Chinese Pastor Detained for ‘Endangering National Security’

Yizi-compressedWenzhou, Zhejiang (China Aid) Authorities in China’s coastal Zhejiang informed the wife of Huang Yizi, a local pastor, that he had been put under criminal detention for “endangering national security” but would not reveal where he was being held.

Huang, who was released from prison after a year-long sentence on Aug. 1, was detained again on Sept. 12. Huang’s wife, surnamed Lin, was told by authorities on Sept. 14 that the official notice of his detention had been sent out and that she should wait for it at home. As of Sept. 22, she said she had not received the notice.

Lin visited the Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau with a lawyer and was told that Huang had been placed in criminal detention for “endangering national security,” though authorities refused to clarify the charge further. Thus far, Huang’s place of detention has not been released, as officers stated he was still under investigation and this was “inconvenient” information to give.

Continue reading this story >>


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
  • Kathy Surette-Coles

    I find it disgusting that people are forced to do something that is against their personal principles whether that be religious or otherwise…I say that if it is your business you work within your comfort…and being your business you also can price a product/service at any price you want. That is how I would have done it, if you don’t want to work with individuals and that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, there is enough individuals couples (heterosexual) that in my 30 years in the wedding industry that I haven’t wanted to work with because of conflict in personality and in that cause you raise your rates to deter them coming to you…JUST A THOUGHT!

    • amostpolitedebate

      It’s not about wedding cakes. It’s about being able to participate in the community in peace. If you allow discrimination in bakeries you allow it everywhere else as well. People shouldn’t have to worry that they won’t be able to find a place to live because the company that owns all the housing in the area has a “no gays” policy.

      • Kathy Surette-Coles

        I am tired of constantly saying we need to accept etc. Why is it that “Christians” must accept and conform why isn’t that we can choose how we run our business. These individuals were not rude or disrespectful, they declined to go against their own principles. If someone in the LGBTQ was told that they had to not live their lives as they see fit there would be an uproar. Does that not apply to all, or just to those that “FEEL” they are the minority.

        With all that is going on my once understanding or compassion towards those of the LGBTQ community has gone. I feel that they are always doing the poor me or playing the victim. Shit stinks that is why it is called shit…if someone I went to didn’t want to serve me for whatever reason…I would think fine I’ll take my business as well as all those individuals that are on my FB etc will also take there business elsewhere but to sue someone, that makes the LGBTQ community look a little petty!

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

          First of all, the nondiscrimination law at issue was properly approved by the citizens’ legislature and signed into law by the citizens’ executive (the governor). Justice Scalia wrote (Employment Division v. Smith) that religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws would make them unenforceable. “According to my religious beliefs I cannot pay taxes,” and so on.

          Nobody is forcing someone to open a public accommodation. If you do you have to obey the law. Moreover, everyone subsidizes that business. All of the taxpayers pay for the roads and infrastructure that make the business possible. All of the taxpayers pay the police and fire departments to protect the business.

        • Blaylock

          these people are standing up for their rights as US citizens and that makes them look petty? wow

      • BobbyHead

        There was never any discrimination ever. This baker served homosexuals all the time. My how you queers interpret laws to your gay side only.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Not true actually. These same rules protect Christians from discrimination as well.

          • Champoogne

            Excellent point.

        • Gloria Lynn Truscott

          Well said

        • Blaylock

          the judges interpreted the law, not the couple who sued… again, who interpreted these laws???

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      They are not forced to do anything. Nobody is forcing Mr. Phillips to operate a public accommodation. Nobody is forcing him to bake wedding cakes. If he does both of those things then he has to make those case available to all customers. There is a cite on the Frog to Newman v. Piggie Park which explains this better than I can.

      • Kathy Surette-Coles

        Correct they aren’t being forced but if they choose not to do what their conviction is they will be sued or publicly their business will be dragged across the coals until they have to close their business (these individuals who sued must be proud of themselves)…no forcing there correct…just you do it or else.

        I agree that if you have a business then that is something that could happen. But also, I think that if you don’t want to do a cake for someone that is, let’s just say sorry honey I beat the crap out of you…because you are against domestic violence does that mean that you should because if you don’t you are discriminating, before answering I realize this isn’t the same.

        However, if you have conviction about something it is YOUR BUSINESS your $$ loss from the sale…you should have the choice how you run your business and who you do business with. Many of the intelligent in the gay community think fine if you don’t want my business, I don’t want to do business with you and I agree.

        • Disqusdmnj

          Honest question here – do you think it’d be OK for a baker (or any other business owner) to turn down a customer only because they’re black?

          Or Christian?

          • Denise DeChant

            I think business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Antidiscrimination laws are no longer necessary.

          • Disqusdmnj

            How about a police officer or fireman refusing to help someone for any same reason (meaning same as a business person refusing service)?

          • Denise DeChant

            Police officers & fire fighters are city employees, not a private business.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Valid point!

            And therefore the county clerks who won’t issue SSM marriage certificates should also do as the law says, right?

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            If I was a County Clerk I would refuse myself and I am in my Faith and my Beliefs and I would not have a problem quitting my job as I am not going to be forced to participate in a Gay Marriage by issuing Marriage Liscense

          • amostpolitedebate

            But just so we’re clear, you DO support gay rights protections at the government level, correct?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Exactly! I may disagree with that belief, but that is the right way to handle it. And that’s what the baker should do then… since he can’t uphold the law, he needs to find another occupation where the law of our land doesn’t interfere with his beliefs.

          • Denise DeChant

            I think they should be given a different job if they’re not willing to issue SS marriage certificates.

          • Disqusdmnj

            I totally agree.

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            Right they are not a Business Disqusdmnj

          • amostpolitedebate

            What makes you say this? Bigotry and discrimination are still plenty prevalent in the US. Even if it wasn’t though, what harm is there in having the rules in place just in case?

          • Denise DeChant

            Don’t worry. The free market will punish those that discriminate. The article we’re discussing is an example of the harm these antidiscrimination laws can cause.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Except that the free market is far from perfect and can be a terrible judge of character. What happens if the group being discriminated against is unpopular? What if the business is something that can’t be easily replaced by a consumer? Imagine if public opinion were to turn against Christians in a big way. Do you really want NO protection from all the small minded jerks out there?

          • DNelson

            What has made them “no longer necessary”?

          • Kathy Surette-Coles

            To me this isn’t so much about whether something is right or wrong. It is about having the right within your own business to chose to serve someone or not based on your own convictions. If it was based on race it is no better but the fact that they are suing. No different then if a black baker decided not to serve aw white customer. For some reason we assume racism has only to do with white to Blacks or Christians to non-Christians.

            The issue is the couple made a big deal out of something that many in the LGBTQ community themselves felt should have been dealt with on a lower key. They don’t enjoy looking stupid when they have said, “if someone doesn’t want to make me a cake because they don’t agree with my lifestyle then I don’t want them making me a cake…I will go elsewhere”. That is the mature response.
            The old saying you get a lot further with honey than you do with vinegar works here. I would be a whole lot more understanding if something wasn’t rammed down my throat.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Appreciate your candor. But the reality is, we have laws against discrimination. Part of me does think we should let the market decide, but sometimes the market just gets it wrong.

            I’m not exactly sure how many in the LGBTQ you know who are OK being discriminated against. Sure, a few would just as soon go to another shop without suing… but by and large, people in the minority want their equal rights protected as guaranteed in our Constitution.

            And if you get more with honey, why turn away *any* paying customer? 😉

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            Would you want some one to make a cake for say a wedding cake like in this situation who does not want to norm has their heart put in it I wouldn’t so in turn go where someone will someone who will care when they make it this not about discrimination

          • amostpolitedebate

            Not all businesses are bakeries. For example if the local paintball park near me decides on a “no gays” policy then my only other option is over an hour away. If THAT one is closed than I’m kind of screwed. Now imagine this situation with a hospital or a bank. It’s a much more serious issue than your giving it credit for.

          • Kathy Surette-Coles

            They weren’t against “gays”, since a cake was previously made for them. The bakers were against making them a wedding cake and that violated their personal Christian principles. They didn’t say “no gays allowed”. Blown way out of proportion there!

          • Michael C

            Refusing to sell a cake to an interfaith couple for their wedding because you disagree with interfaith marriage is considered discrimination on the basis of religion.

            Refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple for their wedding because you disagree with interracial marriage is considered discrimination on the basis of race.

            Refusing to sell a cake to an gay couple for their wedding because you disagree with gay marriage is considered discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

            “I don’t always discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” is not a legitimate defense for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

          • amostpolitedebate

            This logic is no better though. It’s like saying it’s ok to deny an interracial couple a wedding cake because you only object to black people when they marry white people.

          • Disqusdmnj

            But it *is* discrimination, plain and simple. He will sell his product to one group of people but not another. If he refused to sell because his customer was black, it’d be discrimination. If he refused to sell because his customer was Jewish, it’d be discrimination. If he refused to sell because his customer was Christian, it’d be discrimination. And as a country filled with millions of people of all different races, creeds, beliefs, etc, it is something we should not tolerate in the square of public accommodation. In private, he can do what he wants. But his business benefits from all of his community paying taxes to keep the roads safe and fires put out and police protecting, therefore he needs to be willing to sell to the community that helps him, no matter their person.

          • Kathy Surette-Coles

            They realize that not all will agree with their lifestyle but the mature ones are happy to not do busy with those individuals. No more than I would if I went into a company that treated me rudely would I continue to do business with a company like that. However, my first instinct isn’t to sue.

            Not to be nasty, since I have many family and friends that are American. But suing must be an American thing…the first thing that comes out of someone’s mouth is, I don’t like what was said or how I was treated…so I sue!!!

          • Disqusdmnj

            Ha! Yeah, we are far too litigious a culture, I’ll grant you that. 😉

            However, there are frivolous suits, and there are those that must be brought down when Constitutionally-protected rights are not being upheld. This is one of those latter cases.

            It’s annoying to some and offensive to others, but in the end it makes us the country we were founded to be – one of equal protection under our Constitution. Sometimes, it just takes us a long while to realise we aren’t living up to our own standard.

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            Exactly and this is what I have been saying

        • Gloria Lynn Truscott

          I agree Kathy you are right !

        • DNelson

          “.you should have the choice how you run your business and who you do business with.”

          Then you would support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, correct? Including that which protects you from being discriminated against because you are a woman, correct?

          “Many of the intelligent in the gay community think fine if you don’t want my business, I don’t want to do business with you”

          So you are saying that people in the gay community who hold business owners accountable to the law are not intelligent? They are stupid? Would you apply the same label to black people who took action against businesses that refused to serve black people? Also not intelligent because they simply didn’t go to another business that was willing to serve them?

          • Kathy Surette-Coles

            We can agree to disagree…you won’t change my opinions. And I am not desiring to change yours.

            Have a great day what’s left of it…God Bless.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Then why are you arguing on a public comments section?

          • Kathy Surette-Coles

            I am not “arguing” but it is becoming repetition.

          • DNelson

            So then you do want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as all subsequent civil rights and ant-discrimination legislation. Got it.

            So you do think that any gay or black person who holds a business accountable for breaking the law is not intelligent. Got it.

            We certainly do disagree on those points, Kathy, and you are certainly entitled to your views.

    • BobbyHead

      We used to have a free country until the gestapo gay courts condemn Christians.

      • Jim H

        Christians are over 70% of the population. According to Gallop, the latest estimate shows that 3.8% actually identify as LGBT. You have them outnumbered about 20 to 1. How could they be so powerful that they could take over the court system? Are Christians just that weak and ineffectual?

      • Blaylock

        We used to be able to openly discriminate against the gay community until they stood up for their rights. Fixed it for you

    • DNelson

      “I find it disgusting that people are forced to do something that is against their personal principles whether that be religious or otherwise”

      They aren’t, Kathy.

      “haven’t wanted to work with because of conflict in personality and in that cause you raise your rates to deter them coming to you”

      That is illegal, Kathy.

  • amostpolitedebate

    Again with the sarcasm quotes around “gay wedding”. What is up with that?

    • Jamie Garcia

      It’s not real. Hence the quotes.

      • amostpolitedebate

        How so? You may not like or agree with extending marriage to gay couples but that doesn’t make them any less real.

        • Gloria Lynn Truscott

          In Gods eyes it is wrong and Marriage in my heart is for a Man and a Woman what God intended Marriage to be …

          • Disqusdmnj

            It’s real as far as the State is concerned, regardless of what the Church’s (or your, or my) opinion of it is.

          • Jade

            How do you know that is what God intended with marriage? When I read the Bible, God did not have a problem with a man marrying many women and concubines. After God gave King David all of King Saul’s belongings including his wives, God told King David if that had not been enough, he would have given him much more.

  • keats5

    Compelled speech. There used to be a constitution against that.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      This is not compelled speech. I address this on the Frog. However, the prohibition on compelled speech is predicated on preventing the government from forcing citizens to endorse government creeds. There is no doubt that the message on the cake is that of the gay couple and not that of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

      • BobbyHead

        Now in this country you are found guilty before you are considered innocent

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Was the Fifth Amendment overturned at some point that I’m not aware of?

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    I guess that posts with links are held for moderation. Check out the SlowlyBoiledFrog for my take on the five key elements of this case which include a trip back to 1966. This is being appealed to the state supreme court which will yield the same result. SCOTUS has already declined to hear a similar case.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The demonic agenda of the Wicked continues to spread throughout the world like cancer.

    Judgement is coming.

    • BobbyHead

      Yes, we Christians need to walk better with the Lord Jesus. It may be too late for this Nation. Expect another 9-11 from them Muslims. We already had a terrorist attack from the liberal run EPA, turning our rivers into toxic chemicals.

      • Disqusdmnj

        Um, that was not an attack. It was an accident by a contractor and the EPA is taking full responsibility for it.

      • Blaylock

        your paranoia and persecution syndrome is getting the best of you

  • Michael C

    Phillips has been found guilty of violating a law that prohibits public accommodations from refusing service on the basis of a number of characteristics including; race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and sexual orientation. It is ridiculous to attempt to claim that he did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He did.
    If a bakery refuses to sell a cake to an interracial couple because they “don’t believe” in interracial marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of race.
    If a bakery refuses to sell a cake to an interfaith couple because they “don’t believe” in interfaith marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of religion.
    If a bakery refuses to sell a cake to an gay couple because they “don’t believe” in gay marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Many people are complaining about the application of these laws. I am not hearing anyone offering any solutions to their complaints.

    For those who disagree with the application of non-discrimination laws, I would love to discuss your ideas on how to improve the laws.

    • BobbyHead

      A man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not by some homosexual judge

      • Disqusdmnj

        He was found guilty in a court of law, that’s what this whole article is describing. You’re saying if a judge weren’t heterosexual, his ruling wouldn’t count, besides the fact that 3 judges presided?

        • Gloria Lynn Truscott

          Well the Baker’s Lawyer will go over Legal options as the Court’s are violating his Rights and his Beliefs and the Gay couple well go where someone will make them a cake I mean why would they want someone to make it who does not want to it is not that hard to go somewhere else

          • Disqusdmnj

            Not really… he can still be a Christian, so his rights are in tact. But he can’t discriminate as far as the court’s definition of public accommodation are concerned. If following the law make him go against his beliefs, then he should find another business to be in that doesn’t deal with the public.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “he can still be a Christian, so his rights are in tact.”

