Christian Baker Appeals Order Requiring Service of ‘Gay Weddings’ to Colorado Supreme Court

PhillipsDENVER — A Christian baker in Colorado has appealed an order requiring him to provide service for “gay weddings” despite his biblical beliefs not to be a partaker in other men’s sins. (1 Timothy 5:22)

As previously reported, in August, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a lower court order against baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, asserting that providing the cake for the ceremony does not equal an endorsement of same-sex nuptials.

“Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law,” it ruled.

Through his attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Phillips has now filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court, contending that he does not accept orders for cakes that violate his Christian faith in other matters, and so the issue of homosexuality should not be an exception.

“Phillips … honors God through his creative work by declining to use his artistic talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs,” the petition states. “This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.”

“He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol,” it continues. “Consistent with this longtime practice, Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching….”

“The freedom to live and work consistently with one’s faith is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement. “We are asking the Colorado Supreme Court to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the men planned to travel to Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for a separate celebration.

However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by Phillips that he does not make cakes for same-sex ceremonies.

“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig stated.

Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such occasions because of his Christian convictions.

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the relationship is not something that He looks favorably on,” the master pastry chef stated. “If Jesus was a carpenter, He wouldn’t make a bed for this union.”

Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, explained that when he informed Mullin and Craig that his bakery does not make cakes for same-sex “weddings,” the men immediately left. He stated that one of them made a comment on his way out the door that the bakery was a “homophobic cake shop.”

Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation.

However, Mullin and Craig filed charges with the Colorado Human Rights Commission with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and in December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.

In May of last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    So if an engaged Gay couple comes into Masterpiece Cake Shop and sees a cake on display that they would like to purchase for their wedding AS IS, should Jack Phillips be able to turn them away?

    Let’s say there’s some “religious freedom” law that allows people like Jack Phillips to refuse service to Gay customers. Does it ONLY apply to “wedding services” like bakeries, photographers, and florists? Or would it allow ANYONE to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs?

    And would such a law only target Gay people? What about Muslims? Do you think a Christian business owner should be allowed to discriminate against prospective Muslim or Jewish or Atheist employees?

    • SFBruce

      Like Michael C, you raise some great questions. I’d love to hear someone articulate the limits of religious freedom for businesses who operate in localities which forbid sexual orientation discrimination, but no one seems to be willing and/or able to do so.

    • GibbyD

      “Phillips … honors God through his creative work by declining to use his artistic talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs,” the petition states. “This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.”

      “He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol,” it continues. “Consistent with this longtime practice, Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching….”—–
      Good bakeries involve more than just selling a cake for a wedding. The Baker is often involved in transporting, setting up and displaying the cake at the wedding. He may also be involved with serving , packing and clean up.

      • Guest

        It is the business with the obligation, not the any particular person. If someone won’t make the cake the business can get someone else, a temp baker, or even third party contract it out.

        • GibbyD

          The homosexulas can go somewhere else .

          • Guest

            Much better solution – the business owner can obey the law by either:
            1) selling them as the law requires, or
            2) not selling them to anyone.

          • GibbyD

            The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Baker’s 1st amendment right is violated if he is being told that he has to create a cake that is designed for something that is against his religious beliefs . You cannot force someone to speak contrary to what he believes.

          • Guest

            It is the business with the obligation not any particular individual. If he doesn’t want to make the cake then let someone else, hire s temp or 3rd party contract it out.

            The first amendment is what’s protecting the customer. They have a right to believe in same sex marriage and to act accordingly and a business making offers to the public is obligated to follow through on them regardless of the beliefs of the customer.

            Again if the business owner can’t make the offer as the law requires they should be making the offer to the public at all.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker is the sole proprietor so the individual and his talent as an artistic cake maker, IS The Business. He is the artist cake maker, NO ONE else. Any cake with his name on it must be made by him. Wedding cakes from this high end of a cake , is delivered , presented and served by the business. That would force the artist to participate in that perverted homosexual union ceremony.

