawman the issue is an American and a Christian recognizes that everyone has a God-given right to NOT be Christian. And we Americans have acknowledged that in our Constitution.

            You have totally failed in justifying religious discrimination. As Paul and the American founding fathers have identified is Christians have no concern about the sins of those of this of this world, they are between them and God.

            Again either respect the constitutional right of everyone to not share your beliefs, including your customers, or don’t offer them things you won’t sell them in the first place.

            That is the issue you obviously and continually avoid.

            The more you talk the more you lose. Proverbs 17:20 comes to mind.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Paul, it was a nice try, but an a-theist pretending to be a Christian is laughable.

            “Christians have no concern about the sins of those of this of this world, they are between them and God.”

            This is one of your worst attempts! I mean truly pathetic.

            “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” — Romans 6:1-2

            “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” — Romans 12:2

            “and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” — Ephesians 4:24

            “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.” — 1 Peter 1:14

            “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.” — 1 John 2:15

            “Again either respect the constitutional right of everyone to not share your beliefs”

            I do, Paul. I just expect you gays to respect the religious freedom rights of Christians, even though religious freedom means nothing under your a-theism. Stop supporting the Gaystapo, Paul!

            “That is the issue you obviously and continually avoid.”

            Nope. Addressed in full. You just don’t like the fact that at some point, you a-theists are asking Christians to cross the line and affirm and participate in what is clearly sin. That’s because, on a-theism, there is no sin – no grounds for objective moral values and duties, and your “pope” and “cardinal” 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).

            Here is an secular ontological argument for your future home, Paul:

            1. Every natural innate human desire has a corresponding
            satisfying object in reality. (e.g., thirst has the object of water,
            hunger has the object of food, etc)

            2. All humans possess a natural innate desire for objective moral justice to be satisfied.

            3. Therefore, objective moral justice exists.

            4. In some cases, objective moral justice is not satisfied in this lifetime. (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, unrepentant abortion “doctors,” abortuary deathscorts, etc)

            5. Therefore, objective moral justice is achieved in an afterlife.

            6. Therefore, Hell exists.

          • Guest

            A host of strawmen – you must realize on some level that the reason you can’t defend the topic at hand is because you have no defense for it. The underlying issues of bi-polar and autism are irrelevant, they are between the person and God, but still that you can only deflect and not address the issue at hand has to be consciously aware to you on some level.

            Let’s see if we can get you to focus:

            Explain to me how someone like these business owners can have a right to religious discrimination when they are marketing to a population that has an absolute right to religious freedom. It should be simple if it is possible. Not some TL:DR response but a few sentences that explains it.

            If you are serious about discussing the issue you will respond to the single issue in this email. If it is just puffed up self-righteousness then please, don’t bother responding at all.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “A host of strawmen”

            How so, Paul?

            No reply to sin recognition. Got it.

            No reply to the point about religious freedom. Got it.

            No reply to the point about simple object sales versus affirming and participating in sin. Got it.

            No reply to the fact that objective moral values and duties do not exist on a-theism. Got it.

            No reply to the ontological proof for the existence of Hell based on objective justice. Got it.

            If you are serious about discussing the issues, you will respond to all of these issues. If it is just puffed up self-righteousness then please, don’t bother responding at all.

            “Explain to me how someone like these business owners can have a right to religious discrimination when they are marketing to a population that has an absolute right to religious freedom.”

            A. They are NOT engaging in religious discrimination.
            B. Gaydom is NOT a religion.

            Simple enough, even for an a-theist?

          • Guest

            Yes, no reply to the red herrings and strawmen.

            And having a belief that allows marriages and weddings for the couple regardless of their sexes is very much a part of religious freedom.

            Try again.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      May the Lord come sooooooon!

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Oh, count on that! Feels very soon!!

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          I really think it will be sometime soon. But not soon enough.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Well, His timing is perfect. So, maybe not what we feel would be soon enough, but all according to His will, so we have to trust that. Isn’t easy some days, I know!

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            In His timing more people will have time to choose.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Yes! I would be far less patient that He is.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Me too.

  • All In

    It wasn’t that long ago when gay activists claimed they were bullied and needed to be protected. This story is an example of where the victim has now become the bully.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Sorry, I don’t remember fire hoses on gays or gays being refused service at a lunch counter. This couple served gays all the time – they just did not want to participate in their “wedding.”

      • Guest

        No just involuntarily committed and charged with a crime for merely being gay.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          What crime was that and when did you commit it?

          • Guest

            Being gay. Surely you know that people could be arrested for merely having been served an alcoholic beverage? that they could be involuntarily committed to a mental institution? That they could be sent to jail doing a ‘behavior’ that straight people do every day?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            When were YOU arrested for being gay?

          • Guest

            When has someone been arrested for being black, or Jewish, or Canadian? The note I was responding to was about the past, I responded about similar things in the past. If its all about the now then please make sure to tell them that too, ok?

            Oops, I see that was you. If you can allude to past indignities why are you challenging my doing the same?

            Oh and on even more reflection I can say ‘1982’ while in the U.S. Army.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, the only ones being arrested, or threatened with arrest, these days seem to be the “evil” Christians. 🙂

          • Guest

            As long as it’s not the good ones it’s all good.

  • djm

    This is a Supreme Court case waiting to happen. And honestly, I’m getting a little tired of people thinking they can tell others which deeply held beliefs are acceptable and which ones aren’t. Beliefs can’t be legislated, regardless of what’s been going on in this country lately. There. Now I’m going to sit back and see how many loving, enlightened, open-minded readers call me a bigot. As a nation we’ve forgotten that tolerance is not a one-way street.

    • SFBruce

      It’s not a question of which beliefs are acceptable and which aren’t; you’re perfectly free to believe whatever your conscience dictates regarding sexual orientation and marriage, but if you own a public accommodation in Oregon, you can’t turn away gay people without legal problems.

      • All In

        They weren’t turned away. The bakers didn’t want to participate in a sinful activity. There’s a difference.

        It’s time for the legal system to be severely challenged so that people can exercise their 1st amendment rights.

      • djm

        In the recent SCOTUS arguments it was pointed out that rabbis routinely refuse to perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews, regardless of laws against religious discrimination. I would think this might be viewed as a similar situation: a state law cannot trump a constitutional right.

        • SFBruce

          You’re right that ministers and rabbis are perfectly free to teach their conscience regarding marriage, and only to officiate at those that fulfill whatever theological demands that minister or faith tradition holds. But businesses are entirely different. If you own a public accommodation, you can’t deny service to certain categories of people, and in Oregon, sexual orientation is one of those categories.

          • djm

            Let’s remember that the courts have ruled that small businesses can act as individuals in matters of conscience and deeply held beliefs. Somehow I just don’t think people would be nearly so quick to condemn these bakers if they had refused to write a racist or sexist slur on a cake. In that case, people would have applauded them.

        • Lark62

          This is a business. A minister does not have to perform a ceremony. But we are talking about bakers with a for profit business, not ministers.

          • All In

            We are talking about vindictive gays. The bakers just happen to be their victims.

          • djm

            My point about the clergy is that ministers officiating at marriages are in fact acting as agents of the state, using “the authority vested” in them. Yet they can not be forced to perform a ceremony. Why is that not a violation of a state law?

          • Lark62

            That is an interesting point. The current approach (that needs to be fixed in a couple states) is for the state to delegate to a wide variety of officiants and let the couple choose. (It needs fixing because of an exclusion of non religious officiants, but that fix won’t impact religious one.)

            If the unlikeky event that “by the authority vested in me” is found to mean individual minister must perform ceremonies, there are numerous possible solutions that do not involve ministers performing ceremonies against their will. The easiest is to get rid of that phrase.

            The first amendment protects churches from government interference. Those who respect the 1st amendment do not want to see it weakened.

    • DNelson

      “I’m getting a little tired of people thinking they can tell others which deeply held beliefs are acceptable and which ones aren’t.”

      And therein lies the rub. Since we certainly don’t want to get involved in determining what is, and what is not, a reasonable sincerely held religious belief, if we allow religious belief to be a basis for discrimination, we basically gut all anti-discrimination laws, including those that protect against discrimination based upon religious belief. Is that what you would prefer? That the Civil Rights Act and all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation be repealed?

      • djm

        I think the U.S. has a unique history and a unique promise to its citizens when it comes to civil rights, so of course we would not want to repeal anti-discrimination laws. However, at the heart of laws that curtail constitutionally guaranteed liberities is the state’s compelling interest; is the interest of the state enough to deprive people of their rights, or is there a least restrictive alternative? For example, in the Hobby Lobby case, it was never a question of whether or not birth control was going to be provided, but rather who was going to pay for it. The cost of an alternative funding for the birth control was far less burdensome than the fines Hobby Lobby would have to bear for exercising its religious liberty. To my mind, this is case is similar; the couple was never going to be deprived of the service they wanted, it was just a question of who would provide it.

        • DNelson

          “I think the U.S. has a unique history and a unique promise to its citizens when it comes to civil rights”

          Agreed.

          “To my mind, this is case is similar”

          I disagree. In the HL case, the company was being asked to use its money to pay for something it didn’t want to pay for. In the baker case, it was about provided a product that was going to used for something the baker did not agree with. To provide a similar example, imagine if a couple went into HL and asked for assistance in picking out artificial flowers to cover an archway. The employee asks them what the arch way is for. The couple (same gender) says it’s for their outdoor wedding. The employee refuses to sell them the flowers, citing that the owners believe that same-gender marriage is a sin. That would be a similar situation.

          Based on the HL ruling, it would reasonable for a business owner who is a Jehovah’s Witness to request exemption of federal wage laws requiring that they pay overtime pay on federal holidays as that would be an endorsement of holidays, which is against their religious beliefs.

          “it was just a question of who would provide it.”

          Providing something at company expense (contraceptive coverage) and receiving income from a paying customer are not the same thing.

  • Sandra

    Don’t the bakers have rights too, can’t they choose what to part take in based on their religion as well? that was one of the areas outlined by the state, it goes both ways. This is so sad.

    • DNelson

      “Don’t the bakers have rights too, can’t they choose what to part take in based on their religion as well?”

      Yes, and yes, provided they do so within the confines of the law.

  • Mr. Avatar

    We all know Christian businesses are targeted by gays – it’s all about making Christians comply and they know they won’t. It is a choice between Gods commandments and mans laws, which will be changed in time. As it stands now they are not guilty under Federal law because of the 1st amendment. States law ignores the 1st amendment, so this should go to the Supreme court, just as other States have to now recognize gay marriage – states will have to respect their religious convictions. The hate crime here is the lesbian couple lying and the court going along with it and they are both motivated by hate.

  • FoJC_Forever

    This case was not about denying service to female homosexuals. This case was about forcing people participate in a sinful ceremony which mocks the Word and Will of God.

    • StereoMan

      No one’s mocking God. They just want to get married.

  • jeb

    Gays are not friends, they are wolves waiting for a chance to attack. Whole thing is ridiculous, they served the gays, they did not discriminate.
    But freedom of religion should be allowed according to your moral compass.
    Go to a Muslim bakery and ask for a wedding cake, they will say no, and no one will complain because they’d get their butt kicked. Sodom and Gomorrah, they ruined it once and they are right back trying to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
    Why can’t they live and let live? These activists are evil, think I’ll go to a gay baker and ask for a wedding cake for the straights with Biblical passages.

  • Coach

    We need to fight this on our knees. This couple needs support and those women need the gospel, satan has a stronghold on their lives, obviously seen by the complaints in their law suit.

    2 Corinthians 10:4 Our weapons are not of this world, on the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

    2 Timothy 2:24-25 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth.

  • New Centurion

    If it didn’t cause so much devastation to the poor bakers; the claims made by these troglodytes would be laughable. Seriously, “distrust of men,” well they are lesbians, that sort comes with the territory. “Excessive sleep,” okay they’re lazy lesbians. “Loss of appetite,” AND “weight gain” how does that even work? fat and lazy lesbians I suppose. “Loss of pride,” hellooo they have a parade now! “Resumption of smoking habit,” I’d say they’re smoking something. “Mental rape,” I got nothing. “Acute loss of confidence”,” “doubt,” “distrust of former friends,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “migraine headaches,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” and “worry.” Ya ya I get it, so get in line lesbos, the human race in general elicits all those feelings in me…so who do I sue?

  • Tracy Wrigley

    It’s an abomination to shed innocent blood but Christians love them some Support Our Troops. They never bemoan that, they actually send their sons and daughters off to murder the children of others. And take great pride in the fact.

  • All In

    Why didn’t the gay women respect the bakers’ beliefs and find a cake elsewhere? Were they born to be vindictive? Maybe they have an orientation for vindictiveness? Maybe we should pass another law and legalize gay vindictiveness?

    • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

      She did. It’s the state that’s continuing to push these charges, not the couple.

      • All In

        Obviously, she didn’t. The state wouldn’t have known anything had they not wanted to make an issue. Were they born to be vindictive?

        • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

          Okay, let me reword that. She went to the courts and then found another baker after the courts took control of the issue.

          • All In

            Why did she go to the courts? Why not respect the beliefs of the bakers and just find another baker?