            That’s what the Nazis said about Jews as they were leading them to the gas chambers: “They can still be Jews, so they’re rights are intact.” You seem to be confusing freedom of religion with freedom of worship.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Hyperbole… clearly the Nazis weren’t concerned with “rights” as they were exterminating the people who were supposed to be able to evoke them.

            And no, said baker is still free to be whatever religion he wants, and worship whatever he wants. He just has to also follow the laws of his land. If he doesn’t want to do that, he can either change to a job that doesn’t interfere with his religious beliefs, or he can move to a land that doesn’t have laws that interfere with his religious beliefs. But as an American, he has to follow American laws. At least while they *are* the law.

          • The Last Trump

            Or change the laws BACK to their original, no longer insane politically correct form.
            You liberal extremists! Always leaving THAT particular option out.
            So weird…

          • Michael C

            “Or change the laws BACK to their original…”

            If by “back to their original”, do you mean back to when it was perfectly legal in Colorado to deny service to people simply because they’re gay? …when it was legal in Colorado to fire an employee for being gay? …when it was legal in Colorado to deny housing to a person just because they’re gay? Discriminating against gay people is still legal in most states.

            …or do you mean we should “change the laws back to their original” before the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

          • The Last Trump

            I mean change the laws back to marriage is between one man and one woman. Who go on to reproduce and create families. Period.
            Like it always has been for countless generations of humanity the world over. Sexual perversion is not a protected “class”. Please!
            Loved your dramatic post though.
            Very “in character” of the LGBT crowd 😉

          • Michael C

            The topic of this conversation is non-discrimination laws, not marriage law.

            The State of Colorado did not legally recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples in July of 2012. They didn’t even recognize civil unions at that time.

            This conversation has nothing to do with whether or not the government legally recognizes the marriages of gay couples.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Why stop there? Why not one man, many women? Or the widow of his brother? Or the virgin who was raped?

            Those seem way more perverted to me than two people with the same happy parts who are in a committed, loving relationship. Shame you can’t see that.

          • Champoogne

            “Like it always has been for countless generations of humanity the world over.”

            Because your daughter is worth at LEAST four goats and a camel.

          • DNelson

            There is no law to change back. Laws regarding restricting marriage to only two citizens of opposite gender cannot be put back into place because they have been ruled unconstitutional.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Hyperbole”

            You know me well! 🙂

            “clearly the Nazis weren’t concerned with “rights””

            You don’t really believe that the Gaystapo is concerned with religious freedom rights do you? Or atheists? Why would they care about religious freedoms – I sure didn’t when I was an atheist?

            “And no, said baker is still free to be whatever religion he wants, and worship whatever he wants.”

            Not if he has to leave his religion at the bakery doors.

            “He just has to also follow the laws of his land.”

            Well, what if those laws conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs? Would you say that a Christian who refused to return a runaway slave to his “master” should have been persecuted? We are getting close to moral questions here, not legal ones, so tread carefully. You know you don’t want to go down that rabbit hole with me tonight. 🙂

            “If he doesn’t want to do that, he can either change to a job that doesn’t interfere with his religious beliefs”

            That is actually NOT the way it works – you are way too smart to fall into that one. ALL Americans are allowed religious freedoms wherever they are in this country. (Or used to be.) The fact that religious freedom means nothing to you, as an atheist, does NOT mean that it is not cherished by us.

            “But as an American, he has to follow American laws.”

            You just threw Dr. MLK, Jr and Rosa Parks under the bus (pun intended). I consider the Christians, like this man and Barronelle Stutzman and others, who are being persecuted by the Nanny State to be lesser players in the same heroic category for not backing down from tyranny.

          • Disqusdmnj

            “You don’t really believe that the Gaystapo is concerned with religious freedom rights do you? Or atheists? Why would they care about religious freedoms – I sure didn’t when I was an atheist?”

            *** I do, and all the LGBTQ *I* know do as well. Of course I care about your religious freedoms; they’re one of the main tenets of our country’s founding, and possibly unlike you and others here, I put myself as an American and an atheist on equal footing. My guess is you put yourself as a Christian first, and your adherence to Biblical law comes above State law. I want you to be able to believe and practice whatever you want, and not be forced into a religion you don’t ascribe to, or be forced to abandon a belief you hold dear (right or wrong though it may be). Your religious beliefs just can’t trump our actual laws. Shame you missed that point when you “were” an atheist. ***

            “And no, said baker is still free to be whatever religion he wants, and worship whatever he wants.”

            Not if he has to leave his religion at the bakery doors.

            *** If parts of his belief system are unlawful, then yes, even then, under the laws of public accommodation (like ‘em or not). He can deny making gay wedding cakes for friends out of his house all he wants. He doesn’t have to have gay people over for dinner, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims, or – heaven forbid – atheists. But as a place of business catering to the public, he cannot discriminate. ***

            “Well, what if those laws conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs? Would you say that a Christian who refused to return a runaway slave to his “master” should have been persecuted?”

            *** Like much of the Bible, we are talking about ancient laws that we’ve moved past lo these many centuries. A Christian who refused to return a slave *would* have been punished, so let’s be thankful that we moved past the Bible’s recommendations for owning a slave, and have determined slavery is just bad in general. Is that not a better reasoning? ***

            “If he doesn’t want to do that, he can either change to a job that doesn’t interfere with his religious beliefs”

            That is actually NOT the way it works – you are way too smart to fall into that one. ALL Americans are allowed religious freedoms wherever they are in this country. (Or used to be.) The fact that religious freedom means nothing to you, as an atheist, does NOT mean that it is not cherished by us.

            *** Again, when religious beliefs conflict with state law, state law trumps beliefs. You can’t own slaves, stone an adulterer, take payment for your raped daughter, etc. And yet you are still allowed to believe – if not practice – whatever you want in private as long as it doesn’t harm another person. ***

            “But as an American, he has to follow American laws.”

            You just threw Dr. MLK, Jr and Rosa Parks under the bus (pun intended). I consider the Christians, like this man and Barronelle Stutzman and others, who are being persecuted by the Nanny State to be lesser players in the same heroic category for not backing down from tyranny.

            *** Tell me how the actions of MLK *discriminated* against the rights of others. And I want to be perfectly clear on this… show me what MLK did that prohibited another person from being equally protected under American law. ***

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If parts of his belief system are unlawful”

            Well, now we are onto morality. You are actually stating that a person has to give up a portion of his 1st Amendment right of religious freedom to run a business or so that a gay person will not be (faux) offended?

            “so let’s be thankful that we moved past the Bible’s recommendations for owning a slave”

            What?!? Are you now contending that the Christian Church, in practice and doctrine, has supported slavery for 2000 years, and was not the ones who ended slavery? Those were progressives who pushed slavery – your folks.

            Great – just provide all of the evidence – Church documents, creeds, hymns, Church history, Church writings on matters of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, statements of faith, etc showing me that the Christian Church has held to practicing slavery for 2000 years, and not prohibiting those things. Also, please provide evidence, since you seem to be referring to OT passages in the Bible, that you have trolled Orthodox Judaism sites to point these things out to them regarding the Tanach, as well, so that we may all understand that your “view” of Christian and Jewish doctrines and practices is scholarly and rooted in evidence and reason and not the result of a blind faith emotional atheism.

            Have you never heard of William Wilberforce? He put his “religious beliefs” above the law when atheists were enjoying their black property and condemning him for raining on their “progressive” parade.

            “Again, when religious beliefs conflict with state law, state law trumps beliefs.”

            That is just NOT true. You cannot set aside the 1st Amendment like that – even though it means nothing to you as an atheist. And it should send a chill down your spine to see yourself do so.

            “Tell me how the actions of MLK *discriminated* against the rights of others.”

            He did nothing and neither did this baker. But, it was a nice shift of the goalposts: the argument you made was that “But as an American, he has to follow American laws.” If everyone thought like that, there would be no MLK, Jr’s, no Rosa Parks, no Harriet Tubman’s, no Corrie ten Booms – all law breakers. Think about it: based on your argument, the Civil Rights movement never would have occurred. Want to re-think your “morality” yet?

          • Disqusdmnj

            I’m not saying Christianity still backs slavery. But it did, as did many, many other cultures. Your god could have put “no slavery” in the Commandments, but he apparently chose not to. Nothing kept him from going to 11 (like in “Spinal tap”!). Instead, he choose to offer guidance on how to have slaves instead. We’ve moved past that, and I’m happy that today’s Christians understand that.

            Baker dude’s 1A rights are still in tact. He can say whatever he wants. But he can’t discriminate in his business. He is saying one group can have his services, but another group cannot, and the only difference is that other group’s preference for partner. Discrimination, plain and simple. It is very clear that MLK did nothing of the sort of what this baker, and the other one, and all the others who follow – non-violent as they may be – have done. MLK did not keep people from their Constitutionally protected rights of equal protection and treatment under the law… he fought and died for equal treatment. You know this argument of yours too holds no water.

            Or wine. 😉

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m not saying Christianity still backs slavery. But it did”

            No it did not. You have produced none of the evidence that I asked for whatsoever for that – you just heard it on a low brow atheist website, and you are WAY too smart to fall for such a strawman.

            “Your god could have put “no slavery” in the Commandments”

            He did!

            30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” — Mark 12:30-31

            The Bible is not some sort of rule book – otherwise Christians would not have known to help the Jews against the Nazis – no talk of Jew gassing in the Book. Same thing with abortion – lots of verses relevant to abortion, of course, but not a specific commandment like what you envision.

            “We’ve moved past that, and I’m happy that today’s Christians understand that.”

            There is nothing to “move past” on atheism – it is just blind pitiless indifference.

            “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))

            “He can say whatever he wants.”

            Well, THAT is surely a VERY restricted view of religious freedom. 🙂 But, thank you for letting us say what we want. 🙂 In Canada, if you saying anything against SSM in public, you can be fined up to $1000. One of my Canadian friends said that he never hears Christians complain about SSM. I told him “I guess not! I here there weren’t many Jews complaining to the Nazis either!”

            “and the only difference is that other group’s preference for partner.”

            That is just NOT true. Factually false. He has served gays left and right, he just will not cross the line to a participatory service involving a gay “wedding.” HUGE difference on Christian theism – but not on atheism.

            “It is very clear that MLK did nothing of the sort”

            He broke the law. So, man’s law cannot, by these examples I provided, be any form of ultimate or objective moral justice.

            “equal treatment”

            Equal treatment means forcing Christians to provide services for events they find objectively immoral?!? Strange definition.

          • Disqusdmnj

            “Equal treatment means forcing Christians to provide services for events they find objectively immoral?!? Strange definition.”

            Equal treatment says if you administer a business process, it must be done for all customers. You cannot pick and choose to whom you offer that service. He can refuse to make a cake with foul language on it, because he would be refusing that to any customer regardless of who they were or what they looked like. But if he offers a wedding cake to one group, he has to offer it to all.

            “He [MLK] broke the law.”

            Yes he did, and he went to jail for doing so. But he did not restrict another person from exercising Constitutionally protected rights afforded to them, as has been decided in the bakery cases under equal treatment. You keep missing that point.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “But he did not restrict another person from exercising Constitutionally protected rights afforded to them”

            Neither did the baker – YOU keep missing THAT point. Are you really siding with “Bake me a cake or else?!?” Seriously?

            MLK stood up for his Constitutionally protected rights – the laws violated the Constitution – just as this ruling violates the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom.

          • Disqusdmnj

            What do you think “equal” protection/treatment means? Particularly with respect to public accommodation?

          • amostpolitedebate

            Probably that Christians can do whatever they want and everybody else just has to deal with it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I have no idea anymore, Disqusdmnj, really I don’t. I just don’t see it being applied to these Christians who the Nanny State is going after for sincerely and deeply held 1st Amendment religious convictions. It’s the 14th Amendment vs the 1st Amendment, and it seems that the 1st Amendment has no “equal protection” in the fight. Hey, that was kind of clever. 🙂

            The only two points I wish to make is that:
            1. This is PC bull, pardon my French, and
            2. These bakers and florists ARE regularly serving gay people – they just are unwilling to cross the line to engaging in what they believe are immoral participatory acts. So, I don’t want to hear anymore about how Christians don’t serve gay people, as if they have signs up in windows that say “No gays allowed,” which would be totally un-Christian. (And I personally spit on any “Christian” who would put up such a sign.)

            I think that the state should respect that a line is being crossed. I think that if we find any Westboro-style bakers and florists, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, these folks are not them – my goodness Baronnelle Stutzman did the floral arrangements for her gay friend’s birthday party – she just couldn’t cross that line for his “wedding.” That grandmother-florist could no more hate a flea, if she tried.

            I think that these kinds of cases work against the gay community by building up resentment of their (or actually a subset of their) lack of tolerance for Christians deeply held and sincere religious convictions. I understand the despicable history behind many incidents of persecuting gays, and it is reprehensible beyond extreme. I just think we are going too far in the other direction, and I think it is going to hurt the ones we want to help. I wish I had a better solution to the problem when the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment collide – they are both very important.

            And, I won’t even reply to the comment below that says we Christians think we can do whatever we want – that view is so far outside of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Christian theism sets restrictions on our worldly behavior – not in terms of a set of rules, but in a relationship that is supposed to bear fruit. Our “fun” comes in the afterlife. I don’t think that the baker or florist thought it was “fun” to turn down ANY business, especially when they knew this was a PC issue. But, I know that this was a case where they just could not cross a line, because it would be a denial of their faith. it is just such a restriction that disallows the baker from accepting that business.

            I certainly respect your views, Disqusdmnj, and you know I think you are one of the best debaters out here. And thanks for your great help recently – have a super weekend and enjoy the BBQ!

          • Disqusdmnj

            Crazy, that is one of the most thoughtful, human, insightful responses I’ve ever seen on any site… period. It’s nice when the facade of positional defense and arguments fall away, revealing true emotion and personal viewpoints. You were clear in your writing, and moved well beyond the flat, repetitive discourse so commonly seen on this site in particular. Fellow commenters would do well to not only see how you wrote, but what, as far as your opinions on being a Christian means (although, if a “no gays allowed” sign is un-Christian, what is a “no gays allowed wedding cake” practice?). It shows a type and level of compassion and understanding most people here like Gary and FoJC seem positively incapable of having.

            With that, I understand your frustration, and please view my comparison as no call-out on you or your beliefs in particular – you say you lived time as an atheist, so I must take you at your word in hopes you’ll understand as such.