            You do not go to KFC for Liver because liver is not on their menu. You do not go to an outspoken Christian’s outwardly Christian and traditional family value cake shop and demand they make a cake for a homosexual anti-Christian cake because that is NOT on the menu there. They can go elsewhere if thy want to be served something that is that disgusting and ungodly. The 1st amendment protects the religious right of the baker more than the practice of sin by the homosexuals . The sodomites can go elsewhere. They will go some place soon if they do not , .repent toward God and place their faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 5:13; John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippian 1:6)KJB

            So you are saying that if KFC does not sell liver if you ask for it , then they should not be selling any food?
            If it is not on the menu , then go elsewhere !!!!

          • Guest

            And wedding cakes are ‘on the menu’ so your argument falls apart. Again, the business owner knew the law when they opened the business, the can’t refuse full access to all services because of the customer’s beliefs (same sex marriage), sex (their opinion that one of the couple is the wrong one), or sexual orientation.

            And thank you for confirming it is the business with the obligation that someone else could make the cake. No one is asking for any particular person to make the cake.

            And if it want to run a ‘Christian’ business that only serves some of the public they can do that as either a private club – making the offer of sale only to club members, or as a non-profit corporation that is allowed to target the populations the serve.

            But making offers to the public they have to follow the laws governing business making public accommodations according to the civil rights of the customer. And the Colorado constitution specifically says that freedom of conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others.

            This is a done deal, there is no right to religious discrimination in a public offering and hopefully never will be.

          • GibbyD

            Nope, he does not sell anything that violates his Christian beliefs. He states that on his site and it is posted in his business. The Baker does not offer perverted cakes of any kind , including disgusting evil homosexual cakes that would promote sin.
            Colorado state law does not allow that anyone can make someone participate in that which violates their conscience and free speech. You cannot make someone or force someone to espouse ideas and views that they disagree with.

            Again , the baker has stated up front that he does not design perverted, evil , sinful cakes that go against his religious beliefs. Homosexuality is a very evil sin and one for which God has destroyed cities and empires. The Baker does not want to be part of that evil .

            What you need is salvation. You would do well to , “repent toward God and place your faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ before it is too late. ( Acts 20:21; Romans 3:23; 6;23; 1st John 5;13; 2 Corinthians 5:17)KJB.

          • Guest

            Of course he doesn’t need to participate – if he can’t sell something legally no one is going to force him to do so. If he can’t sell wedding cakes to the public as the law requires he need not sell wedding cakes at all, or he can sell them as a private club or a non-profit.

            There are plenty of solutions that allow him to obey his conscience and the law it just seems he is either too ignorant, lazy or greedy to do them, take your pick.

          • GibbyD

            The easiest solution would be for the homosexuals to go elsewhere to find what they wanted. The Christian baker does not have to violate his conscience in this matter. He does not make wedding cakes for homosexuals

          • Guest

            No the easiest solution is for the business owner to not make offers to the public that he won’t fulfill as the law requires.

          • GibbyD

            He advertises and posts that he sells wedding cakes for traditional wedding ceremonies that honor God .

          • Guest

            And people of many faiths think that God blesses marriages regardless of the sexes of the couple. Again, if he wants to religiously discriminate there are legal ways to do so, making an offer to the public and then applying a religious test their usage must pass after the fact is not one of them.

            He wants to only sell to people who believe as he does he needs to run it as a private club where he finds the right people first and then makes just them the offer of sale. As long as he makes offers to the public, voluntarily operating as a business making public accommodations, he has to respect the right of the customer to not share his religious beliefs.

          • GibbyD

            You say ,”And people of many faiths think that God blesses marriages regardless of the sexes of the couple. ” —- What religion teaches that? Wicca ?

            His offer to the pubic has only been, in reference to marriage, is for Traditional Wedding cakes that involve his participation .