            Were they born to be vindictive?

          • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

            Because the baker was guilty of illegal discrimination under state law. It’s not about the religion – I bet they’d have done the same no matter what religion (or lack thereof) she claimed was her excuse for not doing it. Frankly, if you were in the couple’s position and had just found out that this “friend” (which the baker claims she was) had just attempted to use her “religion” to justify refusing to bake a cake, don’t you think you’d probably feel like you’d just been stabbed in the back, and want to bring her to justice for doing so? I know I would.

            And, were they born to be vindictive, you ask? I think it’s the baker who was born to be vindictive, not them.

          • StereoMan

            Wow. That was perfectly said. Thank you.

    • Guest

      Why didn’t the bakery owner respect the beliefs of the customer they willingly invited to do business with them?

  • Lark62

    Why didn’t the store honor the command to rejoice with those who rejoice?

    Or maybe render unto caesar and obey secular authorities?

    • All In

      What command? Where does the Bible say to celebrate sin?

      • StereoMan

        No sin involved.

  • Louise Grant

    these lazy lesb want some free money

  • Michelle Harris

    They are not being hateful they are standing strong to their conviction and as christians we should be able to follow what we know to be right. This is a sad day, I am sorry but I do not think this ruling is right.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “criminal”

    That’s actually what they said about Jews in 1930’s Germany and blacks who ran away from the plantations in the 1800’s. You are in “excellent” company.

    “Oh and the ruling made it sound like this was a reasonable amount”

    Yes! Even though, in your heart, you KNOW this is excessive, you are going along with the Nanny State, merely because they “ruled” that way. I must say, you would have made a fine Nazi: “Just following orders.” Or, “I’m sorry, n-boy, but I HAVE to return you to your master, because it is the rule of law!” 🙂

    • Guest

      Its exactly what the said about the Nazi’s too for what they did to the Jews. Seriously, you think you can make any point at all by trying to equate religious discrimination by a business as a virtue?

      I don’t know about Oregon but in Washington it has been illegal for a business to religiously discriminate in a public offer since 1949, but I bet it is something similar.

      A bit late in the game to suddenly try and establish a right to religious discrimination.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        “trying to equate religious discrimination by a business as a virtue?”

        They never discriminated against anyone, They chose to not participate in sin, by participating in a gay “wedding.” They had served these customers before and others. Why can you not see the difference? Just because the law says something does not make it “right,” as I showed you in the examples I provided.

        I know why you don’t see it: under a-theism, anything goes – there are no grounds for objective moral values or duties. So, man’s law is all you have, which is why you most certainly would have supported slavery and Jews gassing when they were legal.

        “A bit late in the game to suddenly try and establish a right to religious discrimination.”

        Religious freedom – something you know, nor care nothing about. No fire hoses, no lunch counters involved.

        • Guest

          They were never asked to participate in the wedding, and the business wouldn’t have be offering wedding cakes to the public if that were an issue anyway.

          This is america, everyone has a God given right to sin, and the business owners knew that before they made the offer to the public.

          • Lisa K Jordan

            A bakery must deliver the cake to the site of the wedding, and many offer cake cutting services, which means they have to be there. No excuse, just an explanation of the objection.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Decorating the cake with objectional material, delivering the cake to the site, etc are all participatory.

          • Guest

            What objectionable material? What century are you living in?
            And a wedding isn’t a religious ceremony, the marriage is and vendors have no part of the ceremony.

            And again if the business owner can’t even be at a secular wedding then they shouldn’t be offering wedding services to the public anyway.

            Again, there is no right to after the invite religious discrimination, the customer’s right to religious freedom protects them from such odious and invidious acts.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “And a wedding isn’t a religious ceremony, the marriage is and vendors have no part of the ceremony.”

            I am sorry that you do not understand what “participating” is. But, religious freedom is NOT the same as freedom to worship. Religious freedom is granted to individuals 24 / 7 – or used to be anyway.

            “the customer’s right to religious freedom protects them from such odious and invidious acts.”

            Odious and invidious, in an objective sense, do not exist under a-theism – quit stealing from God, and take it up with your betters:

            “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).

          • Guest

            Ok I remove all the parts that are irrelevant to the customer (who has a constitutional right to not share any belief of the business owner or anyone who works there) and all that’s left is the contention over participation.

            The SCOTUS just ruled on that in the Greece NY county meeting prayer. The atheist said that forcing them to lose. To a prayer was ‘forced participation’ too but they said NO.

            Merely observing someone else conducting a religious ritual is NOT being forced to participate.

            So as far as the rite of marriage if you aren’t reading the vows, saying them or acting as a witness you aren’t participating.

            If you think you are why are you offering wedding services to the public – with their right to not share your beliefs – in the first place?

          • Tina Cartee

            If the business owners felt a conviction in their heart about making this cake then they had ever right to refuse to make the cake. I would much rather break mans law and pay the consequences than to break Gods law and have to suffer those consequences anyday. And as far as why the business owners offered wedding services if they had beliefs as they did…well…gay marriage was just legalized recently, Im sure their business was probably established when gay marriage wasnt an issue.

          • Guest

            No they have a right to not offer anything for sale they their beliefs won’t let them legally sell. If they can’t sell wedding cakes to people of all faiths then no one is going to force a them to sell wedding cakes.

            BUT if they do offer the sale of wedding cakes they can’t religiously discriminate against customers.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, you make outstanding points and excellent legal ones too. I like the comparison you are making in the Greece, NY case. The only thing I am really saying here is that I strongly disagree, with the morality of the law in the cases of these bakers and florists, etc, being fined inordinate amounts for a legitimate and deeply held religious conviction. Even if SCOTUS says that what they are not doing is participatory, these Christians most certainly believe that it has crossed the line, and I would confirm that belief from my understanding of Christianity. There have been many SCOTUS rulings that have been immoral, and, under the Christian view, they, SCOTUS, are not the final Judge. (Slavery and Jew gassing were once quite legal, and abortion still is, as examples of legal, but not moral, under the Christian view.) Now, if there is no God, then anything goes, as Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse allude to above.

            So, you are on the legal question, and quite correct, but I am on the moral question. This business served homosexuals, including these lesbians, all the time – no straights-only lunch counters, no fire hoses, no police dogs. Yet, the state could not “tolerate” them when they refused to cross the line into what they legitimately believe is participating in sin. And in both this case and the Washington state florist, there is an attempt not to fine but to eliminate, in a quite fascist manner, their ability to conduct their religious beliefs 24 / 7, which they have a right to do under the 1st Amendment.

            The next reply is usually that we have to stick by the law as it is, but I do notice that gay “marriage” advocates were not up to that philosophy prior to last week. So, all I am saying is that “tolerance” appears to be a one-way street. That is fine, and I am quite prepared to accept my lumps, but anyone who believes that radical gay rights advocates are tolerant, in any sense of the word, should seek professional counseling. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and God bless!

          • Guest

            Again, the Christian solution is not to offer something to the public they can’t, in good conscience, sell to people of all faith.

            Again, their need to to religiously discriminate is a self-imposed limitation, its up to them to find a way to do it legally. The easiest way to do that is to not offer the offending service or product to anyone. The second easiest is to not run a business as a public accommodation but as a private club or non-profit, neither of which are subject to civil rights laws.

            Making a general invitation to the public and then demanding to be able to apply a religious test the customers that respond isn’t American, moral or even Christian. And until this case the fines have been minimal, but reading the decision they say these fines are consistent with what was done and with previous such fines. In contrast the fine for the owner of Arlene’s Flowers is $1,000 and the owner is still refusing to pay it.

            There are Christian solutions to these problems but these rare businesses are refusing to take them. My question is, is that a Christian way to act?

            Have a happy 4th. off to the fireworks.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Again, their need to to religiously discriminate is a self-imposed limitation, its up to them to find a way to do it legally.”

            Fundamentally false. ALL religious freedom involves discrimination – only a belief system that has no beliefs (a contradiction in terms) does not discriminate. In fact, every person discriminates: some discrimination is good, some bad. Religious freedom is NOT a “self-imposed limitation” – it is a fundamental right guaranteed each of us in the Constitution. I know that a-theists have a difficult time understanding this because they do not exercise that right.

            “Making a general invitation to the public and then demanding to be able to apply a religious test the customers that respond isn’t American, moral or even Christian.”

            False. Religious freedom is guaranteed 24 / 7. Religious tests are performed each day in businesses just as secular tests are.

            “And until this case the fines have been minimal”

            False. I pray you are just not informed and not disingenuous. Barronelle Stutzman has been penalized with a state-sponsored attempt on her financial ruin:

            http://www .alliancedefendingfreedom .org/News/PRDetail/8608

            That is unconscionable, immoral, un-American, and obviously anti-Christian. Except under a-theism, where anything goes.

            “There are Christian solutions to these problems but these rare businesses are refusing to take them.”

            There were Jewish solutions to Jews being able to operate their businesses also – until they became so onerous that Jews could not satisfy them in the Third Reich. Freedom of religion in America extends to businesses, or at least used to. The fact that the Nanny State places more and more requirements forcing Christians to give up their Constitutional rights is the behavior of a fascist state, not a tolerant one. You must admit that there is no tolerance for the Christian view in these stories. I can give you 300 recent examples of “tolerance” from gay “rights” activists if necessary.

            “My question is, is that a Christian way to act?”

            How would an a-theist know?!? 🙂 Anything goes in your world. Need I break out the Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse quotes for you again? No straights-only lunch counters, no fire hoses, no police dogs. Continuous service to gays until it crossed the line of participating – based on a reasonable sincerely and deeply held religious belief.

            Happy 4th to you too!

          • Guest

            1) yes religious freedom discrimination is by association. The business by choosing to advertise to the general public, all with their own right to religious freedom, has chosen to associate with people regardless of their faith.

            2) I am a Christian if I felt I couldn’t sell wedding services as the law requires I wouldn’t sell wedding services.

            3) you are mistaken the customers have a right to religious freedom too, once a business has invited them it’s too late to religiously discriminate, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them from any such attempt. There is no right to religious discrimination only freedom of association.

            4) Stutzman operated her business illegally and was fined $1000. Anyone telling you she is in financial ruin is lying to you and since you are linking to the ADF, a group known for lying, I can see the problem.

            5) again I am a Christian married to a pastor. No Christian would operate their business illegally or act as these people have.

            Either they sell wedding cakes or they don’t. If they choose to then they will do so legally by one of the several possible legal ways.

            Again a Christian recognizes the right of their customer to not share their faith and still do business with full access to all services as the law requires. If they can’t they wouldn’t sell the product at all.

        • Taussig

          they refused a service that they provide for all other customers…..fail

          • StereoMan

            Wow, perfectly put!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not true at all. They would not provide a porn cake for a marriage between porn stars either, or a “marriage” between a man and a boy, were such legal.

        • JustSoYouKnow

          The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

          This story in Genesis 19 is probably the most popular passage used to condemn homosexuality. Here is how Vines explains it:

          “God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. ”

          So gang rape = not good (also not the same thing as homosexuality). But the recap of Sodom & Gomorrah found in Ezekial 16:49 highlights what Vines believes is the realpoint of the story:

          “Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy.”

          In other words, everyone using this story as evidence of the sin of homosexuality, might be missing the point entirely.

          When God calls homosexuality an abomination
          (Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)

          Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus is where the Bible straight-up says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. And yes, it does. It also says that homosexuals should receive the death penalty (!!!). It also says the same thing about eating pork or shellfish, charging interest on loans, and a whole bunch of other restrictions that were a part of the Old Testament Law Code. But for Christians, the Old Testament doesn’t (dare I say “shouldn’t?”) settle any issue because Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law. Which is probably why most Christians today eat meat, use credit cards, wear makeup, and support equality for women. Because, as Hebrews 8:13 says, the old law is obsolete and aging.

          When people turn away from God (Romans 1:26-27)

          “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

          This is where Vines really digs in on the the cultural context angle. In Biblical times, same-sex behavior was primarily seen as happening between adult men and adolescent boys (masters and servants — yikes), via prostitution, and by men who were married to women. In all of those cases, we can see why it would have been viewed as sinful, excessive, lustful, and against God’s law. But he makes no mention of love, commitment, faithfulness, or the type of same-sex relationships that are at question in the debate around marriage. (By the way, Paul also says that men having long hair is “unnatural” and that women shouldn’t speak in church, so it’s clear Paul himself may have had some issues of his own.)

          Uses of the Greek works “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”
          (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (1 Timothy 1:10)

          These words are included in the New Testament’s lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. And there has been much debate over their original meaning. (Translating ancient words is hard, guys.) Some believe them to mean homosexuality and sodomy, whereas others have said that the closest modern translation would be “dirty old men.” Ha! Here’s how Vines explains it:

          Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations (nor did he support women speaking in church…), but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters.

          Here is the video:

          http://www . upworthy . com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say?c=ufb4

  • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

    A moment of silence for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, please

  • Keith Miller

    Avakian said, “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

    No, it is about about the lesbians using their sexual orientation to force a family owned christian business to be active participants in their homosexual lifestyle, which the family owned christian business’s religious convictions and biblical beliefs cannot allow. It is WRONG to force them to go against their religious beliefs and be active participants in Biblical perversion and sin.