            I lived every day as a teen reciting a flag pledge and skipping the later addition of “under God”; I handle my country’s cash daily with “in God we trust” on it when it clearly doesn’t represent me; I read my friend’s Facebook posts yesterday asking all of us to pray for her as she was stuck on a plane trying to get her son off to college, as though if *just enough* more of us started doing so, her God would change the course of the day and clear out all of the air traffic and maintenance issues, just for her. It’s embarrassing to me to have that friend since 7th grade *still* believe that daily occurrences and chance and chaos can somehow be manipulated, to be bent towards her favor and convenience… as if enough kids clapped, Tinker Bell would come back to life. It’s embarrassing to me that almost half of Americans believe we come from dirt and ribs, and didn’t evolve from other life forms as has so clearly been proven time and time again; and that this simple fact that ties us to every living thing on the planet is so absurd and abhorrent to some people that they have to legislate the ability to “teach the controversy”. It’s embarrassing to me that a healthy portion of legislators running my country tell me that even the *chance* of climate change being real is a fallacy and a hoax, because obviously God controls the weather, without any sense of irony that he’s then also killing thousands every year with his heat and floods and hurricanes and earthquakes and cold. It’s embarrassing to me that when I meet people who don’t share my beliefs or worldview, I don’t think it means they’re going to spend an eternity in flames after they die, but they believe I will, and that that’s a worthy belief system to have. And it’s remarkably embarrassing to me that after tens of thousands of years of culture, and millennia of enlightenment, and centuries of scientific knowledge and decades of technological advancement, that a huge swath of my fellow humans still believe it’s worth killing someone because their god told them he is greater than that other god.

            Seriously… it’s truly a complete and utter embarrassment that people believe that their deity’s most pressing concern – after creating a universe 13.8 billion years old, filled with billions upon billions of galaxies containing trillions of stars and an uncountable number of planets, with oddly only one blue dot we’re fortunate enough can sustain our form of life that we know of so far – is whether or not two people can commit to each other for some state-sanctioned benefits, and that a follower who simply makes them a cake will just have to be sent to Hell or whatever for doing so against His wishes.

            That’s what I feel every day… and I just f*ing deal with it, because that’s the way our societal agreements and laws say to so that this all *can* work in some imperfect way. This world will never be perfect in my eyes, and nor will it be for the bakers and the ministers and commenters and screaming Sunday preachers who believe being born gay and finding someone you love is an abomination… so they too may as well just deal with it. Because if there is an omniscient God – some gatekeeper to this alleged exclusive afterlife club – He’s got to know that His believers are just doing what He let man’s laws become as far as SSM goes. And they’ll still know it’s a sin and therefore should still be in His good graces for the fun after-party. Seriously… would He really turn them away because they followed a law and made two nice dudes a cake?

            And *also* seriously, back at you WGC! We both go off the rails here at times, but polite discourse sure is tough to come by these days, and I appreciate that we’ve got it! Maybe one day we’ll engage in a game of Mousetrap… we’ll play for each other’s souls! 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks Disqusdmnj, for throwing me a bone! (Get it?!? :-)) Yes, let us do Mousetrap! 🙂

            If I could just address a few points you made here, and please do not feel like I am picking on you or being stubborn – you know how much I like you – I just like to explore thoughts and all: the things that embarrass you about Christian theism are pretty much all strawman attacks. You seem to think that if God exists, then you could do a better job. But, that means that you are appealing to some Higher Objective Moral Value, i.e., a God. (Some would say you are putting yourself into God’s place.) Since I do not have time to address them all, here is just one I wish to formalize:

            “It’s embarrassing to me that when I meet people who don’t share my beliefs or worldview, I don’t think it means they’re going to spend an eternity in flames after they die, but they believe I will, and that that’s a worthy belief system to have.”

            Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think your argument goes like this:

            Premise 1. If I disagree with someone on worldview, I do not believe that they are going to Hell.
            Premise 2. Christians disagree with me on my worldview and believe that I am going to Hell.
            Conclusion 1. Therefore, Christians are objectively immoral to hold this view.
            Conclusion 2. Therefore, Hell and the Christian God do not exist.

            Now, just based on a few basic rules of logic, we can see that neither conclusion follows. What is even more fascinating is that your appeal to objective immorality in Conclusion 1 actually makes the case FOR the existence of God.

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do
            not exist. (Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Rosenberg, most traditional atheists, etc.)
            Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist. (You assert it in your Conclusion 1 above.)
            Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

            So, that is one case in your strawmen that actually makes the argument for theism. I could show that with other cases as well, but please forgive me if I do not take the time to do so. Please understand that the reason for looking at these arguments with some level of formalism is due to my background: 4 degrees in engineering and mathematics and playing a major role in the design of critical systems for two long-term operational spacecraft. I did not attain these objectives, humble though they be, by engaging emotion, but by setting my emotions aside (and you can be sure that engineers can be VERY emotional when it comes to their design “babies”) and pursuing them with doggedly (get it?!?) logic.

            So, I am NOT unfeeling toward your points – not at all – just that they do not seem to imply anything logically, nor do they always represent Christian theism with any reliability. (See below) And keep in mind that, if Hell is for real, and I think we have even good secular reasons for believing it is in addition to the numerous pronouncements of Jesus of Nazareth, then it would be unloving for anyone to not warn those who may be headed there, myself included, of that reality.

            The second point I want to make is that, I think we need to ask why it is objectively moral, on atheism, to go after these bakers and florists who hold sincere and perfectly orthodox Christian views? I would like to see just how that logic plays out as well. I do not think it to be a good argument. I think that, if religious freedom exists and is worthy (and geopolitical history shows that it can be), then we have to respect the fact that, while these bakers and florists served gays routinely, there is SOME point (even if we do not agree where that point is) at which their religious freedom rights are eroded. It seems that even an anti-religionist could agree with this, despite the fact that he has no dog (:-)) in the fight.

            You write:

            “He’s got to know that His believers are just doing what He let man’s laws become as far as SSM goes. And they’ll still know it’s a sin and therefore should still be in His good graces for the fun after-party.”

            I think that this really demonstrates a poor understanding of Christian theism. The fact that God allows evil (due to creaturely free will) does NOT mean that he appreciates His followers engaging in it. We are not His pets and He is not our Cosmic Butler. We are seriously restricted in allowable action by Him. This theology I present to you permeates Christian thought, orthodoxy, and orthopraxy since the Church’s very inauguration and comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself, not to mention Paul.

            Finally, this point you made really jumped out at me:

            “that a huge swath of my fellow humans still believe it’s worth killing someone because their god told them he is greater than that other god.”

            I am guessing that you are pointing to ISIS here as an example, and it is a good one that I agree with certainly. But, I really must turn the tables on you and ask you, how is it, that in 2015, with the science 100% settled that human life begins at human conception, such a “huge swath of my fellow humans still believe that it is OK to kill 1.2 million innocent defenseless human beings per year” (in America alone, millions more around the world) because their (or their girlfriend’s) prom dress won’t fit after she got pregnant or for whatever reason, since abortion on demand IS the reality in America?

            I think we really need to understand why 97% of atheists support this barbaric practice, when both science, the womb with the view (ultrasound), basic human biology, pictures of aborted babies, videos of abortions online – all of this information available in 2015 – show such a callous and inhuman regard for the lives of human beings who merely exist and have committed no crime of their own? And, just so you know I am not picking on you, I think we have to ask why there are ANY Christians, much less the too many who do, that support abortion on demand?

            I hope this was not too harsh. Anyway, thanks again for your response, and keep up the great work!

          • Champoogne

            “You don’t really believe that the Gaystapo is concerned with religious freedom rights do you?”

            Is there any particular reason you insist on using that vile, disgusting, hateful expression?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “vile, disgusting, hateful expression”

            It’s none of those – it is well into the lexicon:

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

            Besides, there is nothing wrong with vile, disgusting or hateful on atheism, because there are no grounds for such objective moral values and duties on atheism:

            “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).

            “no purpose, no evil and no good,” “no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life,” “ethics is illusory”

            There you have it – that is YOUR world. You don’t get to borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from the world of the theist – they do not exist to you – they are merely flavors of ice cream. When you make objective moral claims, you are actually acknowledging the existence of God – for which I thank you very much! 🙂

          • Champoogne

            How many hundreds of times are you going to cut and paste these same three quotes, which you clearly have no understanding of, in the hopes that it’s going to give some kind of meaning to your assorted agendas?

            Sorry ice cream man. You don’t get it, and I doubt you ever will.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I love it!

            Well, I am going to cut and paste these three quotes over and over again until every atheist I encounter has seen them at least once, and realizes the nihilism of atheism. Under that view, you are an accident whose lifespan is maybe 80 years. After that, you cease to exist, and eventually, the universe dies a slow cold death in darkness. Your existence will matter not one whit, so neither did the SCOTUS ruling or any objective purpose, meaning, or morality that you fabricate in order to delude yourself. You may pretend all you want, but you are just deluding yourself. So, you cannot say, under your view, that anything is objectively “wrong” (including homophobia) without acknowledging the existence of an Objective Standard, or God. If you disagree, just take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals.”

            “Is there a God? No.
            What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
            What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
            What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
            Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
            Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
            Is there free will? Not a chance!
            What is the difference between right/wrong,
            good/bad? There is no moral difference between them… So much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about… you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” — Alex P. Rosenberg

          • Blaylock

            to this atheist, you only look like a fool :~))

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh yes, name-calling – a clear sign of an “intellectual” atheist:

            “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.” — Psalm 14:1

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            roflmao!!!!! Seriously? so that means every atheist is a criminal, cause they have no morality?

            Under that view, you are an accident whose lifespan is maybe 80 years. I know a atheist who is 94.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “so that means every atheist is a criminal, cause they have no morality”

            You are confusing moral ontology (the existence of moral values) with moral sociology (how we behave morally). On atheism, objective moral values and duties do not even exist, so you don’t get to jump into the world of the theist and pretend they do and talk about them and then jump back into the world of the atheist. Can’t have it both ways. Every time you assert an objective moral value or duty, you are tacitly assuming that God exists.

            “Under that view, you are an accident whose lifespan is maybe 80 years. I know a atheist who is 94.”

            Well, duh! The bottom line is that, on atheism, when you die, you cease to exist forever, and nothing you do will matter one whit in any ultimate or objective sense.

          • Champoogne

            Picking an ice cream flavor doesn’t result in murder or rape inflicted on the cashier or the next person in line just because you chose sherbet over cherry or plain vanilla over a swirl. The ice cream analogy is the worst, and you should drop it.

            And does anyone really need to point out to you that in those 3 quotes you’re so fond of posting, they are NOT stating that we as human beings do not matter, as you seem to be flogging us all with?

          • Blaylock

            your holy man has nothing to do with my morals or those of anyone else….how arrogant…and funny at the same time. your last paragraph speaks volumes as to your intelligence

          • Jim H

            A logical fallacy known as the Hitler card, Argumentum ad Nazium, or Reductio ad Hitlerum.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            If the shoe fits, wear it. And with you, it fits quite well.

          • Jim H

            You are the one who likes to bring up Hitler. I just wanted to let you know you were committing a logical fallacy. You have a funny way of saying thank you.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No logical fallacy, Jim, when the shoe fits. WorldGoneCrazy’s Law: the first person to invoke Godwin’s Law when the analogy is appropriate has lost the argument. 🙂

          • Jim H

            Its hard to see how that analogy can be appropriate for a discussion of an article concerning somebody being forced to bake a cake.

            Some analogies to Hitler may be appropriate. This one isn’t. It is grossly inappropriate to compare forcing a guy to make a wedding cake to killing 6 million Jews.

            If I were Jewish and lost family in the holocaust, I would not be happy with you and your analogy.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The argument put forth was “he can still be a Christian, so his rights are intact.”

            This argument is fallacious, as the Hitler example clearly showed. Your emotion-laden response does not get to trump basic logic.

          • Jim H

            I see you as drawing a moral equivalence between the acts of the baker and the Nazis, which is the reason I consider you playing the Hitler card, rather than making a valid analogy. It was hardly meant to be emotion laden. Rather, it was intended to provide a perspective you apparently lack.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Fair enough, Jim – it certainly was not intended that way. I never made the claim that going after this baker was as bad as what the Nazis did to the Jews. I was going after the logic. The formal logical argument that Disqusdmnj was making could be represented as thus:

            Premise 1. If the Christian baker can still be a Christian, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: The Christian baker can still be a Christian.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)

            Now, this is a sound logical argument, and Premise 2 is clearly true. But, Premise 1 leaves a LOT to be desired. How do we KNOW this? The way that I showed it was by making a parallel argument using the Nazis:

            Premise 1. If the Jewish baker can still be a Jew, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: The Jewish baker can still be a Jew.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)

            Now, in the context of 1930’s Germany, this second argument, while logically valid, fails miserably on Premise 1. In order to draw that out, I provided an example that showed it clearly. That is all I was doing, Jim – attacking the logic.

            In no way was I saying that the two situations were morally equivalent, just that the logic clearly fails, because both Premises 1 are invalid due to the fact that rights are being lost in both cases, and the fact that rights remain does not negate same. The Christian baker lost some rights as did the Jewish baker. The Jewish baker lost his rights relatively slowly too, at least initially, but ultimately catastrophically. The fact that the Christian baker has not lost as many rights as the Jewish baker lost is NOT an argument refuting the logic of my parallel approach. In other words, if the Christian can not cry out about the injustice until he experiences the same persecution as the Jew, well, what is the point then? Such a rule could not be considered morally objective or rational in any sense.

            Hope that helps. Good talking with you.

          • Jim H

            I addressed this further in response to your later comment. I’d be happy to continue discussing this there, if you wish.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not at all. I see you went off on another one of your Unabomber-style manifestos elsewhere. If you wish to continue the conversation, you may address the logic points I made above by premise. If not, then just admit you don’t do logic or philosophy, but that emotion is your specialty. If you cannot address a logical argument with as few as 2 premises and 1 conclusion, I cannot help you.

          • Jim H

            “The way that I showed it was by making a parallel argument using the Nazis:

            Premise 1. If the Jewish baker can still be a Jew, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: The Jewish baker can still be a Jew.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)”

            Your first premise is faulty because your context assumes that being a Jew was somehow a matter of choice. In the context that Jew was used in Nazi Germany it was a racial category. It was not a choice you made. You could no more be given the right to be a Jew than you could be given the right to be Caucasian, black, or oriental.

            On the other hand, your first argument was:

            “Premise 1. If the Christian baker can still be a Christian, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: The Christian baker can still be a Christian.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)”

            In that case being Christian is a choice and is a totally different situation than being a Jew in Nazi Germany.

            In fact, in this situation the homosexuals would see their situation as being more akin to the Jews in that they are being mistreated because of who they inherently are and Christians in the role of the Nazis mistreating them for being what they are.

            It seems the argument you object to (if someone can still they can still be what they choose to be, their rights are intact, even if certain rights are denied them) is the very argument used against SSM (if people choose to be homosexual, which I assume you believe do, they can still be homosexual without being allowed to marry, so their rights are intact).

            It seems that you want it both ways, The argument is faulty when applied to Christians, but appropriate when applied to homosexuals.

            “If not, then just admit you don’t do logic or philosophy, but that emotion is your specialty. If you cannot address a logical argument with as few as 2 premises and 1 conclusion, I cannot help you.”

            I pointed out obvious flaws in your logic and philosophy, so if I can do that without “doing logic and philosophy”, then logic and philosophy, as you do them, are apparently not worth doing.

            I realized that when you first posted your “logical argument”, but I didn’t particularly want to get into such a discussion, because I think using arguments that are logical, as for as their form is concerned, is often intended to lend credibility to premises that aren’t correct. Consequently it is usually is more to obscure and sidetrack than to clarify. However, you insisted, so I complied.