          • Guest

            Christian too. And so you admit he has made a fraudulent offer to the public, applying a religious litmus test they must pass to actually buy the product offered – that’s why these cases lose in court. That is against the law, it violates the rights of the customer which freedom of conscience is not an excuse to do as per the Colorado constitution and the federal.

            This is the issue your side doesn’t get – everyone has a right to religious freedom and the proprietor’s right stops at the tip of the customer’s nose where there’s begin. The law says you can’t make offers to the public that hinge on their having the ‘right’ beliefs, that is violating their right to religious freedom. Either the business owner needs to respect that right or just not offer that product to the public at all.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker makes and sells traditional wedding cakes for traditional marriages . A plug and a plug and or a socket and a socket , does not count as a marriage.

          • Guest

            And he isn’t allowed by law to only sell things ‘for’ things he likes – they are offered for sale or they aren’t. Again, the SCOTUS decided this years ago in a 9-0 ruling involving goats sold for slaughter. Didn’t want to sell them to people using them for religious sacrifice, court said ‘sorry, their belief-based usage is their concern not yours’.

            Either a business sells goats for slaughter to customers no matter their belief-based use for them or it can’t sell them at all.

            Either a business sells wedding cakes to customers no matter their belief-baseduse for them or it can’t sell them at all.

            See the similarity?

            As to what you think doesn’t count as a marriage that is the crux of religious freedom – the customer has a right to think their beliefs are right and it the business owner’s that are wrong and still do business with them.

            Again, don’t offer something for sale you aren’t going to sale as the law requires.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker does not offer cakes for perverted events. The Baker does not service homosexual events. “The State decides which ties it will recognize. No religion has a word to say about it. AT ALL”

            — Our founders had a word for entities that believed as you and is part of the reason why they left to come to America .

            “Changing the legal term “marriage” is not one change in the law, but rather amounts to thousands of changes at once. The term “marriage” can be found in family law, employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many others. These laws affect and pervasively regulate religious institutions, such as churches, religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and families. When Church and State agree on what the legal term “marriage” means (the union of one man and one woman), there is harmony between the law and religious institutions. When Church and State disagree on what the term “marriage” means (e.g., if the State redefines marriage in order to recognize so-called same-sex “marriage”), conflict results on a massive scale between the law and religious institutions and families, as the State will apply various sanctions against the Church for its refusal to comply with the State’s definition. Religious liberty is then threatened.”

            It is easily foreseeable that many church ministers and communities could be sued in court over this question.

            The legal redefinition of marriage can threaten the religious liberty of religious institutions and individuals in potentially numerous ways, involving various forms of government sanction, ranging from court orders compelling action against conscience, to awards of money damages and other financial penalties, to marginalization in public life:

            Compelled Association: the government forces religious institutions to retain as leaders, employees, or members those who obtain legalized same-sex “marriage”; or obligates wedding-related businesses to provide services for same-sex “couples.”

            Compelled Provision of Special Benefits: the government forces religious institutions to extend any special benefit they afford to actual marriage to same-sex “marriage” as well.

            Punishment for Speech: preaching, political action, or conversation reflecting moral opposition to same-sex “marriage” represents actionable “harassment” or “discrimination,” or forbidden “hate speech”.

            Exclusion from Accreditation and Licensure: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from participation in highly regulated professions and quasi-governmental functions, as licenses are revoked and religious institutions lose accredited status.

            Exclusion from Government Funding, Religious Accommodations, and Other Benefits: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from receiving government grants and contracts to provide secular social services, and from various tax exemptions.