    • StereoMan

      Baking a cake is being an active participant in the homosexual lifestyle?

      • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

        So if I come marching in to your business and demand you to bake me a cake saying “whites are the master race”, should you be forced to bake me that cake? You have to actually write that out with the frosting, thus you would be endorsing that belief through your acquiescence to my demands.

        I’d love to try that and be refused and sue for $135,000 worth of emotional damages. Except I am a straight, white Christian, so the judge would never find in my favor, and I would be demonized by the American press.

        By the way, I DO NOT believe that whites are the master race. God has made all nations of the earth of one blood, race is totally irrelevant to God and to me, his servant.

        • Guest

          This is a cake identical to cakes previously sold. Where does anyone get the idea there will be anything written on a wedding cake?

          • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

            There is normally a little miniature bride and groom….replaced of course by two grooms. Same thing as writing something

          • Guest

            1) Actual that is very last century. Set up over 40 weddings and receptions in 2013, cakes with figures on around 5

            2) none of these cases have come up due to cake design but stated desires to religiously discriminate.

      • Keith Miller

        Yes, baking a cake FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE is being a participant, if you don’t understand that, then I can’t help you.

    • Guest

      Absolutely no person will be forced to have gay sex. If that is really your concern then relax.

      • Keith Miller

        You are stupid, relax.

    • Deina

      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?

      • http://All-len-All.com/ Nick Vanocur

        Brava!

      • Melancholy Man

        No. Because the Christian baker knew beforehand the intentions of the lesbian couple. The Christian gun store owner does not know the beforehand intentions of his customer. Unless that customer tells him or acts in a very suspicious manner. In which case the gun store owner should contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

      • Keith Miller

        Deina: It’s nice that you know how to copy and paste a question from the internet that is not your own, so I will respond in kind with my own copy and paste answer: If someone came into a bakery, they said ‘I need a cake for a wedding’; ..we have a cake that serves a specific purpose, a wedding. Now, if a person went into a gun store and said ‘I need a gun for a murder’; the purpose of the gun would be for murder. What is the difference between the two? The author of this comment tries to cleverly assert something with a purpose in the first part of the sentence, while using ambiguity in the second part, ‘gun’. In other words, given the premise in the first statement the conclusion is likely; the conclusion in the second is not likely, making it weak.

        • Deina

          Irrelevant.

          With very few exceptions, the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The lone advantage of more powerful guns & cartridges is that they can kill more efficiently.

          A cake is typically used for a celebration.

          Granted, once a person buys either one, s/he is at liberty to do whatever they like with it – either legally or illegally.

          I think it likely that more guns are used for illegal purposes than cakes are, do you not agree?

  • Phuq Obama

    So the sexual deviants make a huge profit for not getting a cake made by this particular bakery and claim mental rape and worry among other idiotic issues while the bakery has to close it’s doors and pay for vehicle repairs as well as death threats.

  • Marilyn

    Good on him stand for what is right in Gods eyes not here to please man but to please God,I don’t support gay marriage,and it doesn’t mean I hate gays I just feel sorry for them cause they’re so blind to there sin, if you have anything negative to say about my comment I don’t care,GOD IS GOOD

  • Michele Mccullough

    those people had a right to refuse,the government may have given these gays the right to marry but that doesn’t give the government the right to force private citizens to accept it and to cater to the gays.

  • Amy

    I wish one of their friends would start a GoFundMe page. Knock out that fine in about 2 hours.

    • sammy13

      GoFundMe will not do this.

    • pal1210

      Agree!! hope so!!

  • Eddie O’Connor

    This is pathetic. if the bakers can, they should find a GOOD lawyer, because, when you “attack” someone for not agreeing with you, or for standing by their religious beliefs?…that’s ALSO a form of discrimination!! So in all actuality these women should ALSO pay a fine to the bakers for violating THEIR Right to Worship and believe in whatever God they choose to!!!

    • pal1210

      Agree!!!!

  • Ray Kanoon

    Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

  • Judy Lee

    Every Christian in Amenrica should send this couple $1.00 as a statement that we stand behind them as they stand for Christ and His values. We as Christians should NOT condemn homosexuals (that is the Father’s job) but we should also not stand by while our brother and sister are attacked. We need to get this ball rolling and send them the money and our support.

    • pal1210

      True, good for you. We must stand up and support them. God will prevail and bring them through this. God loves us, but hates the sin, homosexuality is a sin.

  • Evidence Please

    there’s an errant apostrophe in the sixth paragraph

  • Angel Jabbins

    From this family’s facebook page:

    The final ruling has been made today. We have been charged with $135,000 in emotional damages, But also now Aaron has been charged with advertising. (Basically talking about not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding) This effectively strips us of all our first amendment rights. According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech. We will NOT give up this fight, and we will NOT be silenced. We stand for God’s truth, God’s word and freedom for ALL americans. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!

  • EGM

    So when they make cakes for heterosexual couples do they ask them if they’re both virgins or does that not matter only if they’re gay??

  • Mack

    These two wenches were on a witch hunt. This bakery has served hundreds of gay customers, and has baked 6 wedding cakes for gay couples in the past. They did not want to participate in the CEREMONY by bringing the cake onsite.

    In the past, the other gay couples came into their store and picked the cake up.

    Also, these two wenches went to 3 other bakeries, hoping to find one who would refuse to serve their wedding. Then, on their 4th attempt, they found this bakery.

    Total witch hunt! These wenches were only in this for the money. Nothing else.

    Pain and suffering. Yeah, right.
    Horse’s arse!!!

    • SashaC

      Out of curiosity, where did you get that info? I can’t find a thing to confirm it. In fact, I see screenshots of their Facebook posts specifically saying they have turned down making wedding cakes for other gay couples, prior to this incident.

  • Edward Kwong

    So I guess all shops can take down “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” now. I think this couples is a little off but what exactly did they do that was illegal or unconstitutional? I guess this couple can now have a dream wedding with that kind of cash.

    • SashaC

      That sign is a common misconception. I haven’t seen that in a store in years, because most business owners know better. If you make it clear that your reason for denial of service breaks anti-discrimination laws, that sign isn’t going to help you!

      The state they are in includes sexuality in their anti-discrimination laws. Therefore any product or service you offer must be offered equally to anyone, regardless of their sexuality.

  • Taussig

    your love of a supernatural being does not give you a get out of jail free card to break the laws of our land. I find it even more awful that they new theses two ladies and still refused to bake them a cake. They deserve the fine.

    • Z39

      DICTATOR!

  • Z39

    Why do homo’s always want to attack Christians, where is their “TOLERANCE” for the Christian faith???

    • Guest

      Christians wouldn’t be offering things to the public they couldn’t sell to people of all faiths, even those who’s include the blessing of marriage regardless of sex.

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/his-divine-shadow His Shadow

    Should have just baked the cake and saved your Bronze Age prejudices for the pews.

  • KupKrazy

    To illustrate how ridiculous and wrong the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries got this – all they have to do is ask the question: if a straight couple asked for the SAME cake – and the Kleins refused: would this have violated Oregon law? They would not be refusing service based on sexual orientation since the buyers were straight. This easily answers that it’s the nature of the cake and not the nature of the buyer that is the cause of the refusal. They should win the appeal but since it’s the 9th District Circuit Court which is notorious for it’s asinine liberal decisions, they should take this all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    • Guest

      Hmmmm, that makes no sense. If someone were denied full access to all services of a business making offers to the public because they were straight they would indeed be in violation. All sexual orientations – one, both or neither – are all protected equally.

      And because the case was brought under the sexual orientation it will go no further than the state Supreme Court, the federal court has no opinion on sexual orientation civil rights.

      • KupKrazy

        Not sure how it doesn’t make sense. They wouldn’t be denying “full access to all services…to the public” because such a cake is not in their services – to anyone. No matter what sexual orientation you may have, they would not be making that cake. That’s the point. The denial is based on a “service” that they do not provide to anyone. They are not denying the service to anyone as it is not being provided to anyone.

        I don’t know how you can say that it would not reach the Supreme Court after seeing SCOTUS, which has no opinion on marriage either, deciding to listen to a case that strictly dealt with laws that were divested to the states – under the guise of the 14th Amendment. This very case touches upon the same thing – equal protection under the law.

        • Guest

          Absolutely they sell wedding cakes, they can’t tell the customer what they can do with their purchase particularly when it involves religion.

          Again, this is being decided on the civil right of sexual orientation – a completely state issue -the SCOTUS has no part of this. Same reason the photographer case stopped at their state supreme court. There is no crossing of state lines, 14th amendment doesn’t apply in any way that would help the defendant’s case. What it would do is say that the customer’s religious freedom is equally important as the defendant’s and so the question before the court would be ‘who asked whom to come do business?’ Since it was the business via advertising to the public the court will side with the customer as the business knew that all customers had a right to their own religious freedom before they asked them to come through their doors.

          This has happened so may times its amazing anyone thinks the result will be any different.

  • Mark

    America has lost its moral compass and is being sucked into a cesspool of iniquity. The nation that brought missionaries to the world is now denying the faith that it once championed. One nation under God… not one nation under gays. Christians love gays. We do not condemn them but offer them hope, forgiveness, and transformation through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • Dwayne ActivistSmith

    “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”….. Hmm, the problem wasn’t about serving someone who was gay but rather the request was for a gay wedding, that is two totally different things. this law is flawed or rather its interpretation, and although i am a christian and my opinion is that this is NOT a christian nation but rather a democracy, i am hoping that the state of Oregon will review this over and do right by the christian establishment. What of Jews, or Muslims. What if Jews were asked to bake something with ingredients that are not Kosher? Are they not allowed to… These same regulations are governed by their beliefs.

    • SashaC

      Jewish bakeries wouldn’t offer non kosher goods to anyone. It’s simply not something they carry. But if they refused to serve me something they do offer, based on a characteristic I have that’s part of a protected class, it would be illegal. This bakery made wedding cakes, therefore they have to offer them to everyone, in accordance with anti-discrimination laws.

      • Dwayne ActivistSmith

        In accordance with anti-discrimination laws they were to be served, not denied service, i.e. hello, how may i help you, is there something i can help you with? As oppose to, “I’m sorry, because we are a christian owned bakery we cannot grant that requests, however i can suggest so on and so forth”. You say this was based upon something they DO offer, what if the request was made by a heterosexual couple who needed the same kinda cake for a gay wedding> would it then be discrimination of persons of rather a conflict of beliefs. What if someone came in and said i want the cake to say….”(excuse my language) F#$& you elizabeth youre 30 now. Would they then be obligated to make that cake.

  • Sylvester Echols

    Freaking bullies and cowards. That list is so bogus. This will turn out in the baker’s favor. Congrats on not laying down and taking this fool I showed attempt to steal your joy.

  • Becky

    The list of “suffering” that the homosexuals submitted is ridiculous. I wouldn’t be surprised if these two homosexuals planned the attack on the bakers…they did know they were a Christian family. Christians are a target for homosexual activists groups and they want to not only silence Christians, but soon they’ll want to illegalize the ownership of the Holy Bible. They won’t be happy until everyone is participating in their lewdness…in some form or another.

  • Melancholy Man

    It seems to me Christian businesses will not only have to stop advertising themselves as such…..but indeed will need to deliberately hide their Christian faith. People read a story like this and the homosexuals will be coming out of the woodwork deliberately targeting Christian businesses in the hopes of being discriminated against…..just for the big payday!

    • Becky

      And, they’re wicked enough to do it, too.

  • Becky

    I know this initially happened some time ago, but I hope Christian business owners have learned since then that when these homosexuals come around with their traps, that the business owner will use caution when turning them away.

    Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Matt 10:16

  • Melancholy Man

    They taught us when we were kids that the punishment is suppose to fit the crime. $135,000 for a cake…..really? Well then…..after what I went through with the doctors and specialists trying to get my multiple sclerosis diagnosed…..I figure somebody owes me about $75,000,000.

    • Guest

      sometimes you rear end a vehicle in your car no one gets hurt, sometimes someone dies.

      That’s why we should follow the laws – you don’t know what will be the result of criminal activity.

  • Melancholy Man

    It seems to me Christian businesses will not only have to stop advertising themselves as such…..but indeed will need to hide their Christian faith. People read a story like this and the homosexuals will be coming out of the woodwork deliberately targeting Christian businesses in the hopes of being discriminated against…..just for the big payday!

  • Kal

    So after this incident, anyone can go to a Christian store then sue them for discrimination just because they cannot make a cake for them? And get $100,000? Isn’t that a human rights law when forcing someone to do what they can’t? Taking advantage of one’s disability to do such thing. They shouldn’t have that word same-sex marriage in the first place. Marriage is an established ceremony just for man and woman. They should come up with a different word and just have the supreme court hold the ceremony. What I am afraid of is when ISIS or terrorists wants to have a special or equal rights. Then you know what happens next.

    • SashaC

      It isn’t that that could not make a cake, it’s that they would not. Huge difference.

      Also, what disability are you referring to?