            Emotion has little to do with my replies, because I really have “no dog in the fight” in the SSM marriage argument. It doesn’t effect me, my family, or any close friends in any way. I simply care about what I think is right and fair and try to defend that.

            Since you have badly botched a logical argument with as few as 2 premises and 1 conclusion, I’m pretty sure you cannot help me either. But, it seems I, apparently can do so for you, which I’m happy to do.

            Have a good evening.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Your first premise is faulty because your context assumes that being a Jew was somehow a matter of choice. ”

            Nice try, nice fail. For the intellectually deficient (that would be YOU), the premises can be changed to:

            Premise 1. If the Jewish baker can still practice Judaism, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: The Jewish baker can still practice Judaism.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)

            Since not all Jews practice Judaism, including in Nazi Germany, that sets up the equivalency. I am surprised you missed that obvious a resolution. Here is another one:

            Premise 1. If Bonhoeffer can still be a Christian, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: Bonhoeffer can still be a Christian.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)

            And another:

            Premise 1. If MLK, Jr (or any black prior to the Civil Rights Act) can still be a Christian, then his rights are intact.
            Premise 2: MLK, Jr (or any black prior to the Civil Rights Act) can still be a Christian.
            Conclusion: Therefore, his rights are intact. (2,1 modus ponens)

            Need I go on, or are you going to whip out another Un-abomber-style manifesto?

            Looks like you have botched an argument with 2 premises and 1 conclusion. I guess I should not be surprised that you cannot tell right from wrong, with your veiled threats and internet stalking of a woman with Stage 4 cancer.

          • Jim H

            “Nice try, nice fail. For the intellectually deficient (that would be YOU), the premises can be changed to:”

            Whose response is getting “emotion laden” now? Is the great logician reduced to resorting to ad homs now?

            In every example you have used above your premise is based on their religion, which is a choice. Jews on Germany were not persecuted because of their religion, it was because of they were considered an inferior race. Even conversion to Christianity did not make them non-Jewish to the Nazis.

            You have tried to blur, or ignore, that side of the discussion, but it is the central issue to the question of the appropriateness of you using the Hitler card. Your use of it is what started this discussion.

            “Need I go on, or are you going to whip out another Un-abomber-style manifesto?”

            Please go on if you can find an argument that actually applies to what we were discussing, which I doubt you can.

            Regarding the “Un-abomber” manifesto, what exactly is an “Un-abomber”-style manifesto, and when did I make one?

            “I guess I should not be surprised that you cannot tell right from wrong, with your veiled threats and internet stalking of a woman with Stage 4 cancer.”

            I could make similar comments about your integrity, because you are willing to twist your own arguments and ignore what you previously said in order to win a argument. It also seems that is a rather emotional statement for a great logician like yourself to resort to.

            You have alluded to me threatening people but have yet to show when did I so or even how I could if I wanted to. I am particularly surprised by about what you said about the woman with stage 4 cancer. Where and to who do you think I did that?

            But, I have to ask, who is stalking who now? You are apparently following my comments, which is actually kind of gratifying. How else would you know such things, even if you get them wrong?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Look, I just gave you two examples of Christians who were persecuted (one by Hitler), and you can’t even admit defeat? I can give you lots more examples if you like. The bottom line is this: just because a person is free to be or believe what he chooses does not mean his rights have not been taken away. The Jewish example actually adds to the message, because, as you correctly put it, they cannot divest themselves of their racial heritage. Yet, their rights were still stripped.

            The argument is clearly fallacious that just because a person is free to believe what he previously believed does not mean that his rights have not been stripped. That’s my whole point – it’s really not too complicated. Premise 1 fails in all of those cases, and it doesn’t even matter if it is a choice or not – it is still a fail. Another great example is Jesus Christ, who had his rights clearly stripped, even if you do not believe that He is God. But, He was free to continue to believe what He believed – and He did – all the way to the Cross.

            “But, I have to ask, who is stalking who now?”

            You replied to me first on this story – not the other way around.

          • Jim H

            “The bottom line is this: just because a person is free to be or believe what he chooses does not mean his rights have not been taken away.”

            You just employed a double negative (couldn’t resist), but I understand your point. I have never argued against it. I merely argued that your Nazi analogy was inappropriate because in the context of Nazi Germany being a Jew was not about belief it was about race and no choice was involved.

            If did otherwise, please point out where I did so because it was not my intention.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You just employed a double negative (couldn’t resist)”

            Yes, I was thinking of it in symbolic form where we do that a fair amount. 🙂

            “If did otherwise, please point out where I did so because it was not my intention.”

            No, it was a good and fair point you made, one for which I am thankful and the better for it. God bless and have a great day!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Perhaps you are feeling guilty, Jim, that the same logic used for going after these baker Christians (“he can still be a Christian, so his rights are intact”), taken to its natural conclusion, would also apply to Adolph Hitler’s treatment of the Jews? “They can still be Jews, even in the ghettos, so their rights are intact.” “They can still be Jews, even in the concentration camps, so their rights are intact.” “They can still be Jews, even in the ovens, so their rights are intact.” Does it make you uncomfortable, Jim, that, had you been living in Nazi Germany, you would have felt perfectly comfortable making such arguments with respect to the Jews?

            Or perhaps, you are now recognizing with the CMP videos, that your position on abortion is reprehensibly close to what the Nazis did to the Jews: kill them and then use their bodies for “medical” research, etc? Maybe what you are objecting to is that the shoe fits your foot VERY comfortably, instead of not well at all?

            So, if you know any Jews who lost family members during the Holocaust, perhaps you should let them know that 58 million dead babies, used for “research,” is “progress” in your books too!

            No, Jim, when you take away basic religious freedom rights, you make your bed with Adolph. Embrace your fascism, Jim. Cast your failed moral platonism aside.

            Waiting for another one of your veiled threats now.

          • Jim H

            ‘Perhaps you are feeling guilty, Jim, that the same logic used for going after these baker Christians (“he can still be a Christian, so his rights are intact”)’

            I fail to see why you would think there is anything I would feel guilty about. As I said elsewhere, I see you as drawing a moral equivalence between the two acts that is fallacious. Further, by stating “taken to its natural conclusion”, you are making an equally fallacious slippery slope argument.

            “They can still be Jews, even in the ghettos, so their rights are intact.” “They can still be Jews, even in the concentration camps, so their rights are intact.” “They can still be Jews, even in the ovens, so their rights are intact.” Does it make you uncomfortable, Jim, that, had you been living in Nazi Germany, you would have felt perfectly comfortable making such arguments with respect to the Jews?”

            Do you feel perfectly comfortable when similar arguments are made by a Christian Natural Law based jurist named Clarence Thomas in dissenting against SSM:

            “The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

            “Or perhaps, you are now recognizing with the CMP videos, that your position on abortion is reprehensibly close to what the Nazis did to the Jews: kill them and then use their bodies for “medical” research, etc? Maybe what you are objecting to is that the shoe fits your foot VERY comfortably, instead of not well at all?”

            What do you assume my position on abortion to be? I know you tend to like to stereotype and label so you can make all sorts of assumptions about a person. But, I find that people are generally more complex and nuanced in their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, etc., although you may be an exception.

            “So, if you know any Jews who lost family members during the Holocaust, perhaps you should let them know that 58 million dead babies, used for “research,” is “progress” in your books too!”

            That “emotion laden” response is an accusation that is completely unsupported, but typical of your need to demonize anyone who feels differently. You seem to suffer from a need to overcompensate a bit and go beyond reasonable limits in your assumptions.

            “No, Jim, when you take away basic religious freedom rights, you make your bed with Adolph. Embrace your fascism, Jim. Cast your failed moral platonism aside.”

            So, when Christians try to force their religious values on others do they make their bed with Adolph as well, or do they get a pass? Actually, Christians long preceded Hitler in denying religious freedom.

            Untill Constantine, there was no heresy for the simple reason that there was no orthodoxy. Differences of opinion were tolerated.

            However, the end of the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, saw the dangers of numerous opinions developing. He attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against heresies, and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed.

            Once Constantine established orthodoxy, he absolutely prohibited the assemblies of the heretics and confiscates their public property to the use either of the revenue or of the catholic church. The sects against whom the Imperial severity was directed appear to have been the adherents of Paul of Samosata; the Montanists of Phrygia, who maintained an enthusiastic succession of prophesy; the Novatians, who sternly rejected the temporal efficacy of repentance; the Marcionites and Valentinians, under whose leading banners the various Gnostics of Asia and Egypt had insensibly rallied; and perhaps the Manichæans who had recently imported from Persia a more artful composition of oriental and Christian theology.

            Further laws against heresy appeared in 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I. St Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. Augustine is often recognised explicitly as the father of the Inquisition, since he was responsible for adopting Roman methods of torture for the purposes of the Church in order to ensure uniformity.

            Already, in AD 385, the first recorded executions for heresy had been carried out under Emperor Maximus at the request of Spanish bishops. Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila, had been charged with witchcraft, though his real crime seems to have been agreeing with Gnostic opinions. Along with his companions he was tried and tortured. They confessed, and were executed.

            The Christian Emperor Justinian issued severe laws against heretics in AD 527 and 528. Henceforth those who dissented from the authorised line were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen.

            There is much history before and after,Christians actually burned their first heretic in the early 11th century. The heretic was Ramihrdus of Cambrai, who was a known priest who had been practicing his own sects of religion, was accused of heresy in 1076 or 1077 for being unwilling to accept communion from priests, including the bishop, after being summoned to court because he believed that the priesthood was corrupt.

            Anabaptists, the precursors of modern Baptists, were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists alike. The Anabaptists’ main crimes were to call for social reform, to favour adult baptism over infant baptism, and to embrace pacifism – they would not kill, condone capital punishment or serve in armies. They also allegedly advocated ancient Antinomian views. Their leaders died in various ways. Thomas Münzer was burned at the stake in 1525. Feliz Manz drowned in 1526 (drowning was a favourite way of executing Anabaptists because of their views on baptism). Michael Sattler had his tongue cut out, was mutilated by red-hot pincers, and was burned alive in 1527 for a range of beliefs, none of which would now merit a criminal prosecution. When a whole town, Münster, went over to the Anabaptists in the 1530s Catholics and Protestants joined forces to retake the city. The Anabaptist leaders were publicly tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in cages outside a church, where they remained for some years.

            Another example I find noteworthy is after Thomas Hobbes published his book Leviathan in 1651 the English bishops wanted to have him killed. They used their influence in the House of Lords to sponsor a motion to have him burned as a heretic soon after the Restoration . The philosopher feared for his life when, in October 1666, Parliament talked about reviving the old statues De haeretico comburendo of 1401. But these laws had fallen into desuetude. Nothing came of the bishops’ fulminations and Hobbes escaped prosecution. Leviathan was merely condemned by Parliament, and Hobbes was ordered to stop writing controversial books..

            I think the last execution was a schoolmaster who was hanged in Spain in 1826 for heresy. His heresy had been to substitute the words ‘Praise be to God’ in place of ‘Ave Maria’ in school prayers.

            “Embrace your fascism, Jim. Cast your failed moral platonism aside.”

            The long list I presented is hardly complete. However, it serves to show that it is the tradition which you swear allegiance to has shown what is quite possibly the most extreme and enduring form of fascism that has every existed, not only demanding adherence in actions but a persons very thoughts and beliefs themselves.

            The need bakers actions are merely an attempt to continue this long tradition.

            I’m fairly sure you use moral Platonism as WLC does since he is obviously one of your greatest sources of inspiration. The problem is I don’t even accept his idea of (atheistic) moral Platonism as valid.

            Plato’s ethical thought were modified many times during his long life. In his early works, the Socratic dialogues, there are no indications that the search for virtue and the human good goes beyond the human realm. This changes with his growing interest in an all-encompassing metaphysical grounding of knowledge in his middle dialogues. This leads to leads to his positing of the ‘Forms’, as the true nature of all things, (which is what I best remember from my humanities courses). Eventually this culminated in the Form of the Good as the transcendent principle of all goodness.

            The theory of the Forms is not confined to human values, but encompasses the whole of nature Plato at this point seems to assume no more than an analogy between human affairs and cosmic harmony. The late dialogues, by contrast, display a growing tendency to see a unity between the microcosm of human life and the macrocosmic order of the entire universe.

            I don’t see how WLC’s moral Platonism squares with Plato. Maybe you can explain how that works.

            “Waiting for another one of your veiled threats now.”
            I’m not sure why you feel threatened, and I question why you would think yourself even worth the level of emotional involvement a threat would require on my part. Besides, since I have no idea who you are, and really don’t care, what would I threaten you with—bad psychic energy? You appear to be suffering from both delusions of grandeur and paranoia. You may wish to seek some professional help with that.

          • Champoogne

            It always amazes me that the first analogy so many Christians use when making a comparison to same-sex marriage is gas chambers, slavery, murder, pedophilia, etc. “Consenting adults” is not a difficult concept.

          • Jade

            Do you really think that you made a good analogy? I don’t think so.

          • Matilde Tavares

            Do u know of one which does not desl with public, in one way or another? I would have thought that all businesses deal with people at large, for marketing, their products, without which no sales income. But you may hsve slternatives that support his creativity without dealing with public? ? I cant think of one, but perhaps you could suggest it?

          • Disqusdmnj

            I’m not a head-hunter, but a job that doesn’t require public interaction or tacit approval seems pretty easy to find… he could work in a machine shop or on an assembly line, or answer phones like an operator, or work in IT, or a testing lab. In the same respect, you don’t see Muslims working in BBQ joints or Orthodox Jews selling cheeseburgers. They know their religious limitations, and choose jobs that comply with those rules.

        • Jim H

          There is something wrong with Bobby Head. He really just rants and makes little sense.

    • BobbyHead

      To homosexuals all Christians are guilty of worshiping and serving the Lord Jesus Christ.

      • Gloria Lynn Truscott

        Amen you got that right as they seem to target Christians I mean why not go to a Muslim Bakery or somewhere else

        • Disqusdmnj

          If they went to a Muslim bakery in the US, and were told they wouldn’t be served there either, they have every right to bring a discrimination suit against them.

          • Angel Jabbins

            But we all know they won’t go to a Muslim bakery to request a same sex wedding cake, let alone bring a discrimination suit against them…and we all know why.

          • Disqusdmnj

            You have your opinion as to why. But remember, Christians make up over 70% of our population. If you go somewhere to conduct business, statistics show it will likely be with a Christian.

          • Angel Jabbins

            No, I would not say that over 70% of our population is Christian, at least not in the biblical sense. If that were true, we would not be aborting over 55 millions babies, gay marriage would not be celebrated, nor would we have an epidemic of unmarried couples living openly in adultery…and on and on I could elaborate.

            Does a majority claim to be Christians? Yes, possibly, but they are in reality, only nominal Christians because they do not live according to the teachings of Christ or honor Him as Lord of their lives. There are really very few true Christians today. I would say this baker is probably one of them because he is willing to suffer loss rather than do something he feels is against his conscience and against what the Bible teaches. Jesus said to count the cost of being a Christian…it will cost and could cost one’s very life. Not too many want that kind of commitment. When it comes to giving up comforts and taking an unpopular stand, most so called ‘christians’ will just turn the channel or take off to shop at Walmart. Can’t be all that concerned about these issues…too busy enjoying ‘the good life’ here in America.