            Has this already begun to happen ? Yes,consider the following , “Legal action taken against a Catholic high school for firing a teacher in a same-sex relationship (Ohio, 2013); florist who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” sued by state Attorney General (Washington, 2013); bed-and-breakfast owners who declined to host a reception for a same-sex “wedding” had to pay $30,000 and agree to never host wedding receptions again (Vermont, 2012); Catholic hospital sued by employee for not providing health insurance for the employee’s same-sex “spouse” (New York, 2012); University administrator placed on administrative leave for signing petition to place marriage redefinition law on a state ballot (Maryland, 2012); high school student threatened with suspension for writing school newspaper op-ed opposing adoption by persons of the same sex (Wisconsin, 2012); counseling student expelled for requesting not to counsel persons in a same-sex relationship (Michigan, 2012); public notaries told by state officials that if they perform any weddings, they must provide wedding services to persons in same-sex relationships or face a human rights violation (Maine, 2012); the loss of funding and licenses to provide adoptions and/or foster care for refusal to place children with same-sex couples (Catholic Charities in Massachusetts [2006], DC [2010], and Illinois [2011]). These threats have been manifest in other countries as well, often to an even more persistent and invasive extent.”

            “Doesn’t a religious exemption protect institutions and individuals if they believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

            Sometimes. A religious exemption may provide protections, but so far those protections have been drawn very narrowly and fail to cover known risks. More broadly, because “marriage” so pervades the law, it is difficult to foresee all circumstances where religious freedom conflicts may arise. But even further, no religious exemption—no matter how broadly worded—can justify a supportive or neutral position on the redefinition of marriage Such “redefinition” is always fundamentally unjust, and indeed, religious exemptions may even facilitate the passage of such unjust laws. Protecting marriage protects religious liberty; the two are inseparable.”

            “Religious liberty is “the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person” Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits”

            Tyrants, religious or of Government, better back off. The American Revolution was fought to include the elimination of all such from our lives.

          • Guest

            And the law doesn’t allow him to makes offers to the public based on a religious test their ‘event’ must pass to get the offered service

            And this case has nothing to do with the civil contract called marriage – this is about belief-based marriage. And since many religions think that people can marry regardless of sex the illusion of ‘harmony’ you see is a lie.

            But this seems to be a cut and paste rant that has little to do with this topic since this case doesn’t even involve the civil contract of marriage.

            If you don’t like that the 100% secular civil contract licensed by the state is called marriage will get your big boy pants on and start a drive to rename it to just a civil union, the way the European countries handled it after the 100 years war. The civil contract establishing a legally recognized spousal relationship will be one thing, and anyone wanting a ‘marriage’ according to the faith of their choice will be another.

            But as long as a civil contract exists it will be available to all citizens regardless of their sexes as per the 14th amendment of the federal Constitution.

            And even after all that, it will still be illegal to make a public offer of sale and refuse a customer because you don’t like the belief-based usage they are going to use their purchase for so nothing will change.

            There is no right to religious discrimination, the universal right to religious freedom shields the customer from it. Can’t sell to people of all beliefs then don’t make the offer a public one but as a private club or non-profit. To paraphrase Justice Scalia, “a person has a right to their religious conscience, not a right to sell any particular thing to the public anyway they want.”

          • GibbyD

            This proves beyond doubt that the gay agenda is not just about their freedom to practice a sexual orientation, but the suppression of free speech.

            The United States Constitution protects the Baker and others who refuse to participate in another person’s sin. The Supreme court should verify this and if they don’t , you can expect civil disobedience and protests that will eventually lead to proper change and or a possible American Revolution .

            Homosexuality is a sin and it should be outlawed because of it’s dangerous health problems that it can spread.

            Consequences of Homosexual Sex. Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70%25 to 78%x,13 of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%18 to 39%19 to 59%.20 As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.21 The Seattle sexual diary study3? reported that gays had, on a yearly average:

            1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;

            2. exchanged saliva with 96;

            3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and

            4. ingested fecal material from 19.

            No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted

            hepatitis A during the 6-month study.

            Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. 23 The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity; the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

            The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.

            Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident–a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.

            Concerning the Baker, he offers baked items. Wedding cakes for homosexuals is not one of them.