  • Tăut Lăcrimioara

    God will repay you for your faithfulness, do not give in and stand strong in faith. You will receive 100 times more from the governor of the universe and Heaven. God bless you and your children. Be glad that you suffer in Christ. It is a blessing.

  • Tux

    They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

    lol – utter baloney. Just invented them as they went along.

  • supermike

    Great news!! Make them pay for their sins.

  • JustSoYouKnow

    The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

    This story in Genesis 19 is probably the most popular passage used to condemn homosexuality. Here is how Vines explains it:

    “God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. ”

    So gang rape = not good (also not the same thing as homosexuality). But the recap of Sodom & Gomorrah found in Ezekial 16:49 highlights what Vines believes is the realpoint of the story:

    “Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy.”

    In other words, everyone using this story as evidence of the sin of homosexuality, might be missing the point entirely.

    When God calls homosexuality an abomination
    (Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)

    Yep. We’ve all heard that Leviticus is where the Bible straight-up says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. And yes, it does. It also says that homosexuals should receive the death penalty (!!!). It also says the same thing about eating pork or shellfish, charging interest on loans, and a whole bunch of other restrictions that were a part of the Old Testament Law Code. But for Christians, the Old Testament doesn’t (dare I say “shouldn’t?”) settle any issue because Romans 10:4 says that CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW. Which is probably why most Christians today eat meat, use credit cards, wear makeup, and support equality for women. Because, as Hebrews 8:13 says, the old law is obsolete and aging.

    When people turn away from God (Romans 1:26-27)

    “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

    This is where Vines really digs in on the the cultural context angle. In Biblical times, same-sex behavior was primarily seen as happening between adult men and adolescent boys (masters and servants — yikes), via prostitution, and by men who were married to women. In all of those cases, we can see why it would have been viewed as sinful, excessive, lustful, and against God’s law. But he makes no mention of love, commitment, faithfulness, or the type of same-sex relationships that are at question in the debate around marriage. (By the way, Paul also says that men having long hair is “unnatural” and that women shouldn’t speak in church, so it’s clear Paul himself may have had some issues of his own.)

    Uses of the Greek works “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”
    (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (1 Timothy 1:10)

    These words are included in the New Testament’s lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. And there has been much debate over their original meaning. (Translating ancient words is hard, guys.) Some believe them to mean homosexuality and sodomy, whereas others have said that the closest modern translation would be “dirty old men.” Ha! Here’s how Vines explains it:

    Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations (nor did he support women speaking in church…), but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters.

    • John_33

      You need to give credit when you copy other people’s work. The Bible does not support homosexuality; it completely condemns it. The problem with the arguments given by Matthew Vines is that God didn’t prohibit homosexuality based on sexual orientation; He prohibited the behavior, which means that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. If someone lies with a man as they do with a woman, then they are guilty regardless of why they do it. That’s why the verses that condemn homosexuality still apply.

      Sadly, it’s the same old argument. Attack Leviticus, attack the Mosaic Law, attack Paul, attack all the writers of the Bible who apparently were unable to understand what sexual orientation was. No, if one wants to hold to homosexuality, they cannot hold to the Bible. They are mutually exclusive.

  • OsillyMe

    I do not have anything against gay people. My sister is lesbian and I never had an issue with that, but you can not force someone to do business with something they do not want to get involved with. If you want people to accept you being gay, please accept those who do not want to be part of it, due to their belief (religion).

    This drama is so absurd.
    Forgive me for the language errors (not my native tongue).

  • Jean Adams

    The two women also broke the law causing the bakers to suffer because of their religious beliefs and should be fined $135,000 it would then be a wash and everyone could get on with their lives.

    • Lark62

      Walking into a place of business and expecting to be treated like any other customer is not wrong in any way.

      • Tina Cartee

        but expecting $135,000 because of it is. They did not suffer all those damages they claimed, theres no way. That says a lot about their character. They will have to answer to God for the problems they caused for this business owner. The business owner made a wise decision…The laws of God over rule the laws of man ANYDAY…he will be blessed for his obedience.

    • Tina Cartee

      I totally agree Jean Adams…those women didnt suffer all those damages they claimed, theres no way…and that should have been enough to dismiss the case because they perjured themselves by submitting false statements…This case was totally uncalled for….

  • Lark62

    Our nation tried segregation. Our nation tried separate but equal. Our nation tried “we don’t serve your kind here.” We saw what it did to society, and we have soundly rejected it.

    A for profit business benefits from society – Roads and utilities and police and fire protection. The business may choose its product – pretty cakes for celebrations or kosher meat or tie dyed t-shirts or whatever. But they must sell their product to all customers.

    • micobondo .

      They dont have a “gay wedding cake” , how can you sell something that you dont make ? what they do have is “bride & groom cake” , “no groom groom” and “no bride bride”. ok ?!

      • Lark62

        If they are willing to make a cake for Alex and Chris, but unwilling to make the exact same cake for a different Alex and Chris based on gender, that is simply discrimination. And it is wrong.

        • micobondo .

          They are willing to make a cake for a man and a woman, not for a man and a man, or lady and a lady.Its a Gay Wedding Cake if both are of the same gender, and they are not available in that store. Its not discrimination, it is a religious practice, religious practice is not discrimination.

      • Lark62

        Also, how exactly can a cake be gay? It’s a cake.

  • Tina Cartee

    I think this whole case was a bunch of BS. The women should have just called him a couple ugly names, flipped him off and then left to go to another bakery…that would have been fair and they would have been even. But…since they felt the need to make a legal issue out of something so small I think it should have went something like this…yes, techniqully I guess you could call his refusal discrimination, however since it was due to his religious beliefs, he should have been able to counter sue for being sued for something he done for religious reasons and then I think the two lesbians should have been charged with perjury for the bogus “aspects of suffering they “claimed.” Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that someone refusing to bake a cake for you is NOT going to cause all those problems, especially since they were ordering the cake in advance so they had plenty of time to place their order with one of the other hundreds of bakers that are available to the public. They should have had to prove to the court that they suffered these ailments and that they were a direct result resulting from the bakers refusal to bake a cake. I guarantee they could not present any proof whatsoever and if they could…well…those two women most definitely didnt need to be getting married because if someone refusing to bake you a cake causes you all those kinds of issues then you need to go to mental health and have yourself evaluated because there is something very, very wrong in your brain and in no way do you need to be making long life changing decisions like marriage with mental issues such as that..

    • DNelson

      “he should have been able to counter sue for being sued for something he done for religious reasons ”

      He is completely free to challenge the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of violating the 1st amendment’s religious expression protections. It has been done before, but without success.

      “I think the two lesbians should have been charged with perjury for the bogus “aspects of suffering they “claimed.””

      How do you know they lied?

      “They should have had to prove to the court that they suffered these ailments and that they were a direct result resulting from the bakers refusal to bake a cake.”

      Obviously the court believed they did that, otherwise the court would have not ruled the way it did.

      • Tina Cartee

        Like I said…if the lesbians suffered all those damages simply because a particular baker refused to bake a cake….they need to go to mental health and have themselves evaluated because they evidently have some serious mental issues and problems with their coping skills.

        • DNelson

          You are certainly free to your opinion. If you believe that businesses shouldn’t be held accountable for breaking the law, you may want to consider being evaluated for a serious misunderstanding of how our legal system works in the US.

          • Tina Cartee

            Well I am very aware of how Gods law works and that is superior above any legal system created by man..ANYDAY

          • DNelson

            You are certainly free to believe that the Bible contains the laws of God and to make choices in your personal life according to those beliefs. Nonetheless, if you violate civil laws, you should expect to be held accountable.

          • Tina Cartee

            And I am aware of how the legal system works in US..I am also aware of how very easily it can be played and I am also aware of how screwed up the entire judicial system is, along with every other government entity that we have this decade…and that is something that can be proven simply by reading or watching the world news…this world is going to hell in a hand basket FAST!

          • Tina Cartee

            Yes I agree that he should have been held accountable since the lesbian lacking coping skills decided to push the issue but $135,000? For refusing to bake a cake? thats just unbelievable and totally outrageous

          • Tina Cartee

            Not to mention how this ruling will probably put ideas in other gay couples minds of how easy they can profit a huge chunk of cash quick by totally blowing a small situation into something that its not…

    • pal1210

      agree, they are stupid to do such a ridiculous thing. shame on them, let God be in charge and justice will reign and overcome.

  • Starstorm

    Wow, despicable. The lesbians weren’t even being discriminated against. Yeah, they totally were hurt and lost sleep over being politely being refused their cake. They served homosexuals. These women were just butthurt. I’m more concerned over the bakers’ well being.

    I guess you have to be tolerant only if you are a Christian… oh well, Christians are survivors. As angry as those lesbians made me, I forgive them. They know not of what they do.

    • primewonk

      The bakers violated the state’s public accommodation and non-discrimination laws. How, in the world can you claim the couple were not discriminated against?

      • Starstorm

        So by selling to homosexuals they are discriminating against homosexuals? Or did you conveniently ignore the part where they said that they sell products to homosexuals, maybe even on a daily basis. There’s how I can claim they weren’t discriminated against.

        Also, loss of sleep and all of that damage? Really? Because I have never claimed that on anyone, even when I was physically harmed and constantly harassed for being what I am. They had it easy. Being declined service doesn’t make someone lose sleep and all that jazz that they claimed they went through. I should know, it happened to me and I just brought my business elsewhere.

        • pal1210

          True, just go elsewhere. That would have solved it, and all this would not have happened. We forgive them for they know not what they do, they are blind to the truth while they are in sin.

          • sanity1

            Yeah…just like blacks should have found other buses and drinking fountains back in the day. What’s wrong with these people……that would have solved the problem.

    • pal1210

      Agree, we must forgive them for what they do. The poor couple who were fined such a huge amount, what about their feelings, their welfare, their life, it has ruined them financially, and those women don’t care. shame on them.

      • sanity1

        I could give two shites for the baker couple. I feel for the two women who were shamefully discriminated against by these pseudo-Christians. Hope their out of business for good!!!!

  • Ty Willi

    Go to another bakery! The fake stress and resuming smoking and other health issues are a bogus attempt to trump up costs. When I shop at a store and cant get what I want, I go to another store, not court. And yes, I have gone to stores that have discriminated againstm because of my race. Guess what I did??? I went SOMEWHERE ELSE! To ask for acceptance and equality by denying someone else theirs, is unconstitutional and hypocritical. This needs to go to the SCOTUS.

    • Starstorm

      Exactly. Though it’s a shame you were discriminated against. These people weren’t even being discriminated against.

    • pal1210

      True, thank you. If you shop one store, and you don’t get what you want or maybe don’t like the store clerk or they are rude or not telling you want you want to hear, or they act like they don’t want to help you, or don’t care, then go shop somewhere else, don’t sue, this is what they should have done, shame on them, shop elsewhere. I have shopped stores that I don’t feel like they want to help me, so what, go to another store. No big deal, these women should have done the same. It should not have even been worth the time to take to court. They just want to make a point, greedy and sinful people they are.

  • Trolly

    This will be a good idea. I will find a gay owned bake shop and let them make a no to gay marriage cake. And if they refuse, I will sue them for discriminating my belief. Law is law right.. BS..

    • SashaC

      This gay couple did not ask the bakery to make a “No to straight marriage” cake. See the difference?

      • Trolly

        Nope, I don’t see the difference. They are sued for refusing to bake a cake because of contrast to the couples belief. How is that different from refusing to bake because his ideals are different? The sue is clearly a revenge plot for the couple. It is not the context it’s the idea behind it. I don’t mind gay marriage. I have no problem with gays. The law is the problem and it is the one that discriminate people. Respecting everyone’s own belief is what’s important. If a Christian voice out his/her opinion about gay marriage he/she is bashed, but when your belief is being mocked by gays its ok? I happened to see a lot of reports and images on the news and net and it is very alarming. Should I be alarmed on making gay jokes now? but its ok as long as it is jokes for straight? I don’t believe on the quote “just be yourself”. For people to respect you, you need to act and look respectable. Do we have to respect Kim Jong Un because he was just being himself (or Justin Beiber maybe…lol)?

        • SashaC

          I stopped reading after your first sentence. If you truly aren’t bright enough to comprehend the difference, I don’t see the point in continuing to read that wall of text. Sorry.

    • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

      I have already run across a couple of Internet news posts that claimed gay businesses refused Christian themed cakes that go against homosexuality.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

    I think the judgement was correct.

    A business, licensed by the government to do business to the public, must treat all customers the same. If they cater weddings, they must offer that service to any wedding. A church may refuse to host such a marriage simply because a church is not a business and is not licensed to serve all the public.

    The government that issues a business licence is equally supported by taxes paid by all citizens and thus must demand that all citizens must be treated equally. That is why no one’s religion may be supported in a public school–all citizens’ beliefs in matters of religion are, under the Constitution, equal.

    If a baker is allowed to refuse service to a wedding because of who is getting married, then anyone may refuse service to others based on a CLAIM of religious belief.

    If one claims to be a loyal American and lives by the Constitution, then he must live by that Constitution, which gives all citizens equal rights.

    I do think, however, that the couple should decline the court’s award and ask the public to cease its reprisals. Let the Klein’s reopen their business. That would be a class act.