          • Disqusdmnj

            I do see your point. And while I’d agree that in certain areas of the world, being a Christian absolutely means putting your life in danger, here it simply means you have to either forgo a little part of your belief system to conform to our American laws, or find a way to comply with them, or remove yourself from having to worry about it either way.

          • amostpolitedebate

            We do? News to me.

          • alan_1969

            Some have already approached muslim bakeries and were denied service and even posted it on youtube. I haven’t heard of any lawsuits yet. Also, gay bakeries have refused service to Christians and the lawsuits were thrown out of court. Where is the equal rights?

          • amostpolitedebate

            You can’t sue somebody for something that happened to someone else. If the person discriminated against by the Muslim bakery didn’t to do anything then there’s nothing anyone else can do. If this is a common practice for them though I imagine it’s just a matter of time.

            As for the “Christians denied a cake by gay bakers” thing, what you failed to point out is that this was an artificial stunt to drum up outrage. They looked up known gay bakers and asked them to make cakes with overtly anti-gay slogans and imagery. Since derogatory language and imagery are NOT covered under religious legal protections they were refused. Then predictably they ran to the internet and cried discrimination, often ignoring the fact that these people sold non-offensive cakes for straight weddings all the time.

            So… still not seeing how Christians are real victims here.

            Also, still not sure what Angel means by “and we all know why”

          • Matilde Tavares

            Or sk, now not discrimination? Get real; if it is gay perpetrated it is ok, but if chtistian tight if denial for faith reasons, it is not? Or is it because christian community is only one who , as you see it, is in “your face”, even if quietly going about their biz?? No, we are the bell in your conscience, which is y LGBT need us silenced, and if you cant, silence us that way, you pushed for the law change, pisitioned uourself in jigh corporste pjsitions to effect change, & backed by a lobby to Oh! Bama . Dont fret, it is not competition, we are Lobbying heaven for your souls, far more important than govt laws…Heaven Constitution unchangeable , not subject to planet judiciary/govt decrees, & price for LGBT souls was paid for. Your blood crying out for freedom. His for yours, was THE answer. Take Him & His Blood purchased freedom

          • amostpolitedebate

            I’d really like to respond to you but I am having the hardest time parsing your posts.

          • Matilde Tavares

            I Apologise for spelling errors that i have seen & now corrected; usually writing from touch phone… Sorry

          • Matilde Tavares

            Seems like valid question?

          • Michael C

            I believe you’re talking about Steven Crowder’s video where he pretended to be a gay man requesting a wedding cake. There’s much to say about this video, but I’ll just make two points;

            1) In an interview with Christopher Agee, Crowder said this, “Many were very friendly, no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.'”

            2) The bakeries visited by Crowder were located in Michigan. The State of Michigan does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is perfectly legal to refuse service to gay people in most of Michigan.

            Even if he was denied service, there would have been no lawsuit because no law would have been broken.

            “[G]ay bakeries have refused service to Christians and the lawsuits were thrown out of court.”

            You’re statement is false. No “gay bakery” has refused service to a customer on the basis of the customer’s Christian religion. Azucar bakery was willing to provide a customer with a bible shaped cake but refused to write anti-gay slogans on it. This case is similar to a Kentucky printing shop that lawfully refused to print the Lexington Pride t-shirts. There you go, two similar cases on the opposite end of the political debate that had the exact same outcome. Equal rights.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Not sure what you meant by ‘we do?’, but it you are questioning Islam’s extreme teaching on homosexuality, you might be interested in reading the following:

            http://www. thereligionofpeace. com/quran/026-homosexuality. ht (loose all the spaces)

          • amostpolitedebate

            I was referring to the “and we all know why” part. What is it that we all know? Are you saying that gay people are in league with Muslims or something?

          • Blaylock

            please dont perpetuate the MYTH that gays and their supporters are afraid of muslims

          • alan_1969

            If gays and their supporters haven’t demanded service from muslims like they do Christians, then they are afraid.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Except you yourself have cited a video of gay people asking a Muslim baker for a cake?

          • amostpolitedebate

            Is THAT what they’re on about? From the way people are talking you’d swear that there’s some sort of shadowy gay/muslim conspiracy to… let Muslims discriminate against gay people I guess.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I think we are all afraid of muslims to some extent. How can we not be with what is happening all over the world today…even here. There are peace loving muslims for sure. But Islam itself has never been a religion of peace. And gays should fear them as their holy books call for the death of homosexuals. I think you can get your hands cut off for being gay in Saudi Arabia today. If Sharia Law is ever enforced in our country, gays will be very afraid.

          • Chris H

            You should be. They just flung quite a collection off a roof, beheaded them and specifically targeted them.

          • Matilde Tavares

            I cannot believe with such wonderful creativity in a lot of LGBT community that tgey cannot go to a LGBT baker? Is there not one good one?

          • amostpolitedebate

            As has been stated repeatedly, it’s not about cakes. It’s about the basic ability for gay people to participate in society.

      • Jim H

        That makes absolutely no sense. Many homosexuals are practicing members of Christian churches that are inclusive of homosexuals. Two examples, UCC and ELCA come to mind. In these churches homosexuals worship and serve the Lord Jesus Christ right along with the straight members.

        • Angel Jabbins

          Sure there are many churches that no longer hold to orthodox Christianity and tolerate sin (of all kinds) in their congregations. The true gospel of Jesus Christ is not being taught in those churches. The gospel is this: We are ALL wretched sinners who have offended a holy God. We have all disobeyed the 10 commandments…lying, stealing, lusting, taking God’s name in vain, not honoring, loving God, anger, etc. Because we live in open rebellion against God and His laws, we are bound for hell when we die. But God, who is rich in mercy, sent His own Son to live a perfect life and then die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and then He rose from the grave to ensure our place in heaven. So if we will simply admit we are sinners, turn from our sins, and trust in Christ’s sacrifice alone, we are born again and filled with His Holy Spirit who then works in us with our cooperation to help us to grow in holiness…no longer living to please ourselves, but living to please God and obey Him. We are changed…no longer the same.

          That is the true gospel message, but sadly many churches no longer teach it, but have become socially and politically correct to fill the pews. Read the New Testament and you will see the gospel of Jesus Christ is exactly as I have stated. The bible is no longer believed or taught in most churches. I am sorry for those homosexuals who are going to these ‘gay affirming’ churches. They are being lied to, being sold a false christianity, and are still in their sins. Following Christ is not the easy, happy, snappy thing these heretical churches are making it out to be.
          It will cost you everything as you learn to die to yourself and live for Christ…and it could cost you your life. Bet those churches won’t be preaching that any time soon.

          • Jim H

            My response was the following comment:

            “To homosexuals all Christians are guilty of worshiping and serving the Lord Jesus Christ.”

            Stating that homosexuals consider Christians guilty of worshipping Jesus implies that they (homosexuals) see worshipping Jesus as a bad thing. Since they try to worship Jesus by attending churches that will let them do so, it shows BobbyHead is just obviously wrong, It doesn’t matter what you think of those churches. That isn’t even relevant to his or my comment.

            Of course, I’m not surprised that someone would feel the need to go on a “true Christianity” tirade. In fact, I pretty much expected it.

          • Angel Jabbins

            The homosexuals who feel they can worship Jesus Christ and continue in their sin are worshiping and serving a false Christ…not the Christ is the Bible. Jesus’s message was repent, turn from your sin, and be saved from the damnation that is coming upon the world. Just because homosexuals go to ‘church’ and are sincere in worshiping what they ‘feel’ is true does not make it so. They are lost and remain in their sin without repentance and a personal relationship with the true Savior. The true Savior, Jesus Christ told the woman caught in adultery to ..’.go and sin no more’. Does not mean we will instantly be perfect people, but it does mean we will be striving daily for holy living as Jesus taught us to be holy. Our goal is to please Him not our fleshly desires. That is true Christianity.

            I did not go on a ‘true Christianity tirade’. It is simply true that there is true biblical Christianity which changes people and a false Christianity which is allows people to remain in and even celebrate their sins. One saves, the other damns to hell. So….we DO need to tell people there is a difference and which one you choose to believe in has eternal consequences.

          • Jim H

            Again, you are addressing a point I didn’t make. I never said anything about what effect going to church had on the salvation of gays. It was never my intent to discuss that. I already knew how most who post here would feel about that.

            As I said:

            “stating that homosexuals consider Christians guilty of worshipping Jesus implies that they (homosexuals) see worshipping Jesus as a bad thing. Since they try to worship Jesus by attending churches that will let them do so, it shows BobbyHead is just obviously wrong, It doesn’t matter what you think of those churches. That isn’t even relevant to his or my comment.”

            “I did not go on a ‘true Christianity tirade'”.
            Yes, you did because most, if not all, of what you had to say had little or nothing to do with my comment. Which is what you have done again here.

          • Ken Campbell

            I am a non-theist as it is clear to me that there is no god or gods. I am not angry with god as it would be silly to be angry with something that does not exist. The fan club for this ancient ritual-based system is another matter. I find religion to be one of the most destructive forces in the world today. Between the Muslim Brotherhood types and the Christian Brotherhood types, the planet is suffering. So I am not anti-god but I am anti-theists.

          • Matilde Tavares

            You are quite right: religion has always been a problem to Jesus Himself & the apostles, of which tribe, Saul was a self righteous one, persecuting christians, & to degree of having them killed, until his encounter with Christ.there srd still lots of those “grandchildren stojnd today”! Jesus did not offer us religion, but a relationship with Him & access to Father, through Himself:” i am THE Way, THE Truth & THE Life, & noone comes to the Father but by ME.” That offer stands still today, & you can put it to the test by accepting Him as Lotd & Saviour. If you choose to invite Him in, your sins are forgiven & you have instant access to the Father & become His child with full “family benefits”. John1:12 states it, so ask Him to revesl Himself to you in a personal way & He will . Benefits however become yours in this planet, /life as you maintain relationship with Him thru His Word & Spirit. “My people perish for lack of knowledge” Hosea said; Christianity & religion ard 2 different issues. Christianity is relationship with God & family. Much like an earthly father , we often dont access thru lack of relationship & knowledge of His character .Religikn iz a form of righteohsness, kept up by rituals, Denying the power thereof. Usually good at engendering strife & persecution for resl Jesus. Jesus lives & is Real today. He rose from the dead on the 3rd day.
            You can put it to the test, if you humble yourself: tell Him, if what this woman says is true, i want to know You personally. Forgive my sins & come into my life. You will not wonder, because you will kno for yourself. God bless

          • Ken Campbell

            There is one problem with your thesis Matilde. Before one can ‘let Jesus in’ one has to believe that such a being every existed. The only ones that can accept the theist concepts are the theists. There is little value in pushing these ideas on those who do not see the god-concept of valid in any form.

          • Matilde Tavares

            Freedom of choice, is God given with accompanying outcomes. It takes more faith to be atheist than a believer. It makes man god, & what a mess we have made of our choices.

          • Matilde Tavares

            The other fact is , Real God not only phasdd by yr unbelief, but invites you to:
            1. Test me now
            2.taste & see that i am good
            Prove me now herewith if…
            He is not afraid to be proved, because His integrity is unquestionable, “for He is not a man that He shouldie, nor son of man that He shojld repent; has He said it , & will He not make it good”
            So whilst i respect your choice; the “thesis” as u put it, is actually sharing that He is easily available & can be proved personally, if YOU choose to seek Truth; you can actually test & see for yourself, find Him, & taste & see that He is good.blessings

          • Ken Campbell

            Tsk….I think your concept of testing your god is considered naughty

          • Angel Jabbins

            Excellent remarks, Matilde!

        • alan_1969

          It don’t mean they are saved. Matthew 7: 21-23 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 miracles?’ 23″And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

          • Angel Jabbins

            Absolutely, Alan. So many following a false christ just as the Scriptures warned would happen in the Last Days. We pray their eyes will be opened soon…that they will find the True Way…the real Jesus who changes us and makes us new creatures in Him so we no longer love our sin, but want to fight against it and lives pleasing to God.

          • Jim H

            “It don’t mean they are saved.”

            No, “it don’t”. That was not the point, you apparently read almost as well as you write. The point was BobbyHead’s idiotic comment:

            “To homosexuals all Christians are guilty of worshiping and serving the Lord Jesus Christ.”

        • Matilde Tavares

          Just because they fo it, does not make it right? If a church condones the LGBT practice, it is not reflecting practices of God Word, so choose if it is misrepresenting Him, or deceived or rebellious, or politically correct?
          Any church which is not anchored in Word is not His Church, because He is THE WORD Himself John1:1; HE, THE WORD, is THE HEAD of Church, HIS body. God began with His WORD, so if He started with WORD, best we copy Him at least; Instructions for the body always flow from HEAD not body upwards??

          • amostpolitedebate

            Are you drunk right now? Be honest.

          • Jim H

            As with many others who commented, you completely missed the point. I’m not going to explain again. Read the responses I’ve already posted if your interested.

        • Cobra

          just because you go to church does not make you a Christian only that you go to church…if you desire to live in your sin God will let you, but will spit you out on Judgement day and say he does not know you

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            He is not a Christian. He is a pro-abort deist.

          • Jim H

            Read what I was responding to and put my response in that context and you might see that your comments are completely irrelevant.
            I know that you want an excuse to babble about your beliefs, but they have nothing to do with my comment.

        • Chris H

          LOL!

          • Jim H

            GFYS!

          • Ken Campbell

            Wait…I’ll get it. I’m up with pop culture! GFYS is Good Farting Young Sailor. Right?

          • Jim H

            Of course, what else?

          • Chris H

            LOL!!!!!

      • Jade

        Why do Christians bring Jesus into the hate against the homosexuals. Jesus said absoulutely nothing about homosexuals. You should have said that “to homosexuals all Chiristians are guilty of following the words of Moses and Paul”.

        • Angel Jabbins

          Jesus reaffirmed that marriage is between one man and one women, reaffirmed the Genesis account of creation (Adam and Even not Adam and Steve) and reaffirmed in several places that all of scripture is the inspired Word of God…Moses and Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

          Did Jesus talk about homosexuality?
          https://carm. org/did-jesus-talk-about-homosexuality

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Jesus reaffirmed that marriage is between one man and one women,

            This argument has always really bothered me. Just because someone reaffirms something does not necessarily exclude other variables. If I affirm that police officers wear blue, does that mean that all persons wearing blue must be police officers? No, of course not, but it’s the same kind of mental gymnastics. Jesus referencing heterosexual marriage in his talk about divorce does not equal a command against homosexual marriages. Jesus affirms that men and women get married and this is good. This reflects not-at-all on the status of homosexual marriage.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Matt 19:4

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

            Jesus did indeed reaffirm that marriage is to be between one man and one woman in this passage as he affirmed the creation story to be true. The two shall become one flesh. Homosexuals cannot become one flesh…physically impossible. Nature…God’s design of their bodies… makes that impossible.

            “Just because someone reaffirms something does not necessarily exclude other variables.”

            It does when Jesus says it because He is God. He has the final and exclusive say in all things. He was the one who made the world and everything in it…He made us…made men to be men and women to be women…designed them to fit together and instituted the family unit to be headed by a man and his wife.

            You want to argue with God? Good luck with that.