          • Guest

            Hahahaha! Quoting the documented liar Paul Cameron shows that you are just a gossip, a sin unto itself.

            If the business owner doesn’t want to sell wedding cakes as the law requires there is none forcing them to offer them for sale. But if he does he has to obey the federal Constitution and its laws and the Colorado constitution and its laws and sell them to the customer regardless of their beliefs about marriage.

            You really don’t believe in freedom of religion at all, do you?

          • GibbyD

            He sells traditional wedding cakes for which he would then participate in the event , creating , delivering , setting up and possibly serving . It would violate the Baker’s constitutional rights if he was forced to do it for a very sinful function such as a homosexual ceremony. The Baker also would refuse to sell and serve at a KKK , pedphile , Nazi , wichcraft , and or similar evil event .

          • Guest

            or possibly just selling a cake. He doesn’t know because he religiously discriminated against the customer before he found out and that is against the Constitution. No matter how you state it he’s in the wrong.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker told them that he would sell them any other cake or product that he made, just not a wedding cake. The ones that are wrong are the homosexuals who sin by committing and being proud of their perversity.

          • Guest

            So the bakery owner told them he would break the law, that’s why this is a slam dunk case. He can no more tell his customer they only have access to some of the business’s services than he could tell a black person they can sit anywhere but the lunch counter, or use every hotel facility other than the pool.

            No matter how much you stamp our feet or whine the business owner broke the law and violated the customer’s civil rights. IF he can sell wedding cakes as the law requires he just shouldn’t be offering them to the public at all – that’s what a moral Christian would do.

          • GibbyD

            Being Black is not an activity . What Sodomites do , is. Designing a wedding cake, which is what this Baker does. is more than just baking one. The customer asks for particular arrangement and design of the cake. The Baker delivers to the event and may even serve. They then preserve a portion for the man and woman. All of that would involve the Baker being part of an evil , sinful event . The Baker said he would sell them a cake but would not do all of the above concerning the typical traditional wedding cake .

            The Baker does not have to be forced to participate in sinful perverted events and activity. This will eventually be settled by the United States Constitution and the Baker’s rights will be protected. He does not have to make a homosexual wedding cake and he does not have to give up his business in order to keep that protected religious right. Christians consider marriage to be a sacred union between a man and woman. It would be prohibiting the Baker’s free exercise of his religion if the government would attempt to force him to do what his faith and doctrines of his religion tells him is wrong.
            The Sodomites can go to another place to get a cake or make one of their own. What they need to do though is to repent of their sins and place their faith and trust in The LORD Jesus Christ. Hell is real and it is forever. Nothing is worth going to hell over. ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 5:13; Romans 10:9,10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Acts 16:31; John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23)KJB

          • Guest

            And being gay isn’t an activity. You can spam all you want about the baker, that just goes to show you are avoiding the actual issue, it is about the obligation of the bakery and if they can’t take the risk of having to serve a sinning customer they shouldn’t be offering it to the public with its absolute constitutional right to NOT share the owner’s views on sins.

            If the baker won’t do it, then hire a temp, 3rd party contract it out, or don’t offer the public wedding cakes at all.

            Again there are a number of ways the bakery owner can run his business legally and according to his conscience but he is too ignorant, lazy or greedy to do so. That’s his problem not the customer’s.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker does not want his name and business connected in any way with facilitating profane evil and disgusting perversion concerning marriage. Marriage is only to be between a man and a woman. The Baker and millions of others do not want it to be defiled and perverted into something that it was not meant to be. The Baker’s rights will be protected. It is one thing to sin but you will not be allowed to bring someone else into your wickedness.

            The Baker is not ignorant , lazy or greedy. He is an honorable man that deserves a tremendous amount of respect and admiration because of his courage to stand up against evil.

            You cannot equate homosexulity with being black or any other ethnic minority. They are not the same. Homosexuals are connected with the activity of homosexuality.