  • Khatohk

    In my opinion no violation…Sweet Cakes by Melissa has never done this business before, never been a part of their daily business activities and never intend to do this type of business-“A weeding cake with two bridesmaid”… They have not discriminated these couples either as they have served them before as regular customers. What Sweet Cakes merely did was a consistent application of their daily business activities which are founded by their faith. On June 20, 1967, Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) was convicted for five years when he refused to be drafted to the US Armed Forces to fight against Vietnam because of his belief/religion as a converted Islam. Eight days after, on June 28, 1967 the US Supreme Court has reversed his conviction…I doubt US Supreme Court will do the same here, BUT I BELIEVE GOD IS BRINGING AARON & MELISSA TO AN EXPERIENCE WITH GOD they’ve never experience before…FOR HIS GLORY & HONOUR…A DIVINE JUSTICE FROM GOD THAT ONLY GOD CAN DO!

    • primewonk

      “Sweet Cakes by Melissa has never done this business before, never been a
      part of their daily business activities and never intend to do this
      type of business-“A weeding cake with two bridesmaid””

      Bull. They bake wedding cakes. This one simply had 2 brides on top. And the couple would have put those on themselves. It was not a cake they had never made before. It had no icky homosexual writing on it. It had no mysterious gay ingredients in it. It was the same cake they make hundreds of times.

      • Khatohk

        Any cake is unfinished until it is identified for it’s intended purpose. Yes they, Sweet Cakes make cake but never finish it with two brides maids, because they don’t make this. Toyota makes car for ages but they’ve never place a BMW on it because they don’t make BMW, they only manufacture Toyota cars. Nike manufacture shoes but they don’t place three stripes on it, because they don’t make Adidas, they only manufacture Nike shoes. Your “simply 2 brides on top” is not simple…it’s the essence of this discussion…try something better next time…

  • maggoting

    The New England Journal Of Medicine claims the penis and the anus are incompatible. The act itself creates minute fissues on both the anus and the penis and allowes fecal matter to enter the blood stream which is a deadly situation. There is a State-Wide epidemic in Ohio and doctors are asking permission to prescribe medication to these patients partners unseen to attempt to minimize this epidemic.

    • primewonk

      The NEJM says no such thing.

      And if you’re worried about getting your little willie dirty, put him in an overcoat.

      • maggoting

        Primewank. It sure does say it!

      • maggoting

        Back to the books fella and also I don’t dips me wick into anything that is used for waste!

      • maggoting

        I’m sure you practice what you preach, but never for me pervert!

  • primewonk

    Again, when you hold a business license to operate a business as a pubic accommodation, you agree to follow applicable laws. Those laws became necessary in the 60s as a consequence of the CRA. Religious racists claimed having to let those “colored” folks into their diners, stores, schools, and hospitals, violated their religious rights. This is simply a continuation of that fight. Radical christians demanding the right to discriminate or they scream persecution.

    • All In

      Confusing ethnicity with behavior is a common ploy gay advocates try and use to justify their Christianphobia.

      • primewonk

        Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is an orientation. It is not a behavior, lifestyle, or choice. And like race, it is immutable and innate.

        How freaking stupid are you?

  • Franklin Sr.

    I believe the lesbian couple is looking for acceptance, but will any amount of money bring that….no. There are other ways to come to a resolve, but this forcing people to go against their beliefs is wrong. You will get those that are more than wiling to jump on the bandwagon and say the bakers were wrong, but really, deep down inside those that say this stand for nothing and are grandstanding….they know it, i know it and those that read this article know it. Stress caused because of not getting a cake from a particular shop, c’mon now, lets get real, if you were caused stress because of that, doesn’t it make sense that the shop owner now has stress because of harassments and shop closures? Both sides have been affected here, at least one side was willing to go on camera and speak. Gresham Oregon, what ever happened to “In God We Trust”, don’t you have that carved and printed into your monies. Do you still swear on the Bible in court, i was under the impression that God Bless America was your second national anthem. Well anyway, $135000 will not buy you acceptance, so if you get this or any amount of money, all i can say read it, In God We Trust, may God bless and lead you and although i am not American, God Bless America, even Gresham Oregon.

    • pal1210

      Good for you. This couple of women want to be accepted, but not everyone believes or wants to accept this lifestyle, it is wrong and not what God intended for us, God created us and made us like we are for a reason. We are to follow his plan for our lives while we are here on earth.

  • George Jenkins

    This is but a symptom of the legalization of homosexuality. The battle was lost when Christians did not stand up to the homosexuals then. And the worst part is, the law does not even specify homosexuality. The article states, “Commissioner Brad Avakian, read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.””………….now let’s see………………I think incest and pedophilia are sexual orientations too, aren’t they. Where does Oregon go from here? Or perhaps, where have they gone already?

    • primewonk

      Incest and pedophilia are not sexual orientations.

      • Becky

        You’re right, it’s a choice, just like homosexuality. It’s written in the same chapter regarding sexual immorality…like bestiality.

        • pal1210

          Shame on the gays, they will be punished. How dare they do this, they say they were hurt, or whatever, what about this couple and family. What have we become, who yells and acts out, no matter what is right or wrong, gets their way? doesn’t matter that it is against the law, shame on these women, they should realize people who have morals and values, are against what they are doing. Just because our stupid government has deemed it legal, does not make it right. It is disgusting and wrong, it goes against what God has made us for, his plan for our lives was not to have men with men and women with women, it is sin, God loves us, we are all sinners, shame on these people who are greedy and selfish. Please God control this situation.

      • George Jenkins

        of course they are………or as least as much as homosexuality is.

  • bowie1

    Looks like the lesbians are getting a free wedding! Perhaps it is the judge who should go to jail for violating the cake bakers right of expression.

    • primewonk

      Where does it say the bakers can ignore public accommodation laws?

      • All In

        1st Amendment, first clause.

        • primewonk

          Nope. The bakers agreed to follow all applicable laws when they started a business open to the public. You morons tried this in the 60’s, remember? How’d that end up for you?

      • bowie1

        They can turn down an order for any reason or no reason at all. A business has the right to accept or reject any order that does not meet the company mission, like a publisher who only publishes books they want to publish, and not every tom, dick or harriet who wants a book to be accepted for publication.

        • primewonk

          Publishers put out books based on what they think the market will read. It has no bearing on making cakes for weddings. Why would you open a business and then refuse to do business?

          If you are unable or unwilling to follow public accommodation laws, close your doors and find a new line of work.

          • bowie1

            Fortunately I’m retired, but if I wasn’t I would have to follow Canadian discrimination laws which may be similar. I’ve done a job or two for someone I know but I am not open to the public. Besides, as an artist, I find it too difficult to imitate some style or theme that might theoretically be requested, so I would sell stuff in my own style and hope that a few would buy. Right now it is just a hobby.

        • primewonk

          Where in the public accommodation laws in Oregon does it say that?

  • Crosseyedone

    “mental rape,” ok, just when you think you’ve heard everything and nothing could surprise you, along comes a gem like this one.

  • Teresa Cason

    Is there a gofundme set up for this couple yet? If Zimmerman can raise thousands during his court ordeal I am sure this couple can be lifted out of this circumstance by donations from people who are affliated with the body of Christ. Just let me know where to donate.

  • George J. Dhem

    Oh, they won’t participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies by *getting paid* to make the cake, but they’ll gladly take gay people’s money otherwise. How noble. What pigs.

  • Ted Bedford

    If the people of Oregon cannot see the wrong in this issue then they do not deserve my business.

  • Randolf Estrañero

    There is no discrimination here. The baker is not rejecting homo to eat
    cakes. well in fact, the gay couple are usual customers of the baker. It
    is not about the cake, nor the gender, it is about the action (same sex
    “marriage”) which is against the baker’s belief and faith. And as law
    said, ALL have the right to practice their religion. It is not about the
    eating of the cake, but about the event where the cake will symbolize
    the marriage. If somebody will ask you to sharpen a knife for the
    purpose of killing someone, will you do it? sharpening the knife is not a
    sin, but where it will be used.

  • MNLFoodcritic

    Reverse religious persecution has begun… in the 21st Century!

  • believer

    it’s all about who is behind those women? I doubt it is the God of love

    • primewonk

      You’re right. I bet it’s the US Constitution. The Oregon Constitution. And the state of Oregon Public Accommodation and anti discrimination laws.

  • Camelslayer

    I have nothing against gays. I’m fairly indifferent on gay marriage, I just see it the same way I see many other things in life- “Do whatever you want, just don’t hurt anyone else because of it.”
    …This doesn’t fall under that category. This IS hurting others in doing so.

    The amount of hypocrisy from the gay community is staggering sometimes. They fight for acceptance, yet refuse to accept the beliefs of religious people. Then do this shit when someone doesn’t see eye to eye with them. Simply pull the “I’m offended” victim card and everyone’s suddenly on their side. $135,000 for “suffering emotionally” from not getting a wedding cake? Hell, if I pulled the victim card every time I suffered from “emotional damages” I’d be filthy rich.

    Some people need to wake up. Not everyone’s going to agree with everything you say, think, or do. You think everyone’s going to agree with the things I do? No. Am I going to bitch and moan about it? Hell no. Buy a spine and get over it.

    Don’t ask for acceptance and then not show it yourselves.

  • Josey

    I see this as a frivolous law suit by this lesbian couple because they have to prove that they were harmed in some way by this bakery not making a wedding cake for them, they were not harmed in that there are other bakeries they could utilize to bake their cake. As long as they could utilize another bakery where is the harm done to them in the refusing by this couple who has a right to refuse baking the cake based on their religious faith? There is no harm done, they say they were discriminated by this couple but that isn’t the truth either, for this couple sold them bakery goods before but in this instance of baking a cake it went against their faith because they cannot celebrate or perhaps even decorate the cake with whatever this lesbian couple wanted put on the cake. This couple who own the bakery should use this as their defense, the fine is absurd also. In any lawsuit case the person suing has to prove they were harmed in some way besides getting their feelings hurt which I don’t believe this lesbian couple got their feelings hurt anyway but once again there are other bakeries they could have utilized for their cake.

    • primewonk

      Yeah! And what the hell was that uppity “colored” woman Rosa Parks thinking? There were seats in the back of the bus she could have sat on. And what the hell were those uppity “colored” folks doing – thinking they were good enough to sit at the same lunch counter as us white folks? Why didn’t they just keep walking until they found a diner that was for colored folks? And what the hell were those little colored kids doing in Topeka? Who the hell said they were good enough to go to public schools with our white kids.

      • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

        You must hate white people. What a Shame. Or is it just white Christians you hate.

        • sanity1

          I for one hate pseudo-religious Christian hate mongerers such as yourselves.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Thank you for your kindness:) So few these days know how to be kind to others:) Again Thank You:) Your kindness shall return to you 100 fold:)

      • Josey

        you seriously are going to argue that these two incidents are the same thing, not even close. first of all these two lesbians were not discriminated against and had been coming into this bakery for awhile and were buying pastries, there wasn’t a problem till they wanted a specialty cake that this bakery didn’t provide then they screamed discrimination. Rosa Parks was a brave lady so don’t insult her memory like this!

        • SpeakTruth

          Because they had patroned this bakery before, they had no reason to believe they would be denied service. They did not want a “specialty cake”. They wanted a wedding cake just like the wedding cakes the Kleins provided to straight couples.
          This gay couple received death threats after their names, address, phone number, and email address were posted on Mr. Kleins’ Facebook page. The gay couple was fostering two young children and they feared for their lives and welfare, and rightfully so.
          This incident is not exactly like blacks being denied their civil rights. However, you are suggesting that gay couples just politely go to various business establishments hoping one will sell them their advertised merchandise. Do you have any idea how demeaning that would be? Fortunately, most Christians are not like the Kleins and would be happy to have the business. But how are people to know which businesses refuse to serve “gay sinners”? Should a restaurant owner have the right to refuse to serve fat people because the owner believes strongly in living a healthy lifestyle and doesn’t want to condone the unhealthy lifestyle of overweight people?

      • sanity1

        Great points. I’m sure many white folk claimed it was against their religion for colored folk to intergrate with them as well. As a mater of fact, the SAME arguments used against the gay population as it was in Rosa park’s time on religious grounds are being touted today.

  • Sandy Langley

    I truly agree with the cake owners actions you can be friendly towards them and forgive but never participate or make them think its ok . I lost many friends because I stood by Yahweh’s law . I’m not perfect because I messed up many times but I changed once I realized I defied Yahweh….So good job standing by what you beleave in and its time to askYahweh’s believers to help you and your family with funding so your cakes can continue to bring others joy.

    • primewonk

      170 years ago “Yahweh’s” law was that you would be owned by a white male. He could do with you what he wanted with impunity. Rape you, beat you, sell you.

      • Becky

        Show the exact scripture(s) that backs up what you said.

        • primewonk

          Becky, explain to us why the SBC formed?

          • Becky

            Show the exact scripture that backs up what you said.

          • primewonk

            Again, Becky, explain to us why the SBC formed.

          • Becky

            Can’t back up what you said, can ya? That’s because it’s a blatant lie.