          • Cobra

            Amen to all that you shared…but others have the right to believe what they want but that will not change a thing on JUDGEMENT DAY…God has total say as to what he demands from us

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            “Homosexual marriage” has no status, except as a legal fiction. Jesus did not affirm it in the least, and no supposed reason for its existence matches the fundamental reason by which Jesus did affirm marriage as from the beginning.

          • Matilde Tavares

            If homosexual practice as described clearly is forbidden, why would LGBT marriage be any better?

          • Angel Jabbins

            Exactly! It would not.

          • Jade

            The creation account is a statement referring to the sexual act of the two becoming one. 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her. For the scripture say, “the two are united into one”. Also beginning in Genesis 4:19, “Lamech married two women..” This began very early in the Bible with most men marrying many, many women without any negative statement from God. In fact God says to King David that he had given him all of King Saul’s belongings including his wives. God said if that had not been enough, he would have given him much more.

          • alan_1969

            Just because people in the bible had more than one wife, doesn’t make it right and according to Gods will. Divorce wasn’t okay either, but people did it anyway.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Amen, Alan. Just because people sin in the bible does not mean God sanctioned it. He repeatedly warned against having multiple wives. The bible is not a book about perfect people. It is a book about a perfect God who patiently deals with sinful people and mercifully forgives and restores sinners when they turn to Him in repentance. The Bible records the good things men do, but it also records the bad things that even the so called men of God did so we can see what the consequences of sin are and avoid those same traps ourselves. The Bible…it .reveals all the ‘good’, bad, and the ugly of man…but also shows us the wonderful, unbelievable grace, goodness and holiness of God on every single page.

          • Jade

            You are ridiculous when you say God repeatedly warned against having multiple wives; it is just not accurate. God warned men like Solomon not to intermarry women from other nations. There is zero negative feedback for men marrying multiple women. Why do you write things that are not true, do you think people that have opposing views to you do not read the Bible?

          • Angel Jabbins

            Not true:

            Polygamy Forbidden: Deut. 17:17; Lev. 18:18; Mal. 2:14
            As to negative feedback, there was plenty. Just read about all the instances of multiple marriages in the O.T. ….all fraught with nothing but heartache, pain, and trouble….lessons for us and Christ reaffirmed the one man, one woman model when He said the two shall become one. One man and several wives cannot truly become one and, because the husband’s affections are divided, it leads to much discontent and family discord. (Pretty much common sense I should think.) Even the example of Hannah’s marriage…though her husband seemed caring… it was extremely painful for her as the younger wife kept having children and taunted her continually over it. God was gracious and brought the blessing of a great prophet out of that ‘marriage’. But, even so, that in no way was an endorsement of polygamy as a standard for marriage. God tolerates some things in the O.T., but that does not mean He changed His mind on what He established marriage to be in the first place.

            You may be reading the bible, but I wonder if you are studying it? We must read, reread, and look at the context and the cultural trends of the times as well to understand the influences going on at the time in and around Israel. I never said I thought people of the opposing views to not read the bible. But I do think they often read it with an eye to disprove it rather than coming at it with an open heart and mind.

            Thank you so much for the discussion. Enjoyed hearing your perspectives even though I disagree.

          • Cobra

            look up Deuteronomy 17;17…

          • Jade

            Deuteronomy 17:17 “The King must not take MANY
            wives for himself, because they will lead him away from the Lord”. Thank you for helping to make my point. NOT MANY is not ONE and the problem to too many wives it that they will lead you away from the Lord, not that God’s design is for one man and one woman. Thanks again.

          • Angel Jabbins

            My husband says more than the one he has IS too many! Hee Hee!

          • Angel Jabbins

            True, marrying foreign wives was a big sticky problem for Solomon, but God never sanctioned or approved of men having more than one wife. He tolerated the situation in the OT, but re affirmed how we are to live in the New.

            Thanks, Jade.

          • Chris H

            Read the Bible then, you will know.

          • Faithwalker

            Amen!

          • Jade

            Please show me one scripture where God disapproved of a man marrying more than one woman. You won’t because men wanted to be able to have multiple woman/wives/concubines for sexual pleasure so they did not include it in their writtings.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Men wrote the words down on paper (or whatever they used at that time 🙂 ), but they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that God had them write what He wanted written. The Bible is His Word to us…what He wants us to know about Himself and what He expects from us as a holy God. You are right! Men DID want multiple wives for their sexual pleasure…same reason men have many partners they never marry today. Nothing has changed in all these centuries. People still love to sin. But as I have mentioned in several replies above, there ARE places in scripture where God specifically prohibited polygamy.

            Polygamy Forbidden: Deut. 17:17; Lev. 18:18; Mal. 2:14
            There is a difference in God approving of something as ok and just tolerating it. He tolerated polygamy for a time, but when Christ came, He reaffirmed what marriage is to be… Jesus restated the passage in Genesis. So that pretty much settles the matter.

            Thanks again, Jade, for your response.

          • Angel Jabbins

            If a man joined himself to a prostitute sexually, then he had an obligation to marry her. That is the principle being taught. No ‘one night stands’…in God’s eyes, you were joined to her for life. (Too bad we have lost God’s view of the sacredness of sex. What havoc the sexual revolution has had on our society.) The two joined become one. Two homosexuals cannot ‘join’ in the physical sense in the way a man and woman are joined…fitting together perfectly as they were made by God to do. They can never ‘become one’.

            God never approved of men having multiple wives and in fact warned repeatedly against it. Every single case in the OT where a man had more than one wife, the fruit of that sin was very evident…discord and hatred in the family…to the point of David’s own son trying to kill him and a half brother raping his half sister. It was never God’s design but He allowed people, even some of the patriarchs to sin in that way and the consequences of those poor choices were recorded in Scripture so we know and understand why the one man, one woman model is the best. Anything outside of that has sad consequences for families and for society at large. Solomon’s sin of having many wives eventually caused him to turn away from God to worship other gods and his kingdom ended up greatly weakened and divided. He was responsible for the beginning of the spiritual downfall of the nation of Israel. Yes, God greatly blessed him at the beginning of his reign, but he chose to disobey God, and in the end, he turned away from Him. The multiple wives were his undoing.

            The bad, even heartbreaking, effects of multiple wives is recorded throughout the Scriptures, not praised, blessed, and rewarded by God as you suggest. But, God is a forgiving God. When people repent, He is loving and kind and blesses and restores, but does not necessarily take away or change the consequences of their sinful behavior. David and Solomon and others who had multiple wives suffered greatly from their sin and their families suffered also.

            One man, one woman…it was laid down by God in Genesis. Men have chosen to ignore it…yes, even so called men of God. But the standard is still valid today as it was in the beginning and it is the only one that is best for humanity.

          • amostpolitedebate

            “The bad, even heartbreaking, effects of multiple wives is recorded
            throughout the Scriptures, not praised, blessed, and rewarded by ”

            [Citation needed]

          • Angel Jabbins

            Oh, my goodness, just open a bible and read about Jacob, Leah and Rachel, David and what happened to his family and all the trouble it brought down on Solomon’s head. I am sure there are other examples as well. Sorry you will have to do your own homework on this one. I am too busy today trying to respond to all these comments. 🙂

            BTW, my husband weighed in on it last night when I was telling him about our discussion here. He said why would anyone want multiple wives…said he has enough trouble handling the one he’s got. I got a chuckle out of that, especially since today is our 40th wedding anniversary.

            Read 1 and 2 Samuel, Kings and Chronicles and also Genesis. If I have time later, I will get back at you with a reference.

          • Matilde Tavares

            Think about it this way:
            Bible account said, after Judas Iscariot betrayal, he went & hung himself . Does this suggest/imply that if i betray Jesus, for love of money, that i should go & do likewise? Of course Not!
            Bible is almost like Cronology of events of God & man dealings; it is not a condoning of human bad behaviour nor license for anyone to sin. God chased His Adam & Eve out of Garden because of their sin , basically rejecting His Word of instruction, with eternal consequences , for mankind, eg, fear, sickness poverty etc. God holiness does not tolerate any sin, regardless of who practices it, but
            Gods love & mercy provided price for sin debt through Jesus Blood, & overcoming power, not condoning of sin, at any stage .
            In OT, specific blood sacrifice atoned for sin, in New Covenant (prophesied by Jeremiah23:5- Jer31:33-34. Jesus Blood, again prophesied by John Baptist (Behold the Lamb of God which takes away sin of the world”john1:29) ; can you see how important the sin problem is, & really a serious problem to God?),He settled mankind sin debt & removed all legal authority from devil to control us, for Whosoever Receives Him John1:12. Not automatic cover…without response from us individually (not religion, or rituals, or denomination, etc,) but HIM directly.
            Do not expect God affirmation for what He called sin , but do expect God forgiveness if you repent & & transformation if you are going to be His disciple. And repentance means changine uour mind, turn from the wsy hou wete going into His direction. He always forgave sin & always welcomes sinners, but never condoned or condones sin . He paid too high a price gor hou & I to be forgiven & free. Titus puts it this way: “the grace of God that brings us salvatikn, has appeared to all men, teaching us to deny ungodlibess & wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world Titus2:11-12. Truly grace does not teach us to affirm our sin, but to get free from it; that is the salvation we have available because of his grace, NOT license

          • Angel Jabbins

            Polygamy Forbidden: Deut. 17:17; Lev. 18:18; Mal. 2:14
            Polygamy tolerated by God: Gen. 4:19; 26:34; Job 27:15.

            God set the standard for marriage…one man, one woman.. in Genesis. He does not change His mind. He did tolerate the sin of polygamy as He tolerated the sin of divorce in the Old Testament times, but it was not pleasing to Him and, as the Bible clearly documents, it had very serious consequences for the people involved. We have God’s standard for marriage given in Genesis and the biblical record of the bad results of polygamy to teach and inform us in the New Testament church. There is no defense of polygamy (or divorce) by Christ. He reaffirmed what was stated in Genesis in Matthew.

            As to David and King Saul’s wives:

            Notation on 1 Samuel 12:8:

            This is not an blatant approval by God of polygamy. God, in His providence, had given David, as king, everything that was Saul’s. There is no evidence that he married any of Saul’s wives, though the harem of eastern kings always passed to their successors. This giving Saul’s wives was done in ‘God’s providence’ so that the wives would not be turned out with no provision. David would inherit all that was Saul’s and would continue to provide for need of those women. God’s providence and care is what that passage is about…not God changing His mind and instituting a new policy making multiple wives acceptable.

          • Chris H

            We are given free will, Angel. You can choose to disobey but the consequences of your actions are always following close behind.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Amen. That is what David found out. He suffered some very bad consequences for his choices/actions as did all those who did not follow God’s law in the OT. Thankfully, He is a merciful God who can take even our failures and turn them for good if we repent and put our complete trust in Him.

          • Guest

            Jesus was having a discussion about divorce with men under the Old Covenant. We Christians are under the New Covenant and know that marriage is an of this world only thing (“there will be no marry or marriage after the resurrection, you will be as the angels in heaven”) and there is no male or female, master or slave in the body of Christ. Just as people were martyred believing Galatians and performing marriages between social classes (illegal in Rome) so can two people marry in the eyes of God regardless of their ‘male or female’.

            Same sex Christian couples marry just fine.

          • Chris H

            You come in haunting as a guest… just put your name behind your ignorant word choices. Biblically speaking, homosexuals are not accepted. Scientifically speaking here you go once again:

            Definition and function: The anus (from Latin anus, meaning “ring,
            anus”, which is from the Proto-Indo-European ano–, meaning “ring” ) is
            an opening at the opposite end of the digestive tract from the mouth.
            Its function is to control the expulsion of feces,
            unwanted semi-solid matter produced during digestion, which may include: matter which cannot
            be
            digested after all the nutrients have been extracted, for example
            cellulose or lignin; ingested matter which would be toxic if it remained
            in the digestive tract; and dead or excess gut bacteria and other
            endosymbionts.”

            Basic science really. I would suggest really that
            the introduction to this function from the external would be rather
            foreign to the function. Not a lifestyle, certainly, but not within the
            perimeters of its function which would be completely scientifically
            understood and is accepted fact in the entire world population, even homosexuals.

          • Jim H

            Like most you take an anti-homosexuality stand almost completely on the anal sex aspect of it. If that is the focus of your concerns, you are really wasting your time focusing on gay men. If you did any actual research you would know they were the least of your problems in your anti-anal crusade.
            Centers for Disease Control’s National Survey of Family Growth, released last year, showed that: for men sexual behaviors with the opposite sex were 97% Vaginal, 90% Oral. and 44% Anal. For women opposite sex behaviors were 98% vaginal, oral 89%, and anal 36%.

            Only 6% of men reported ever engaging in same sex sexual and 12% of women reported engaging in same sex activity.
            Apparently, the men and women who reported engaging in same sex activity, at some time do not identify as homosexuals, since only 3.5% of the population identifies as LGBT.

            Researchers from George Mason University, Indiana University and the OLB Research Institute at Online Buddies, Inc., conducted the study, which found 1,308 unique combinations of behaviors that men engage in with each other. The study was conducted online involving a huge sample of 24,787 gay and bisexual men.

            Only 37.2 percent of men who participated in the study reported having anal sex during their last encounters. The most frequent sexual behavior reported was kissing – 74.5 percent. The second-most popular behavior was oral sex (72.7 percent), followed by partnered masturbation (68.4 percent).
            Even if we treat the 6% of the males who reported same sex activity as being homosexual and assume they all engage in anal sex. Since 44% of heterosexual male population engages in anal sex with females. Heterosexuals make up at least 86% of the total practitioners of anal sex. If we assume the 37.2% from the survey, or even as much as 50%, the number would go up to 93% heterosexuals.
            Of course you should probably consider oral sex among unnatural acts, since it is sodomy. About 90% of heterosexual (male and female) are technically Sodomites.
            Your work is cut out for you, and there is far more work than you ever imagined.
            Good luck.

          • Chris H

            LOL!!!!! You’re still unaccepted. Still disgusted. Still sodomites.

          • Jim H

            I have never been involved with anal sex with anyone. I have never been involved in same sex activities at all. I even dread prostate exams. I’m in a traditional marriage and have two daughters. Have never even been unfaithful.
            You are such a bigot, you apparently assume that I could only care about equality if I had some personal investment in the cause. Other than justice, I don’t.
            Do you assume all of the abolitionists were black? They weren’t. Of course, clueless clowns like you called them things like n-lovers.

          • Guest

            Biblically speaking homosexuals are accepted just fine as in the body of Christ there is no male or female – gay couples marry just fine and their marital bed is undefiled just like other married Christians.

            And again, most anal sex is between men and women, direct your attention elsewhere.

          • Chris H

            What translation is it?? The “HOMOSEXUAL revision” The Bible is very direct and points the finger right at your homosexual perversity. Being accepted into the body of Christ as a practicing homo? No. You’re lying to the body of christ and saying you dont practice it or the church you are in is led by someone who is not conforming to the scriptures. Sodomy is a sin according to the old and new testament. “Direct your attention elsewhere”?? You’re posting in a open forum douchebag. Your so-called marital bed is steeped in the sin of homosexuality and sodomy. You are perverse in everyway.