      • Sandy Langley

        I haven’t read that in any ancient bible maybe your reading the Illuminati bible that the white man made…I serve Yahweh and he keeps blessing me no demons will stir me away from Yah’s truth. I do not participate in the things that Yah say not to participate in but when I use to my life was messed up and I was a slave to the belief system that was forced on my ancestors which was not Yahweh it was illuminati. So force your belief on some else…I enjoy being free and proyected by following Yahweh’s law….if you only knew what I been through and been saved and very well kept by the Father, Son and holy spirit (I pray to Yahweh, Yashua no other).

        • pal1210

          Good for you, these people need God and they will turn away from their sin. God will prevail, it is so sad to see how these people were judged for standing up for their beliefs. God bless America, we need his blessings.

          • Sandy Langley

            Thanks cause these people keep twisting what is said in the bible that’s why I don’t listen he didn’t even respond.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Don’t listen to what primwonk says I believe he hates Yahweh. Most likely an a-theist. I think he hates Christians too.

      • Sandy Langley

        Oh it sounds like it

        • sanity1

          No, just can’t stand pseudo-religious zealots such as yourselves.

  • Ing

    oh come on, how can ‘not selling a cake’ be counted as a crime? it just doesn’t make sense at all..

    • sanity1

      I’m sure not paying my taxes because it goes against my religion can’t be counted as a crime as well. It wouldn’t make sense.

  • Filo Limantara

    Actually this is a very subjective matter because of the interpretation of the law. Therefore we should check whether the ‘Judge’ (the Oregon Authority) are actually sided to the Lesbians and or hate Christians. Therefore what we should do is actually to question the ‘authority’ and ‘neurality’ of the government. In my opinion the Oregon Authority is no longger trusted, because based on the same claim, the gay activist already surpress and punish the civilian based on their religion, but the Oregon Authority neglect this, thus unjust and should not be obeyed. Let the world hear this problem and the Oregon Authority will be disgraced !!! God will reward the bakers and punish the sinners and the persecutors (Oregon Authority).

  • Nicholas Gonzalez

    The whole act just seems insincere. The customers knew it would be a challenge for that particular bakery and went for it. It just seems like a cheap trick that ultimately paid off for them. No matter where you stand on gay or anti gay, doesn’t matter in this case. The customers knew they would likely get a refusal and cashed that chip in. That is a manipulation. That is what is wrong here.

  • David McClintock

    Doesn’t the Constitution provide for freedom of religious expression? Or is freedom of religion only selectively applied now? I hope a Christian attorney is reading this and takes this case to the Supreme Court. Not that it will do any good in light of recent events…

  • Irina Enous

    This is unbelievable BULL ” mental rape ” lost of apetite” and at the same time weight gain!! Sound like a real case of taking advantage of the system couse the whole country has gone so wray .. From good moral grounds ! Go somewhere else .. How many times you find rude servers and I should proably sue the whole country based on entical discrimanation , every time I get a arrogant look or rude interrogations about where your from !!!

  • David McClintock

    I hope the bakers refuse to pay. There comes a time when you must stand up to evil. These lesbians do not deserve a single penny.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      What a pathetic smouldering wreck you turn into by taking up the lesbian lifestyle. If you are damaged to this extent in a brief civil exchange, how perilous your life is! Surely people who are prone to such immediate and devastating harm should take precautions, and never go out in public, for the common good? Surely if people are being exposed to having to compensate them for devastating damages, they should be forewarned “BEWARE! I HAVE SEVERE EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BECOME YOUR PROBLEM”? There probably is a T-Shirt like this.

      • Becky

        Lol…I so agree with everything you said.

      • SpeakTruth

        It seems you are unaware that the gay couple did not sue the Kleins. They filed a complaint with the State Bureau of Labor and Industries. After conducting an investigation the state found the Kleins acted unlawfully. It was the state agency that filed charges. Additionally, the gay couple’s name, address, phone number, and email address were posted to Aaron Kleins Facebook page. The gay couple then began receiving death threats. They feared for their lives and for the lives and well-being of the two children of whom they were fostering. If they were “wrecks”, they had reason to be.
        Every business owner in Oregon that is open to the general public must follow the same rules and regulations. If the Kleins felt that might conflict with their religious beliefs, they could have chosen to bake cakes privately instead if acquiring a business license for a for-profit business that serves the general public. Instead they acquired the license, opened for business, acted unlawfully, and are now terribly upset because there are consequences.

        • bobmead1960

          So you are saying the lesbian couple didn’t get $135,000? The baker did sell them bakery goods. They just would not bake a cake supporting homosexual activity. Sure you have went to Muslim bakers and asked them for a homosexual cake. They kick you out. Go sue them.

          • SpeakTruth

            Hello, Mr. Mead. And no, I did not say they didn’t get the money, however, I do not think the gay couple has received any money as of yet. I believe the Kleins are planning to appeal. I am saying they did not sue the Kleins. The gay couple filed a complaint with the appropriate state agency after the Mr. Klein refused to sell them a wedding cake and told them he believes homosexuality is a sin. Oregon has an anti-discrimination law which protects people from being discriminated against based on sexual orientation. After the Bureau of Business and Industry conducted an investigation (which included Mr. Klein confirming he denied the couple service), the agency found the Kleins acted unlawfully and fined them in the amount outlined in the statute. The administrative law judge awarded the gay couple damages they suffered due to the Kleins’ actions.
            I do not understand what you meant by “sure you have went to Muslim bakers and asked them for a homosexual cake. They kick you out. Go sue them.” But, I’ll try to decipher your words and answer as best as I can.
            They chose this bakery because the gay couple had patroned the Kleins’ bakery before and liked their cakes. They had no reason to believe they would be refused service. The gay couple didn’t seek out a Christian bakery in order to highlight its unlawful discrimination policy. The Kleins were fined because they acted unlawfully according to Oregon statute. A statute the Kleins were aware of and agreed to follow when they received their license to open the bakery. If that bakery happened to have been owned by a Muslim couple, and they denied service to the gay couple, the gay couple would have filed a complaint as they did against the Kleins.
            There is no such thing as a “homosexual cake”. That is ridiculous. The Kleins’ bakery offered wedding cakes for sale to the public. The gay couple asked to purchase a wedding cake. There is nothing offensive about a wedding cake.

          • bobmead1960

            Man you use a lot of words to say very little. The couple did get served on a regular basis, but when asking for a cake decorated in a gay manner, their religious convictions took over to obey instead of any possible government requirement. Can’t they find another baker? Is there no other bakers in their land? How tolerant is that? NONE WHATSOVER!
            They should appeal. The state is denying their religious freedoms from being observed. They fed them all the bakery goods like everyone else. But making a gay cake should be their right to refuse. Good day!

          • SpeakTruth

            They did not ask for a cake decorated in a “gay manner”. What does that even mean? They asked for a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes asked for by straight couples.
            Yes, they could and did find another baker, however, they filed a complaint against the Kleins so the state would be aware of the Kleins’ unlawful discrimination policy.
            Tolerance does not mean ignoring intolerance.
            I’m sure the Kleins will appeal as is their right. Perhaps they will even win and get the Oregon law changed. However, they did break the law as it stands today.

          • sanity1

            Hopefully a business will turn you and your family away because your are Christian and tell you to F$%k off and go find some other place. I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with that.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      These Lesbians don’t deserve a penny I agree. In the end when the Lesbians face God the price they will pay will be eternity.

  • TellinU

    Here is a prime example of how gays want Christians to respect their position BUT they sue because they are intolerant to the Christians position. All this gay couple had to do was go to another bakery that didn’t feel that they were violating their own convictions. This was all about greed of money and vengeance.

    • SpeakTruth

      What do you mean “gays want Christians to respect their position”? There are many “positions” that people take that others might not respect. It is the law that should be respected. It is equal treatment that gay couples want. All this Christian couple had to do was to obey they law and respect and uphold the contract with the state in which they acquired their license to own and operate a for-profit business open to the general public.

      • Becky

        Respect the law by compromising their faith…their religious freedom? That’s equal treatment?

        • SpeakTruth

          Ma’am, no one is forcing them to compromise their faith. There are rules, regulations, and laws that come with obtaining a business license for a for-profit business open to the public. All people who wish to own and operate such a business are required to follow those rules, laws, and regulations. Christians are no exception. If some Christians do not feel they are capable of of doing all that is required of owning a business, they are not required to do so.
          Additionally, it seems that providing a cake to a gay couple is the ONLY thing that compromises their faith. To my knowledge, no Christian has refused to provide an anniversary cake for a straight couple who live together but decided not to marry. Nor has a Christian refused to provide a cake for a baby shower for a couple who are not married. To single out gay couples is a bit hypocritical.
          And one more thing, can a restaurant owner who believes very strongly in promoting a healthy lifestyle refuse to serve fat people? Can all business owners pick who they serve as long as they feel strongly about something?

        • pal1210

          Agree, why should they compromise their belief? what rights do they have? these gays were vindictive and hateful, just being greedy and trying to make their point. what about the poor people who have been fined and their lives ruined? it seems who ever yells the loudest gets their way. They should have just gone to another baker, and everything would have been ok. They were just trying to make their point, most Americans are against gay marriages, what happened to our morals, beliefs, values, what has America become? they accept things that we would never have thought about years ago. These Christians should have rights too, they should not be fined such an extreme amount and they should appeal this, God will prevail and the sin and greed they exposed by going against this family is awful. What about their suffering and heartache? where does it say it is ok to accept wrong and hateful to judge and go against those who try to do what is right. So very, very wrong, what has our society become? Shame on America, God will reign and he will make this right for these poor people. They must stand up for what they believe in and they will overcome. This is so upsetting, I am so saddened by this ruling. God please forgive those who act this way and protect and show this family your love, peace and comfort.

          • SpeakTruth

            The Kleins were not forced to compromise their beliefs. However, if they want to own and operate a business that is licensed by the state, they must follow the same rules that every other business owner must follow. If the Kleins’ religious beliefs prevented them from following the rules, laws, and regulations that are part of the agreement of obtaining a business license and operating said business, they did not have to open the business, or continue to operate the business. It was their choice.

            And you are wrong. Most Americans support gay marriage.

          • pal1210

            Sorry, but I disagree, most American’s do NOT support gay marriage, it is not what God intended for us!

          • SpeakTruth

            Well, you can certainly disagree with me, however, poll after poll has shown that the majority of American citizens support gay marriage.

          • sanity1

            Diatribe by a pseudo-religious nut job. God warned us of false prophets and followers like pal2010. They twist the message of love that Jesus taught to suit their prejudices and biases.

  • Gail Sydney-smith

    “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. !!!!!

    surely this wasn’t the case …
    Surely it wasn’t because of their sexual orientation…
    Surely it was of the Kliens religion, their faith, their obedience to God. Their obedience to the Bible..
    Surely you cannot legally be prosecuted because someone was trying to force you to deny your faith …….
    Surely the Kliens have committed no illeagal act…
    Surely the ones that should be prosecuted are the ones that have caused slander, defamation, loss of buisness, loss of earnings, emotional damage, physical and neurological damage, shock etc etc etc…..
    ” Surely, I Am with you “, says the Lord God… “I will uphold you and protect you.”

  • Melancholy Man

    It seems to me that Christian businesses will not only have to stop advertising themselves as such…..but indeed will need to deliberately hide their Christian faith. People read a story like this and the homosexuals will be coming out of the woodwork deliberately targeting Christian businesses in the hopes of being discriminated against…..just for the big payday!

  • Winsome Clarke

    Why they dont go to the muslim bakery

    • Becky

      Exactly. They know they’d get killed before they step out the door.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Fear keeps them out of Muslim bakeries. They know Christian don’t behead people.

      • Nidalap

        In a Muslim country, that would indeed be the case. Here in America, they don’t attack followers of Islam because they are fellow enemies of Christians. They are being compelled by forces they cannot comprehend to wage war on Christianity…

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          That is true.

  • Becky

    I’m sure you’re all aware of the photographer (Huguenin) that was sued for not photographing a homosexual “couple”, because of her religious beliefs. Ultimately, the NM Supreme Court sided with the homosexuals, fined the photographer over $6k and told her (and a message to NM Christian business owners), “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.” Like others here have noted, targeting Christian businesses has become a big and easy payday. That’s part of their agenda. They want to break down Christianity via all avenues and attacking Christians financially is one of the avenues. Christians must set their eyes on God Almighty with complete trust in him. Read his word daily and be blessed with faith…Christians will need faith as these days begin to get even worse.

  • Grace Bartolotta NC

    on the one hand i can see the couple’s side but i can also see the bakers side. They weren’t saying anything bad about the couple. An the huge list of all the damages that they had suffered that is bs. Go to a different bakery. I mean it is not that big a deal and they are hurting these people and themselves. Not everyone is going to agree with same-sex marriage, just as not everyone agrees with being Christian. I think this couple should have spoken to them directly maybe and tried to understand where they are coming from. Myself, i see no problem with a same sex marriage but i can see it is not right what this couple has done to this bakery. So just because someone doesn’t agree how you live your life does not give you the right to sue them.

    • SpeakTruth

      Just for the record, the gay couple did not sue the Kleins. When they were refused service, they filed a complaint with the State Bureau of Labor and Industries. It was the state agency that brought charges against the Kleins. Additionally, the gay couple’s name, home address, phone number, and email were posted on Aaron Klein’s Facebook page and that is when the gay couple began receiving death threats. So, in my opinion, the gay couple did, indeed, suffer greatly because they were discriminated against and filed a complaint.

  • Kevin Daskal

    În many restaurants and stores you will see signs that say we reserve the right to serve anyone and refuse services to anyone. I guess if some fags or lesbos want you to sacrifice your principles, you better do so! God have mercy on America cause I don’t think he’ll be blessing it anymore…

    • SashaC

      The reason you don’t see that often is because it’s a meaningless sign and has no legal backing. If you make it clear that you’re discriminating against someone based on them being part of a protected class, that sign isn’t going to help you.

  • Tahatch Bearwolf

    America is not America anymore. It’s time to separate Christians, “come out of her [spiritually], that you be not partakers of her sins”. I for one will obey GOD over men and the Constitution over tyranny.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      You are right. We used to be one Nation under God. Now One Nation under Sin.

      • SpeakTruth

        Actually, we used to be “One Nation, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.”

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          One Nation under God you forgot.

          • SpeakTruth

            No, I didn’t “forget”. I was stating the line from the Pledge of Allegiance prior to 1954, the was it used to be.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            < In < God < I < Trust <

          • SpeakTruth

            Good for you, ma’am.

          • Nidalap

            “In God we trust.” Still the national motto! (For now)

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I hope we keep that motto!

  • Ronnie Brokaw

    And Jesus said, “And let them eat cake”.

  • Ninevah Hall

    God will be their provider, their comfort, He is just, and will not foresake His people. Im sure this family knows this.

  • Rachel

    Honestly I would just make the cake and give it to them. It shouldnt matter about their views.. If they dont participate in events as such, there should have been a big fat sign on their door telling them what they dont participate in and what they do participate in. Lmao if you didnt want to have this problem why open your services to the public? Because you don’t know who is going to come through that door one day. Thats all I have to say. If you were really strong about your views, you’d let the public know before waiting till the last moment to say no.

  • AnimeCritic22

    this is a joke..people always out for money..now you cant even choose who you can or cant do business with

    • sanity1

      That is correct. You cannot choose who to do business with, rent ,etc., based on YOUR religious bias and prejudices. Called separation of church and state.

  • Aldene911

    “In other words, we are allowed to do what we want to according to our beliefs, but you aren’t”, also, that bake shop was the only one in America, there is no way we could have found another one for peace’s sake.

    • SpeakTruth

      More like “we want to break the law but we don’t want to pay the consequences”.

      • Becky

        Actually, it’s more like…”homosexual rights trump your religious rights.

        It’s clear that Christian-owned businesses are the target homosexual activist groups are aiming for.

        • SpeakTruth

          That is absurd. Christians have the same rights as everyone else. This is the very thing that some Christians find most upsetting. No business owner can discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs even if that business owner finds your beliefs repugnant and harmful to society. So, you see, no one else’s rights “trump” yours. It just feels like it to some Christians because they are unaccustomed to American rights and freedoms of others being more equally recognized, defended and upheld.
          It is “clear” that Christian-owned businesses are the target homosexual activist groups are aiming for? How is it “clear”? Why do you think Christian-owned businesses are being targeted?

          • sanity1

            Great points!

          • SpeakTruth

            Thanks. 🙂

  • Bubba Weaver

    This is just another if you don’t agree with us we’ll cry and sue. Maybe they should have baked that cake… And added a little something to it. But they did the right thing and told them they didn’t want to participate and this is how they get repaid. Don’t understand why anyone would want to force someone to participate in something that supposedly means so much to the “couple” I’m sure there are plenty of like minded people there that would be more than happy to bake them a cake. But they wouldn’t have been able to sue anyone then. I’ve always been live and let live, but these gay activist have made me have a change of heart. It’s time we stood up and took our country back. You shouldn’t be allowed to marry if you’re effing stupid as these two queers!

    • SpeakTruth

      They didn’t sue. They filed a complaint with the appropriate state agency. The agency investigated and found the Kleins had acted unlawfully against the gay couple and were fined.
      They didn’t want to force the couple to bake the cake. They wanted to let the Bureau of Business and Industry know that a business had a policy of discrimination against gay couples.

  • Luz Esther Cruz

    I thought all business reserved the right to deny anyone service. Some do just because you are not wearing a shirt or shoes. And the list of “distress” is ridiculous!!!!!! I cannot believe the judge even allowed those ridiculous claims. Unless the judge was gay and did not remain truly neutral in this matter. I am so sorry this family is going through this. Honest people that want to make an honest living and get punished for it.

  • dz

    Disgusting

  • http://www.InformingChristians.com/ DebraJMSmith

    And some people wonder why God made hell!

  • D.Min

    Where then is the equality for the bakers? Indeed the real enemy of the Christians is not the state but the principalities and powers behind them.

  • Denise Zuchel-Foley

    The world is going crazy now over a cake issue. It’s annoying. simply annoying to see something so ridiculously easy to have solved. Go to another bakery.
    I’m a christian person. I can see stupid law. It’s not a win for Gay rights….its another way to be pushy thru laws.
    I can’t get justice served for me as a single mom…we had out and out abuse….real emotional trauma stuff. TRUE suffering…Domestic issues. Where’s my lawyer…nobody wants to take our cases…they want money up front…….oh geeeeeez.
    I have had plenty of LGBT persons in our life…LOVELY PEOPLE…..peaceful ….not one has screamed LAWYER over a cake…..they used their brains…..made it themselves with a little help from friends.

    • SpeakTruth

      The gay couple didn’t sue. They filed a complaint with the Agency of Business and Industry. The agency investigated, found the bakers acted unlawfully, and fined them, awarding the gay couple damages. The damages were the result of death threats made to the gay couple after their name, address, phone number, and email address was posted to the Facebook page of Aaron Klein (owner of the bakery).

  • Shalhan Ridhan

    A lesbian couple ask for RESPECT to a bakers, with RESPECT the bakers said that he didn’t want to be involved in lgbt. But instead of RESPECT the bakers’ choice and find another bakers, the couple choose to attack the bakers because he didn’t RESPECT them. How is it you want to RESPECTED but you don’t even RESPECT the other?

    • sanity1

      Respect this. ESAD.

      • Shalhan Ridhan

        The thing about respect you need to learn it till then you earn it. And I don’t think you learn any respect so you don’t deserve any respect

  • Anthony Masters

    The phrase “You reap what you sow” comes to mind. I mean really, when and where did the Bible teach you people to pass judgement on people of different ideals? (Here the phrase “Judge not and you will not be judged” comes to mind) ~ besides, other people’s “sins” as you put it, does not excuse you from passing judgement on them.

    I’m just so glad modern democracy has evolved past self righteous over saturated interpretations of religious text. Otherwise we’d probably still be living in the Dark Ages.

  • http://ambaryerno.wordpress.com ambaryerno

    This isn’t the same as that government worker in Kentucky — she was acting as an agent of the state, which made her refusal to sign marriage certificates a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    This is a private business, and private businesses have the right to refuse service for any reason. This should absolutely be overturned on appeal, as it’s a violation of THEIR First Amendment rights, especially as it wasn’t the couple they were refusing to serve, but participation in a marriage they don’t agree with.

    • SpeakTruth

      You are wrong. A private business does not have the right to refuse service for any reason. Why would you think so?

      • http://ambaryerno.wordpress.com ambaryerno

        Walk into a Kosher deli and ask them to cater a party with nothing but ham sandwiches. Let’s see how well that works out for you.

        They were NOT refusing to serve the individuals; in fact they’ve outright shown they served both that same couple and other homosexual customers in the past. What they were declining was to provide a service for an EVENT that went against their beliefs.

        • SpeakTruth

          It appears you are having difficulty understanding how anti-discrimination laws work. A business is under no obligation to sell something it does not carry. However, if a kosher deli offers ham sandwiches for sale to some of their customers, it must offer ham sandwiches for sale to all of their customers. And if a bakery offers wedding cakes for sale, it cannot sell them to some, but refuse to sell them to others. I suppose the Klein bakery could have chosen to specialize and only sell only cookies, for instance, but wedding cakes are probably the most profitable item for a bakery. Thus, the Kleins DID decide to bake and sell wedding cakes to their customers, so wedding cakes must be baked and sold to ALL customers. See?

          We are all aware that the gay couple had previously been satisfied customers of the Klein bakery, which is why they chose this bakery to bake their wedding cake. (One would think this fact would put to rest the lie that they “targeted” this bakery in order to sue. But alas, no. The lie continues.) We are also aware of the reason the Kleins gave for refusing to bake their wedding cake. But, the bakery is not a religious institution. It is a licensed business required to operate in accordance with Oregon law.

          • http://ambaryerno.wordpress.com ambaryerno

            What if the Klan came in requesting a cake for a meeting? Or a Neo-Nazi group wanted a swasti-cake for a rally? Or the Black Panthers a “KILL WHITEY” cake? Or an ultra conservative Muslim wanted one spelling out, “DEATH TO THE AMERICAN INFIDELS!” for the local Islamic Extremist’s congregation? Would they be required to provide a cake for those individuals?

            No. I can guarantee you they wouldn’t. No one would bat an eye to turn them down, even though it would be no less a violation of Oregon state law than this example (* extreme examples used entirely to make a point).

            The second provision of the Establishment Clause is NOT restricted to institutions, but to ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. If their religious beliefs preclude participation of this manner in a same sex marriage, then any state law that forces them to do so against their beliefs can be viewed as a violation of the First Amendment.

          • SpeakTruth

            No business owner is required to engage in hate speech, Christian, gay, Muslim, atheist, or otherwise. So, no they would not be required to provide a cake with such speech. But, that isn’t discrimination, sir, as the baker isn’t selling those cakes to some people but denying those cakes to others. It really is very simple, but I can see you are still having trouble.
            This baker in question sells WEDDING CAKES, so he must offer them to all customers. The baker doesn’t sell items with hate speech to ANYONE.
            You are also using the U.S. Constitution to make your argument. In this particular case, the Klein’s bakery is in Oregon and is subject to Oregon law and statutes. Oregon is a state that listed sexual orientation (along with race, gender, religious beliefs) in its anti-discrimination law. The judge ruled in favor of the lesbian couple because the Kleins were not following OREGON’S laws.

          • http://ambaryerno.wordpress.com ambaryerno

            NO STATE can pass a law that violates the U. S. Constitution. That is exactly the reason why the SCOTUS struck down ALL STATE LAWS BANNING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE in the first place.

          • SpeakTruth

            It does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Gender, race, and sexual orientation are protected in Oregon. What you are saying is that by protecting them, it violates your right to discriminate against them.
            However, I do believe the Kleins have said they will appeal. Perhaps some judge will one day agree with you and the Oregon anti-discrimination law will be overturned. Hopefully, by that time society will come to realize that gay marriage poses no threat and Fundamentalists will think the end times are here because of something else.

    • momatad

      they have to have a business license to operate in Oregon…….if they violate the tenets of this license, they can be fined and stripped of their license to do business in that state.

    • sanity1

      You moron. Where does it say businesses have the right to refuse service. They law states business can NOT refuse service to anyone for religious or discriminatory grounds.

      • http://ambaryerno.wordpress.com ambaryerno

        Oh, so you mean if the local Klan meeting wants to have a cake, they’re legally obligated to provide one for them? Good news for those Neo-Nazis who might want a swasti-cake for their rallies.

  • Chanda Graham

    It’s simple. In Oregon it’s against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The bakery broke the law. End of story. They should move to a state, and there are many, that allow you to discriminate based on your personal beliefs.

    • Nidalap

      Actually, since they had done business with these folks in the past, discrimination based on sexual proclivity seems unlikely. They refused to participate in a ‘gay marriage’ based on their religious beliefs. This was their right, protected by our Constitution, and trounced by a lawyer in a robe…

      • Chanda Graham

        That’s probably the same weak defense that has them on the hook for $135,000. The law is what it is in Oregon based on Oregon’s constitution and it’s apparently been on the books quite some time. Perhaps you should mount a constitutional challenge. But until you or someone else does , in Oregon, it’s illegal to deny anyone service based on sexual orientation. The bakery admitted that it did just that and is now suffering the consequences.

      • sanity1

        No one asked their sorry azzes to participate in anything. Just baked a damn cake and sell it to them like the law requires. They’re the ones who pried into the details of the wedding…..none of their GD business.

  • Padmini Sriman

    The problem is the Christian faith is discriminatory. There are other faiths that discriminate against other religions etc. sorry that’s all wrong in the face of common law and national justice. You can practice your faith if it doesn’t affect others not in your religion, if it does – either you have to change or you have to move to a community where you won’t face the “others” (like a Christian enclave).

    Having said that this lawsuit does seem a little vindictive and extreme but it definitely sends the right message to Americans – “stop discrimination in the name of anything”.