          • Guest

            It is no more against homosexuality than heterosexuality. Married Christians regardless of their male or female do just fine.

            And you are the one obsessed with anal šęx, you’ve made that clear. That you have resorted to ad hominems is a far more certain reason to be judged before the throne.

            I suggest you get your own house in order before thinking you can condem others.

          • Chris H

            Youre condemned.

          • Guest

            More you are by your own words. Satan tried to usurp God’s holy right of judgement too and God warned man against it.

            May He have mercy on even a poor wretch such as yourself.

        • BobbyHead

          It’s obvious that you are ignorant of scripture.

        • Matilde Tavares

          Jesus did not hate anyone, but sin itself, because it destroys us & His love for us. That is single reason why He came to take our legal authority of sin & devil over our lives. If it was not important He would not ho thru agony He went thu for us all. Homosexuals , just like any sinner, can have their sins forgiven & their lives restored, & be made free. What they cannot get from Jesus is affirmation kf lifestyle nor refefinition if God instituted marriage Answer is only one: be re-born as Jesus said. No problem, regardless of being LGBT, adulterer, fornicator, alcoholic, drug addict, compulsive liar , glutton or other addictions. Sin is sn; root is same . That is why need to be re-born & new slate started. LGBT have bought into lie, that there is no alternative. There is, & God not yr problem, but yr solution, & your deliverer in all areas of life . I Trust this clears deception . Thereafter yoj are transfifmed by renewal of mind, to clnfifm to Hus, His Word=mind of Christ

      • frybaby

        And very glad to do it also

    • Denise DeChant

      I think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I believe that the Jim Crow laws, forced on businesses in the south by the democrats, are at the root of these antidiscrimination laws. First, government forced businesses to discriminate and now government is telling businesses NOT to discriminate. Government does not need to tell owners how to run their businesses.

      • amostpolitedebate

        How do you feel about laws regulating safety features like fire escapes and providing proper equipment to those doing dangerous work?

        • Denise DeChant

          I favor those, but I believe that we no longer need antidiscrimination laws when it comes to serving the public.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Please see above user BobbyHead as evidence for why anti-discrimination laws are still needed.

        • BobbyHead

          Oh this is more important because the homosexuals are out to destroy Christians anyway they can with the their Satanic hate.

          • amostpolitedebate

            No we’re out to be able to buy groceries without being harassed.

          • Matilde Tavares

            Democracy, means freedom of choice. Of belief & lawful practices. If it was the only grocer in town, yes, otherwise go to next grocer/cske baker whatever; no one is forbidding you to go elsewhere!!. You have other choices, jus like LGBT have made their lifestyle chojces. What no one has a right to, is force everybody to amen that lifestyle. By all means, not being persecuted is one thing, other is not respecting other people rights not to deliver. LGBT allowed to believe & practice whatever they like, but in same vein other camp slso allowed to think & practice what they believe, without abuse of each other by word or deed. Withdrawal of a service on conscience basis, is not discrimination.But what LGBT wishes is legitimization if its practices, at ALL costs! to force a majority group to say that what is wrong is right & they have to accept it & change, to fsll with this govt/judiciary (all very changeable ) decree as new right!! ) That is democracy? democracy does not demand others to do what they themselves not prepared to change! No Bible believing practicing Christian will EVER agree that LGBT practice or ” marriage” is right, simply because it is wrong, but neither is it denying you LGBT lifestyle & weddings.
            You dont have to like my colour skin, or gender, or herero sexual orientation, but i will not let you force me to change skin colour (if possible) or transgender to accommodate you. This is parallel fact, not discrimination. Live per your conscience, for each of us will be accountable on it., if we listen to it…

          • Disqusdmnj

            Come on now, being gay is not a “lifestyle choice”. When did you choose to be straight?

          • tonysc

            You may not choose to be gay but you do choose the lifestyle in which you live.

          • DNelson

            By lifestyle, do you mean going to work, grocery shopping, taking in a movie now and then, cooking meals, taking care of the yard, helping out the elderly neighbors, watching TV, and reading?

            Because that’s my “lifestyle”.

          • Chris H

            Definition and function: The anus (from Latin anus, meaning “ring, anus”, which is from the Proto-Indo-European ano–, meaning “ring” ) is an opening at the opposite end of the digestive tract from the mouth. Its function is to control the expulsion of feces,
            unwanted semi-solid matter produced during digestion, which may include: matter which cannot
            be digested after all the nutrients have been extracted, for example cellulose or lignin; ingested matter which would be toxic if it remained in the digestive tract; and dead or excess gut bacteria and other endosymbionts.”

            Basic science really. I would suggest really that the introduction to this function from the external would be rather foreign to the function. Not a lifestyle, certainly, but not within the perimeters of its function which would be completely scientifically understood and is accepted fact.

          • DNelson

            Definition of “mouth”: the opening in the lower part of the human face, surrounded by the lips, through which food is taken in and from which speech and other sounds are emitted.

            So then you would be against oral sex as well, yes?

            Regardless, how is that related to anti-discrimination laws?

          • Chris H

            That wasn’t the question. The question was lifestyle… well there’s your answer. You were right, it isn’t “lifestyle” but neither is is your bunghole orientation. Personally, Your mouth goes where mine will not.

          • DNelson

            I’ll ask again:

            So then you would be against oral sex as well, yes?

            Regardless, how is that related to anti-discrimination laws?

            “Personally, Your mouth goes where mine will not.”

            Same for me.

          • Chris H

            LOL!

          • tonysc

            Actually, Democracy is mob rule.

      • Michael C

        Sure, repealing the Civil Rights Act is one way of dealing with this… I guess.

        • alan_1969

          This has nothing to do with civil rights. It is an attack on someone’s beliefs. If a person can avoid military service because they are a Conscientious Objector, due to a moral or religious belief and it be upheld in a court of law, then the same should apply in this case as well. This ruling is trying to make this man go against his own conscience. This ruling is setting precedence against the moral fiber which holds our constitution together. This ruling should be resisted at all cost, even with force. In a letter John Adams declares point blank that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

          • Michael C

            It is the Civil Rights Act that prohibits public accommodations from refusing service to customers (even if they feel that their sincerely held religious beliefs would be violated by providing said service).

            …also, it is Denise DeChant who said that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, not me.

          • Matilde Tavares

            Dont talk so loud, otherwise “they” may hear, & u cant be consciencious objector either…, it is indeed communism, where freedom of choice not tolerated, or islamic rule too..

          • Guest

            Nope, no one force the business owner to offer wedding cakes for sale to the general public knowing how such transactions are regulated since almost before the owner was born.

            The Colorado constitution officially says religious liberty of conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others, in this case their long established civil rights.

            The business owner doesn’t want to marry someone of the same šęx – God Bless. But that has nothing to do with the customer’s beliefs and they have a constitutional right to their own and a legal right to buy advertised products regardless.

          • frybaby

            You know this doesnt have to do with gays.But its just another way to for our rights to be taken from us. Here in washington state. If you are a renter , you take good care of the rental. Make your rent on time. The LandLord can come to you at anytime and ask you to move. The Law says he doent have to give you any reason at all

      • BobbyHead

        Yes that’s communism

        • amostpolitedebate

          No it’s not you don’t know what that word means.

          • alan_1969

            It is communism and it is aligned with the communist manifesto.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Attaching a scary word to workplace protection laws it doesn’t make discrimination OK.

      • DNelson

        “I think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.”

        Then you should work to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including that which provides protections based upon religious belief.

        Let me know how that goes.

        • alan_1969

          The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has to do with hiring and firing people. It has nothing to do with providing a service to others.

          • DNelson

            You would benefit from a better understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the portion which discusses public accommodation.

        • Denise DeChant

          I don’t see it happening anytime soon either, but it is a solution. And I really don’t think we need these laws that tell private businesses that they can’t refuse service. Imagine a racist store owner who refuses to serve people of a certain race. Not only would he lose the racial group’s business, but he would be boycotted by the zillions of people that hate racism, plus his store could be picketed by angry protesters.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Yet, this noticeably did NOT happen when discrimination against black people was legal.

          • Denise DeChant

            Society is a lot different now than 50 years ago. Believe it or not, people really used to believe that some races were inferior. That has been scientifically disproved, and as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no Biblical support for racism. Also, the Jim Crow laws were forced on businesses.

          • DNelson

            ” and as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no Biblical support for racism.”

            Perhaps based upon YOUR interpretation, but not all Christians share your views.

          • Chris H

            Face it. Christians don’t accept homosexuality as “okay.” They’re not. So go to your own bakers, who by the way, wouldn’t make an anti-homosexual cake for anyone. Why should they? And therefore, why should Christians have to bake homosexuals cakes that are designed to celebrate something they clearly do not and will not accept.

          • DNelson

            “Christians don’t accept homosexuality as “okay.” They’re not. ”

            People are free to accept or not accept whatever they care to. Obviously, since anti-discrimination laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives, and given the fact that over 70% of population identifies as being Christian, your statement is false.

            “why should Christians have to bake homosexuals cakes that are designed to celebrate something they clearly do not and will not accept.”

            They don’t “have” to. They are free to choose what types of products they wish to offer.

          • Chris H

            What is false about the fact that Christians are not okay with your perverted acts? Sodomy is not normal dude, or dudette… whichever it is you prefer. Discrimination is what you do everyday. You discriminate in every aspect of your life. Christians are entitled to their religious beliefs and you [homos] trample on it with your in your face tactics of running to court to FORCE your homosexual behavior as “normal” or “natural.” As laid out to you, the anus is an exit. What are your credentials and sources in determining percentages and whether a person is a practicing Christian or not? You [homosexuals, lesbians and trans] target Christians and talk incessantly about Christians in profoundly negative ways in every way possible. I see it in any topic on sexual “orientation.” You’ll never get it because you are so wrapped up in your perverse culture you cannot see oncoming traffic.

          • DNelson

            “What is false about the fact that Christians are not okay with your perverted acts?”

            Many people who identify as Christian are accepting of homosexuals. Thus, your statement is false.

            “Discrimination is what you do everyday. You discriminate in every aspect of your life.”

            Agreed. Not all discrimination is illegal. In fact, the vast majority of discrimination is not illegal. Some instances, however, are.

            “Christians are entitled to their religious beliefs”

            Agreed.

            “to FORCE your homosexual behavior as “normal” or “natural.””

            The courts have no ability to force someone to believe something is “normal” or “natural”. People are free to believe as they care to.

            “What are your credentials and sources in determining percentages and whether a person is a practicing Christian or not?”

            Who would, or would not, be considered a “practicing Christian” would be a matter of one’s personal belief system. Even Christians can’t agree on the totality of what it means to be a “practicing Christian”. I am merely citing statistics regarding how many people identify as being members of the Christian faith. What are your credentials and sources in determining percentages and whether a person is a practicing Christian or not?

            “You [homosexuals, lesbians and trans] target Christians and talk incessantly about Christians in profoundly negative ways in every way possible.”

            Please cite when I have done that. The vast majority of my friends and family identify as Christians. I have no issue with the Christian faith. I do, however, have an issue with certain individuals who want to use their faith, Christian or any other, as an excuse for limiting the rights of others.

          • DNelson

            “but it is a solution. ”

            A solution to what? The inability of businesses to discriminate in any way they care to?

          • Denise DeChant

            Forcing religious people to do something that goes against their conscience is cruel. The Colorado govt is attempting to force this baker to do something that goes against his conscience, and that is a problem that needs a solution.

          • DNelson

            “Forcing religious people to do something that goes against their conscience is cruel.”

            He’s not forced. He is free to not offer wedding cakes as a product and he is free to not operate a bakery. There is no forcing.

          • Denise DeChant

            They’re attempting to force him. He’s forced to no longer cater weddings. That affects his livelihood. He should probably move to another state.

          • DNelson

            No, he is not forced to no longer cater weddings. It is a choice he has. The vast majority of bakeries are owned by Christians and the vast majority have no issue making a cake for a same-gender wedding. Just like he can’t turn down an interracial couple even if his religious beliefs are, as they are for some people, that the races should not mix.

            He is certainly free to move to a location where sexuality is not a covered category.

          • Chris H

            Or now face contempt of court, fines, etc. FORCED.

          • DNelson

            Yes, there are consequences to breaking the law. If you don’t like the laws, you are certainly free to work to get them changed. It is your right as a citizen.

            But, no, since operating a business is a choice, and choosing what products to offer is a choice, there is no forcing.

          • Chris H

            “I reserve the RIGHT to serve…” Ever read that? It is a right. You have a right to like taking it up the bunghole all you want. Go to your own bakers. There are plenty of gay bakers….. BUT that isn’t the intent is it???!!! It is about getting your way by running to the courts to whine about how so and so doesnt like you because youre gay. I dont see your clan taking muslims to court. Show me that and then talk to me some more.

          • DNelson

            No, I haven’t heard of that. I have, however, heard of the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. It was commonplace prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not, however, since then.

            That someone states they have a right, does not mean that the right actually exists. Please show me where there is a “right” for business owners to refuse service based upon the owner’s religious beliefs.

            “It is about getting your way by running to the courts to whine about how so and so doesnt like you because youre gay.”

            It has nothing to do with whether the person likes someone. It is a question of what the law requires. Do you believe people should NOT be accountable to the law?

            “I dont see your clan taking muslims to court.”

            I am unaware of a Muslim bakery owner, whose business is located where sexuality is a protected category, refusing to bake a cake for a same-gender wedding. Are you?

          • Chris H

            Homosexuals have a campaign to force their perverse behavior on society as a “natural” “normal” “accepted” “orientation”… call it what it is. It’s the age old going in the exit door instead of out. People are not going to accept homosexuality by force. It’s like my kid said, “I am standing up on the outside but I’m sitting down on the inside.” Scream and run to the courts, it doesn’t matter in the end [not a pun], however, the “end” will eventually put an “end” to homosexuals and the homosexual agenda. It’s a matter of time.

          • DNelson

            “Homosexuals have a campaign to force their perverse behavior on society as a “natural” “normal” “accepted” “orientation””

            You cannot force people to believe something is “natural” or “normal”. People are free to believe as they wish.

            “it doesn’t matter in the end [not a pun], however, the “end” will eventually put an “end” to homosexuals and the homosexual agenda. It’s a matter of time.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • Chris H

            And I will.

          • DNelson

            Will, what?

      • Matilde Tavares

        Agreed

      • Matilde Tavares

        It used to be said sbout the “golden rule”: he who owns the gokd, makes the rjle.., likewise; he ho has the talent, & pays the rent gor his business makes the rules of his biz.

      • Guest

        then repeal the civil rights acts at both federal and state level. Until then obey the law.

        • Chris H

          Being gay isn’t a civil right because you choose to have anal copulation.

          • Guest

            Your statement makes no sense- most ‘anal copulation’ is between men and women and it is sexual orientation that is a civil right, not any particular activity.

          • Chris H

            And you know this because….?????? Because youre guessing.

          • Guest

            I know this because they’ve done studies. We know about 20% of heterosexuals indulge, and about 40% of homosexual men. Average in the homosexual women with 0% and the prevalence is about 20% in both groupings. But since one group is almost 20 times the size of the other – well again if it’s the act that upsets you’re looking at the wrong group.