  • Paul Hozein

    Read the book of Daniel 3:1 to the end and you’ll get the story of King Nebuchadnezar when he tried to force the 3 jews mesharch Shedrach and Abednego to worship his carved god he was destroyed and the 3 jews were justified, same situation is coming to the bakers

  • Paul Hozein

    It’s so crazy to see various government legalizing sinful acts.
    Germany legalized in-sex
    British,UK, SA and some other countries legalize same sex
    SA legalized adultary

    Where is the world heading to?
    My advice for the Xtians is that it wont get better, it’s just the sign of the end time.

    • sanity1

      It’s that little thing called separation of church and state you hate mongering nut job.

      • Angel Jabbins

        ‘Hate mongering nut job’, ‘idiot’, and in another comment down below… a crass word I would rather not repeat.

        People who have to resort to name calling obviously are responding from pure emotion, not reason. They obviously have no logical arguments to present. Attacking others with mean names does nothing to advance your view.

        There is no mention of ‘separation of church and state’ in the constitution. What is there is this:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
        the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.” REPEAT; NO LAW….PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF

        “The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean
        that they could not cooperate with each other.”

        And it does not mean Christians can only practice their faith in the confines of the 4 walls of a church. They have a right to follow their consciences in decision making and to live their lives in accord with their beliefs out in society and in the marketplace as well.

        This ruling of the Supreme Court has illegally overturned the constitutional rights of people of faith in order to cater to the non-rights of 2% of the population. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to marry because marriage is not a right. It is a privilege and a responsibility given by God and He alone gets to say what it is…not 5 tyrannical judges sitting on the supreme court.

  • Joyce Wetherbee, US Army

    So sell them a blank cake and let them decorate it themselves. I see no reason for this business to be penalized for exercising their religious beliefs.

    I’m appalled at the reasons they listed in order to win a settlement. There are enough other bakeries they could have found someone. Instead, they chose to play the victim.

    • sanity1

      How about businesses refuse to serve YOU because you served in the military and killed, and because of religious beliefs tell you to take a hike and go FU.

      • Joyce Wetherbee, US Army

        While I recognize everyone’s rights are protected against discrimination for race, creed, color, religion, disability, and sexual orientation, I fail to see why these people are being persecuted for standing up for their religious beliefs.

  • Melody Rainer Tregear

    What a travesty of justice! I hope this couple wins the appeal. Whatever happened to religious freedom? They were merely living what they believe. And no one seemed to take any notice of the homosexuals behaviour of harassment and threats. The law (if you can call it that) has become extremely biased. Those girls just saw an easy way to make money! They could have just as easily gone to another bakery, but no, there was money to made!!!! I for one am so tired of them trying to shove their filth down everyone’s throat! We must except them, but they won’t accept our beliefs. I mean come on … they don’t agree with us and can harass and sue us to their little heart’s content, but though we don’t agree with their sinful behaviour, we expected to just ignore what we believe and do whatever they want.

    • SpeakTruth

      You know what I’m tired of, Mrs. Tregear? I’m tired of people not taking the time to understand the facts of the case before making false assumptions.
      1. “Those girls just saw an easy way to make money!”
      Did you even read THIS article? Much less make an effort to verify any facts? This gay couple had been satisfied customers of this bakery previous to the incident of the wedding cake, which is why the gay couple wanted to give this particular bakery their business. This business was NOT targeted because it was Christian owned. Because the couple had patroned the bakery several times before, they had absolutely no reason to believe they would be refused service, and were shocked when they were. This couple did NOT sue the bakery. This couple filed a complaint with the Bureau of Business and Industry after the Kleins denied them service based on the couple’s sexual orientation (which is protected under Oregon law). The state investigated and found the Klein’s acted unlawfully, fined the Kleins, and awarded the gay couple damages, all per Oregon statute.
      2. “We must except (sic) them, but they won’t accept our beliefs.”
      No one is making you accept them, and no one is making anyone accept your beliefs. Fundamentalists have made it very clear they will never accept gay couples. And many people find fundamentalist’s beliefs repugnant and harmful to society. However, if you come in to my place of business, I will treat you with courtesy and offer to sell you the same products and services as I offer to everyone else. I would do this because it is the law, which I DO respect, and also because I try to treat people the way I want to be treated.
      3. “I mean come on…they don’t agree with us and can harass and sue us till their little heart’s content, but though we don’t agree with their sinful behavior, we expected (sic) to just ignore what we believe and do whatever they want.”
      This gay couple did not harass the Kleins. The harassment began when media outlets began flaming the fires. It began when Mr. Klein chose to post the names and addresses of the gay couple on his Facebook page. That is when the gay couple began receiving death threats, Mrs. Tregear. Everyone doesn’t agree with your notion of sin, and sin only exists within the confines of religion. Christians are not being persecuted, nor do most Christians in America feel persecuted. Thankfully, most Christians would gladly welcome the business of the LGBT community. Most Christians are reasonable, empathetic people as are most of the LGBT community, atheists, Muslims, etc. Unfortunately, a handful of people can spread misinformation, because most people don’t bother to verify what actually happened. Misinformation can quickly turn into resentment and hate. How terribly sad.

      • Melody Rainer Tregear

        Yes, a handful of people can spread misinformation… as is some of your own comments.

        • SpeakTruth

          If I have spread misinformation, it was unintentional as I am fairly diligent about researching a topic before I comment. However, if you point out any errors or falsehoods in any of my comments I will gladly correct my mistake. What do you think I have wrong?

  • sanity1

    Should have sued these pseudo-religious nut jobs a hell of a lot more. Idiots like this need to be taught the meaning of discrimination laws.

    • Angel Jabbins

      These bakers served the women and other homosexuals who came into their bakery all the time…never refused them service….never kicked them out of their store. In fact, they were on very friendly terms with them. However, baking a cake for a gay wedding was one service…the ONLY one…they could not perform since they believe….and rightfully so, according the Constitution, that they are guaranteed the right of freedom of conscience, freedom of religious convictions. It is not like there was no other place to get a cake. They could go to any other bakery and get their stupid cake. But, no, it was all about making ’em pay (heavily) for not compromising their Christian values…for not celebrating something they sincerely believe to be sinful. There was no discrimination on the part of the bakers at all. There was exercise of religious freedom which you and other militant gay people want to take away from others (who by the way have been believing this way for 1,000 of years!)

  • primewonk

    An Oregon bakery that refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding readily agreed to do business with an undercover reporter who pretended to be hosting a variety of events social conservatives often find offensive, according to an alternative weekly paper in Oregon.

    “I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a
    researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem
    cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two
    little clone cakes. How much would they cost?” the covert reporter asked
    an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

    “Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so
    about $50 to start,” a bakery employee told the reporter, according to
    The Willamette Week.

    In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a “pagan solstice party” (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who’d had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

  • Phantom Limb Masterbation

    Well, think about this. I would assume you Christians would react the same way if you were denied a cake for a Christian wedding. Yes it’s ridiculous that they have to pay, but really, denying a paying customer who would be willing to pay for the cake just because they’re lesbian? That’s just absurd. You say they choose to be gay and that’s why you can deny service, well you choose to follow a religious belief so why is it wrong to deny service to a Christian but okay to deny service to a gay or lesbian?

  • Nicole Kinsey

    Appeal
    that crap – it’s a clear violation on your 1st Amendment that forbids
    any law from prohibiting you from practicing your religion &
    freedom of speech. Don’t take this crap lying down. And don’t forget to
    throw a counter suit in there for the real emotional distress that the
    bakers have actually suffered. and make it a fair amount for your
    suffering – like how much it cost you in business and potential business
    to have to shut your doors due to harassment caused by these 2 freaks
    and their pathetic lawyer. im talking millions for emotional damages. i
    hope your marriage is able to withstand this BULLSHIT!!! Don’t GIVE UP!!
    you have every right to refuse to serve any customer. NO MATTER IF THEY
    ARE OFFENDED LESBIANS OR NOT. Would it be the same problem if you told a
    NAZI Wannabe or KKK Member that you were not making a death camp or
    black man hanging cake???
    and Honestly – The JUDGE SHOULD FREAKING ALREADY KNOW THIS!!!!

    • byebyejoe

      It’s long established law that one’s freedom of religion and speech stops when it has a disproportionate negative effect on someone else’s similar rights. Hence one can stand in a public space and proselytize but one cannot target an individual and stand outside her or his home screaming about Jesus. One cannot block the entrance to an abortion clinic. One cannot deny medical care based on religion. The latter happened to me during the birth of my son. The hospital at first would not register us because we would not state a religion. We could be Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim whatever, but not Atheist. We were told it was a Christian hospital and that they didn’t have a way to enter Atheists in their system. It took threatening a compliant to get a director down who managed to get past the problem with their system. Freedom of religion absolutely means freedom from religion. The JUDGE DOES KNOW THE FREAKING LAW.

  • Rachel

    I guarantee if I went to a hat bakery and asked them to make a cake for me saying marriage is equal to one man one woman I bet they wouldn’t make it. Could I sue? I’m going to have to test this out

  • Andes

    Obedience to God’s will is always a loving act, even if people don’t like it.

  • ISpeakOnlyTruth

    I’d hate to see these cherry-picking bible hacks on Judgment day. How dare any of them speak on God / Jesus behalf they dare judge those not like you. Each one of them will have their day……. Cry your tears. Cry how your religious freedom is being persecuted and destroyed, as well as how your churches dwindling in numbers…..but make sure you blame yourselves. Fortunately, not all Christians are double standard and mean spirited and we thank God for that. God made us and will take care of us.

  • ShokTong

    I can accept the Gays & Lesbians if they have both oRGANS in their “AREA”. If none, then LET be the BALL be a BALLs! and Let be the PIE be a PIEs! If the BALL will BUMP then the PIE will be the CATCH! when SC try to bump their balls I’m getting mad crazy! It is not about RIGHTs, its about SEX that cannot be change, if they want a change, it’s their choice but cannot redefine according to their preference, because it is not everybody does. If they WANT a rights, then MUST ask for “LEGAL rights like “LEGAL UNION” but not SAME SEX marriage.

    LET US PREPARE FOR THE WORST, BECAUSE AMERICA COULD NO LONGER DISTINGUISH THE RIGHT & WRONG!

  • ShokTong

    is there any LAW in US that says the BUSINESS OWNER will refuse because it will violates their FAITH? I bet RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is the ISSUE here!!!!

    #NORELEGIOUSFREEDOMINAMERICA
    #RELIGIOUSHATE
    #SAMESEX

  • Daniel Burns

    So the reason why the fine was so high is because when the Lesbian couple, Who after being refused service for their sexual orientation, filed a complaint with the state of Oregon. It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.
    The Good Christian Bakers decided to post the Lesbian couples personal information on social media causing them harm and backlash.
    So before you all start judging and throwing stones why don’t you ponder this.
    What if an unwed mother wanted a cake for her bastard child, would the bakers still make her a cake? Would they be participating in the woman’s sin of Adultry?
    You can’t pick and choose the parts of the bible that suit you. It’s all or nothing.
    Jesus did not say one word on homosexuality but did say Love Thy Neighbor.

  • Sarah-Elizabeth Tomlinson

    This is wrong on all levels. If someone declines ur cakes because of their religion beliefs why fight it. Shouldn’t you be respectful? This is what I find with gays they ask for respect but refuse to give it

  • Good Christian

    You failed to report the entire story and are only generating hype for a one sided opinion. You did not mention that the award was due to the fact that these so called Christians did not act in a Christian manner and acted out of pure hate and evil by publishing the addresses of the customers they refused to server and opened them up to death threats. No Christian would act in that way and anyone who hides behind Christianity to spread hate is not a Christian either. While I do not condone the acceptance of their marriage I think it is the right of the business to refuse service to anyone but not out of a discriminatory fashion nor to maliciously attack the customer when they complain. Christ would have never acted in this fashion and their spewing of hate is not in his teachings. Honesty, I am shocked the fine was not more for their deception and actions. A lot may not agree with me and that is your opinion but you can not just pick and choose what parts of the Lord’s teachings you want to obey and call yourself a Christian. For this one sided reporting I will not longer support or fund this organization or any other that supports them. By the way, we are a family of means and did donate over $100k last year so the loss is yours.

    • Angel Jabbins

      Please give us a link to the ‘entire story’ so we can decide for ourselves if what you are accusing this couple of is true.

      • Good Christian

        Gladly! I have have posted a response to you several times now and the site keeps taking it down. You can do a little research yourself to find the details. Look up snopes dot com and find the story there. They seem to have multiple links to other supporting detail as well.

        • Angel Jabbins

          When you want to post a link, leave a space between the dot and com or org and it will get posted. i will try looking for it when I get a chance. Thanks for trying.

          • SpeakTruth

            Thank you for explaining that. I, too, have tried to post a link to an article with more details, but it wouldn’t go through. I’ll try again when I have a minute.

    • Good Christian

      Angel Jabbins – Gladly I would share a link but this site keeps taking it down upon posting it. You can easily do a little research yourself and find multiple findings out there. Start at snopes.

  • Cindy Montgomery

    Good, they deserve what they got and more.

    • One other person is typing…