    • Matilde Tavares

      Here is how to bypass coercive laws. . Be not available to do so, without justifying/giving any reasons. Unable to supply. Without lying. always a way, if you feel you dont want to, for whatever reasons.. If your vision statement declares you srd a xtype organisation with clearly defined parameters. Ex we do not cater for all weddings, except ehere capable , nor make wedding cakes except for family friends
      Other options, subcontract work to a company who foes not hd the biews & take no commission for contract. .
      Where i have lived before, & going back to, the cirruption is endemic, from almost birth, to officials knc police. One has to lesrn, how to master thd environment, having made a choice to live there & NOT participate in it, I did. It is parallel to this. I chose mot to enter the system, & confronted those who tried . In this case , since the law suthorizes what is wrong to be right, you have to discover the options to master new circumstances. For now, it is early days, for all concerned, & everybody testing the waters, but ultimately people help themselves. Early church went underground when persecution became life threatening. I have no doibt, in due course good triumphs over evil, people find worksble solutions without compromise their belief systems

      • Michael C

        Absolutely. There are perfectly legal and acceptable ways of operating your business without running afoul of non-discrimination laws.

        The easiest thing to do would be to tell the customer that you will provide your services as required by law then proceed to preach to them.

        They will turn around and walk out the door, never to return.

        Groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel do not want businesses to take this type of stance because these groups are making heaps of money off of the losses of these duped business owners.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, yes, as long as you actually do the work eventually. The businesses can’t say “Yes I’m going to make it, I’m just not done preaching yet” and never actually get around to doing it.

        • Matilde Tavares

          I wonder though if clients would not sue for preaching to them in work place under some labour law? In UK this has happened to a woman who offered to pray gor a fellow employee or cluent, who was dick; prayer outside wirk hrs , but woman taken to vourt, think was fired, if i recall correctly, & was fir vhristian praying fir suck muslim woman!!

      • BarkingDawg

        That is no way to operate a for profit business.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      The “potential clients” came to buy a product that the business does not offer: a cake that endorses “homosexual marriage”. The business does not sell cakes that endorse “homosexual marriage” to anyone, irrespective of their creed, private life. They would have refused this request irrespective of who made it: it’s not about the person, but about the product. I’ll bet they do not sell cakes that endorse any number of other offensive yet legal practices. What’s next? Neo Nazi’s demanding cakes that say “Heil Hitler?” (hi Godwin).

      • Michael C

        Using that same logic, one could argue that it is perfectly legal to refuse to make an “interracial marriage cake” (as long as the bakery refused to make “interracial marriage cakes” for everyone equally).

        Are Nazis next? Well, I dunno. Is there a big push to get neo nazism added to the existing list of protected characteristics? Even if Neo Nazis were protected from discrimination by law (which they aren’t), a baker could still refuse to decorate a cake with the words “Heil Hitler” (see Azucar bakery and Hands on Originals).

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I disagree. I think if “Nazi” became a protected class, refusing to make “Heil Hitler” cakes would become illegal.

          • Michael C

            Check out the Hands on Originals discrimination case from Kentucky.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, that’s (so far) a very low-level ruling, but you’re right in that it does draw a distinction between the act and the speech involved in it.

            It remiains to be seen whether it goes any higher and how.

    • marie

      from what i’ve read, the baker doesn’t have issues selling to people because of their sexual orientation. He has baked for homosexuals, and even told the couple he would bake them other goods.
      i’ve been trying to find an article that explains more clearly, because I dont quite understand how someone who serves homosexuals can be accused of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
      his argument is his feelings against their ‘right to marriage’, which evidently trumps his ‘right to religion’.
      i’m confused by that because him not baking a cake does not stop them from marrying, but their forcing his hand stops him from abiding by his religion.
      all these articles say the same thing lol i feel like most stories, theres more to it than is covered by mass media

      • Michael C

        He, like the baker in Oregon and the florist in Washington, refused to sell a gay person a product that he regularly offers to straight people. What the gay customer asked for was no different than what he regularly sells to straight people.

        Whether or not he usually refuses to service to gay people is irrelevant.

        If you entered a restaurant and selected an item off of the menu, the restaurant could not refuse to serve you that specific item simply because you are a Christian.

        …even if they’re nice enough to tell you that they’re willing to serve you any other item from the menu.

        If it’s on the menu, the restaurant cannot refuse service on the basis of race, national origin, creed, sex, religion, age, etc,… and in Colorado, sexual orientation.

    • Denise DeChant

      I read in another article about this case that this baker has chosen to stop catering ANY weddings. That’s another solution, and it should be perfectly legal.

    • Chris H

      Freedom of religious beliefs.

  • BobbyHead

    He has hasn’t even been tried for a criminal offense and is ordered against the U.S. Constitution to work on an project against his religious freedom by a tribunal of the Colorado Court of Appeals upholding a lower court ruling by homosexals.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Public Accommodation laws are not unconstitutional. Heart of Atlanta Resort v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),

      • Nidalap

        Yes, and neither was slavery.Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

        • Champoogne

          Seriously?
          1857?
          Got something a little more recent?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Rulings don’t have expiration dates. They do, however, become irrelevant when an Amendment changes the law or a statute alters the law the ruling pertains to (which happened to this one).

            He’s arguing (or attempting to argue) that Supreme Court rulings aren’t always good or moral. But it’s a meaningless argument because I never said they were.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          A) Dred Scott didn’t hold that slavery was legal, B) it was superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments, and C) that’s not relevant to this discussion.

  • BobbyHead

    Now in this country you are found guilty before you are considered innocent in a court trail by law by a jury of peers.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Administrative actions =/= criminal cases.

  • bella

    I wonder if they would try doing the same to a muslim bakery.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Answer: Yes they would. But American Muslims haven’t defined themselves by their hatred of gay people so it hasn’t come up yet.

  • Jamie Garcia

    Time to suffer for Jesus the American way. Go down loving your enemies but condemning sin. To follow God is to lose the world’s way.

  • Jamie Garcia

    Does anyone know who is collecting support for Masterpiece?

  • Denise DeChant

    I’m not convinced that this attempt to force people to do things against their conscience is helpful to members of the gay community. Do gay people really want their new freedom to marry to negatively affect others? Are these cases where a business owner is financially ruined good PR for the gay community? Is this really what they want? For example, I notice that the plaintiffs in the case against Arlene’s Flowers (the owner didn’t want to do the flowers for a gay wedding) sued the owner for less than $10. They didn’t want to ruin her; they just wanted to make a point. I also noticed that the couple in Oregon (who’ve been awarded $135,000.00) say that the case is not about money. I suspect that the gay couple didn’t ask for such a large sum of money, and I doubt they wanted to ruin Aaron, Melissa, and their 5 kids. Given that some Evangelical Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to stick with their beliefs despite losing their businesses, is this the right thing to do? Maybe we should just accept the fact that no matter who you are or what you do, some people will disapprove.

  • Denise DeChant

    We also need to remember that private business is largely what feeds the bloated federal bureaucracy. Laws that bankrupt businesses are biting the hand that feeds the government and all it’s wonderful programs.

  • Emmanuel

    I will provide cakes for SSM. I will drive to Costco, buy a cake and hand it off as my own. I get paid for doing nothing. LOL

    • amostpolitedebate

      You seem very committed to being nasty towards a group of people who’s private lives don’t affect you in the slightest. What that about?

      • Emmanuel

        You are right, what they do in private does not affect me. But if they want a cake find someone who is willing to provide one. One idiot should not stop them from making their day special. A cake does not make a marriage last 30 years.

        • amostpolitedebate

          “You are right, what they do in private does not affect me.”

          So why do you even care? Just make the cake and move on with your life.

          “But if they want a cake find someone who is willing to provide one. One idiot should not stop them from making their day special. A cake does not make a marriage last 30 years. ”

          This fight isn’t really about wedding cakes and I’m pretty sure that you know it. It’s about whether or not businesses have the right to discriminate against people just because they’re a member of a certain group.

          Imagine if not just bakeries, but ANY business could deny you service because you’re Christian. Suddenly you could be randomly denied service from any business at any time without warning just because the store owner saw you wearing a cross. Considering that businesses do more than just bake cakes (home loans/car repair/surgery/etc) you could quickly find yourself in a very tough situation very quickly.

          Now, you might not care because Christianity is still pretty prevalent and it’s unlikely that many businesses will deny you service. However these demographics are changing. It’s entirely possible that Christians could find themselves a minority in the next few decades. Do you REALLY want all those protections gone when that happens? Particularly if the public attitude towards Christian gets nasty for some reason?

          • Emmanuel

            Dude, I grow up in a very prejudice area. We, migrant students, were forced to play in a certain area in the playground, play with only the Hispanic kids and even created a classroom for us all. So, I’ve seen and felt discrimination. My nickname was wetback. So yes, I was treated like the SSM and it sucked. But, got my BA and MA and overcame. So my above post was about that, overcome and be better. A cake does not make you. Wetback is not what I am.

  • bowie1

    If I was a baker/cake decorator in that community I might be tempted to make one for the judge and place it smackdab in the centre of this face. But then that wouldn’t be the righteous thing to do I suppose.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Saying, “No”: This is a great evil, condemned by the court.
    Saying “[EXPLETIVE] you”: This passes without comment.

  • Faith Contender

    Christians are required NOT to bake gay cakes by God as we cannot celebrate or condone SIN. Romans 1; 26-27.
    We must obey God rather than man. Acts 5; 29
    If that means we disobey the law and are persecuted, so be it. Jesus told us that would happen. John 15; 20
    True discipleship calls for it.
    I will obey God above all else!

  • Faith Contender

    A snare has been set
    they laid out their net
    to trap the faithful
    just like Daniel
    by the law of our God
    Together they have conspired
    the legions of the fallen one
    and the thugs that they hired
    they devised a scheme
    their evil dream
    by which to ensnare us
    they said…. ‘Ah! We will call good “evil”
    we will call evil “good”
    we will call love “hate”
    we will call hate “love”
    thus in this way
    since they will not sway
    the righteous we will slay!’
    Yet we love, and love God’s law above all
    for that they hate us and His law
    embracing their sin is what they call “love”
    if we don’t agree with them, they call it “hate”
    and want to silence us
    by saying we discriminate
    but they discriminate against us
    by calling us nazi’s for not compromising with their sin
    while they are the gaystapo that want to do us in
    to detain us within barbed wire
    victimizing us unto death
    is their ultimate desire
    all in the name of hating love and loving hate
    it’s they who won’t tolerate
    but the story’s not over
    because in God’s hands lies their fate
    it’s still not too late
    till it’s all destroyed by fire

  • Harry Oh!

    If there was the slightest trace of reason and consideration within the gay community, these dudes would have moved on and found another bakery. But gays are obsessed and crazed with the notion that Christians MUST accept them. It’s the only explanation for why they target this one particular group. And save me the legal mumbo jumbo, laws are subjective and invented by fallible men who will rationalize anything.

    • Ralph Spoilsport 11

      If there was the slightest trace of reason and consideration within the gay community, these dudes would have moved on and found another bakery.

      Just like blacks should have gone to a different lunch counter.

    • amostpolitedebate

      It’s more that if we let discrimination go in benign setting A then we’re leaving the door open for it to happen in much less benign setting B. It’s not about wedding cakes. It’s about a basic ability to participate in American society.

    • Becky

      You’ve got that right. There was no way they were going to let Phillips alone. They’re homosexuals and highly litigious .

      • Blaylock

        he broke the law……he broke the law…….he broke the law….what a good christian he is…smh

    • Blaylock

      but christians have all the answers, right?

    • Guest

      if there was the slightest bit of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control on the part of the business owner he would have made sure the customer’s got their cake of the kind he had advertised for sale.

  • Becky

    If these two had walked into the shop, without divulging any information, purchased a cake and left, this wouldn’t be an issue right now. However, they asked Phillips to make their “wedding” cake. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t want a couple of homosexual figurines atop the cake…it’s bad enough to have the knowledge that you’re making/baking a cake for a homosexual “wedding”. It’s still a matter of participating, even without any special order for the cake.

    Just who are the participants of a wedding? Everyone that had an input, of course. The cake, aside from the bride and groom, is the centerpiece of a wedding. Then there are the florists, photographers, caterers, etc., all these professionals fully participate in the production of a wedding.

    • Blaylock

      nobody asked for their participation in the wedding….just asked to bake a cake

    • Guest

      The SCOTUS ruled on this long ago in a 9-0 ruling, there can’t even be a law that prevents someone from buying something merely because of the belief-based purpose they are going to use it for.

      Either a business sells wedding cakes or they don’t regardless of the beliefs of the customer, that’s a civil right. The Colorado constitution specially says that liberty of religious conscience cannot be construed to excuse acting without regard for the rights of others.

      This devilish attempt to establish a right to religious discrimination in a public offer is just trying to erode the first amendment.

      If a Christian can’t sell something to to the public as the law requires they just wouldn’t be selling it, simple as that.

  • Becky

    Christian bakers, in the meantime, do not make any special wedding cakes. Offer ready-made, general decorative cakes and just sell them as is (I know it’s not how it’s done, but this will be cheaper than a lawsuit). There would be no need to get any information…no names of couple, no date, no nothin’. Have cake…make sale. No questions asked. If they don’t like that you don’t take and bake special orders for anyone…go somewhere else.

    • Nidalap

      That would probably work if this weren’t an effort to force Christian business owners to bow down to sin or be ruined financially. Lawsuits would still be brought, and unjust judges would still uphold them…

  • DNelson

    “Colorado Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Requiring Christian Baker to Make ‘Gay Wedding’ Cakes”

    But they did not do that. The headline is a lie. What they upheld was a ruling that by refusing the order he refused, he violated Colorado law. He is free in the future to not offer wedding cakes at his bakery. If he does not offer wedding cakes, he is not required to make a cake for a wedding involving two people of the same gender.

    I wonder how Heather reconciles lying with her supposed faith in Christianity?

  • Matilde Tavares

    I assume then, under this logic, if i was working at a bank, and a thief was stealing, & he commanded me to carry his money for him, that i would not be endorsing his behaviour, nor being coerced rither, into doing it,; alternatively if manager commanded me to carry it out, during biz hours, the state expected me to participate jn this? Whats the difference. Thdn? Either you iwn the biz, or state does! Which is which?

  • Guest

    The court ruled against a bakery owner, it is the business he owns with the obligation to follow the law, not any particular person. If one baker doesn’t want to make the cake, get another, hire a temp baker for the task, or 3rd party contract the making of the cake out.

    But continually these articles misrepresent the actual situation. No person is being forced to make a cake, just a business is being required to follow the law regarding the product they willingly and voluntarily invited the general public – with its right to NOT share any religious belief of ANYONE at the business – to come and buy from them.

  • marie

    so… if someone tells you to jump off a bridge, you have to?
    or else you’re being mean? LOL

    • Nofun

      Yes jumping off a bridge is just like anti-gay bigotry… wait there.

  • WGB

    That ruling is wrong on every level. I pray for Phillips in Jesus name.

  • sandra-paquette-

    It is so obvious why these gays always hit on Bible believing christian, who have business. So they can sue and make a point, they could take their business else where but no. They choose the Christian. And these judges help these gays to win all the way. These judges will be held accountable to God one day whether they believe or not.