            Time is running out. You need to quickly make peace with God and take His provision for your sin. Nobody can be promised tomorrow. Repentance toward God ( HOLY LOVE) and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ( God incarnate)” ( Acts 20:21; John 1:1-14; 1st John 4:7,8; Isaiah 9:6)KJB

          • Guest

            If you were right then he wouldn’t be offering wedding cakes at all if he were a moral Christian. He knows its illegal to religiously discriminate against customers in a public offer, been illegal since 1951 in Colorado. Every customer has a legal and constitutional right to NOT share his beliefs about homosexuality, and the state constitution says that his conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of those customers.

            Again, you want him to have his cake and eat it too – sell whatever he wants regardless of the law. He needs to choose: either sell wedding cakes as the law requires or not sell them at all.

            As to your lack of understanding about civil rights and God I will leave you too it, those pearls aren’t relevant to this discussion and you wouldn’t appreciate them anyway.

            Again, either sell the cakes as required or don’t sell them at all – those are his two choices and the one the state supreme court will confirm (the federal one has already ruled 9-0 on this issue, unlikely they will revisit it)

          • GibbyD

            From your English I can tell that you are either very young or not from the United States. You are not aware then of the history of The USA and our respect for the religious liberty over other supposed rights that someone else may claim.

            The Supreme court did not rule about anything concerning what a private business can do in reference to refusing to sell a wedding cake for a homosexual event.

            Concerning my faith in Christ, the only way to make it to heaven is through faith and trust in The LORD Jesus Christ and what He did at Calvary to save anyone that ” repents toward God and places their faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. if you have some questions, you can go to many sources for answers . carm dot org is one site that may help you. I don’t agree with some of their stuff but most of it is good.

          • Guest

            Your ad hominems obviously aren’t Spirit inspired since they are false on both counts.

            And it is the religious liberty of the customer that is being protected. No one forced the business to offer wedding cakes for sale, if their faith won’t allow them to do so as law requires they don’t have to. But if they do make offers to the public they have to do so AND respect their customer’s right to religious liberty which includes buying a wedding cake for their ‘homosexual event’.

            And yes, there can’t even be a law that would allow the business to infringe on the public’s right to religious liberty.

            Faith in Christ and love are required – those without love are without God. I am good with God and have accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior, born again. Which is why I have the discernment to understand that even though I am in this world just as the bakery owner is, I walk in the next. Just as Paul told the Corinthians there is no sin in having dealings with those of this world of any stripe – their sins are between them and God, there is no sin in selling a wedding cake as the law requires to anyone – it is merely a thing of this world.

            Again, don’t offer things to the public you can’t sell as the law requires – that means wedding cakes, drugs, or anything else. But offer it then do as you’ve committed and complete the transaction with love.

          • GibbyD

            What ” ad hominems ” ? I did not attack you personally. I responded to your comments and addressed those.

            The Baker offers wedding cakes for sale for traditional weddings. This involves his participation which is more then just baking a cake. I explained this before. The Baker creates Traditional Wedding cakes for marriages between a man and woman. Homosexuals cannot marry no more than two pugs or two sockets can.

            There is no religious liberty right to force someone else to be compelled to participate in your evil practice of celebrating the sin of homosexuality .

            You are confused as to what the meaning of the 1st amendment says concerning religious liberty. It says the Government (Congress) shall not prohibit the free practice of one’s beliefs. This is what would be happening if the Government, by use of the courts, would tell a baker that he has to violate his faith.

            You say, ” there is no sin in selling a wedding cake ” —–

            This is the problem , high end bakers like this one do not just bake and sell a wedding cake. They participate in the design of the cake, deliver it and thus participate in the evil ceremony. The Scripture tell Christians clearly that we are NOT to be “partaker in other men’s sins.” (1 Timothy 5:22)
            It is a very unloving even hateful l thing to aid someone in their sin by condoning something that will damn their soul forever in Hell. It is a loving thing to take a stand and warn them of rebellion against God and their need to repent toward God and place their faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ .

            {There , their , they’re } learn the difference. That is not attacking , just correcting.

          • Guest

            I am neither young or not an American. Making the discussion about who you think I am rather than what I say is the definition of an ad hominem argumentative fallacy.

            Again, they can’t just sell for ‘traditional’ marriages and then conveniently define out a protected class. No more than a deli can say they only serve ‘traditional Southern events’ and by that mean no black ones.

            Either the bakery offers wedding cakes to the public or they do not. If they do the customer can buy one for whatever usage they want consistent with their beliefs. That you refuse to understand that when the courts do is why you are just going to leave you wondering why your side loses in every single case that this has gone to court.

            And no one is ‘compelling’ this bakery to offer wedding cakes for sale, they freely choose to do so knowing full well they can not discriminate because of the customer’s beliefs (even if they include marriage regardless of sexes), sexes, or sexual orientation.

            If the owner doesn’t want to sell to some people of the wrong beliefs then don’t offer wedding cakes for sale to public at all. He can run his business as a private club or non-profit.

            It doesn’t matter how many times you spam the same thing – the law says if he offers wedding cakes for sale he has to sell them to anyone that wants to buy one regardless of those qualities. If he can’t, why are they offering them for sale in the first place?

            The bakery owner is the one putting himself in this position and then crying when he has to follow the law he knew existed from probably before he was born. Boo hoo.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker does not just offer wedding cakes for sale. The Baker designs and creates a unique cake based on the interests of the customer. The Baker then delivers the cake, sets up and may even serve. This involves more than just selling a cake to anyone. It is the baker’s right not to participate at an event that is contrary to his beliefs. Would you think it right to say that a Jewish man or woman would have to serve at a Natzi organization event? Would you compel a black man or woman to serve against his will at a KKK function ? Christian Photographers , Caterers , Bakers and other businesses owed and run by Christians or other people of religious conviction will not have to serve profane and evil events and ceremonies.

            There was and is no law that will ever stand constitutional muster that states that an American citizen has to violate his 1st amendment rights simply because someone is a sexual pervert. The problem is that there are too many fake “Christians” that spend their time trying to defend sinful activity and never see their own need of repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ. They think that since they said a prayer a bunch of years ago and think they became a born again Christian. The truth is that they never really were born again. The evidence is seen in their life of ungodliness as they call evil good and good evil.

            My request to learn of your age and nationality was to try and find understanding as to what you think the way you do. It was not an attack. Only a thin skinned person might think that and you are not a thin skinned person , are you.

            You say, “That you refuse to understand that when the courts do is why you are just going to be left wondering why your side loses every time that this goes to court.” — We have won many of these , you just have not been watching. These cases are not settled and in time the constitution will exonerate these Christian business people as they work their way up the judicial system.

            The highest United States law supercedes all others. The first amendment including the fact that the Government cannot prohibit the free actions and liberties of religion.

          • Guest

            No, the bakery has a right to not offer wedding cakes if they can’t sell them legally, that’s it. And again with the individuals – this is about a business’s obligations not any particular person. Point of fact if a particular employee doesn’t want to do the job the business owner can send someone else, hire a temp, contract the entire job out to a 3rd party if so inclined.

            So your entire rant is pointless, this is about a business obligation. Again if the business owner can’t sell a particular product according to the law he need not sell it at all.

            And nice backpedalling, you didn’t ask my age and nationality you make a snide vicious tongued barbed speculation about it. I am retired and lived in Washington state all my life I wasn’t in the military.

            And no, these cases have never gone your way for the reasons you have stated that I know of. Please point me to a single case where they said that a civil rights law was unconstitutional.

            And the highest law in the land is what is protecting the customers and is the basis of the civil rights laws, federal and state. Again, the business owner feels he can’t follow the law and his conscience selling a particular product he need not sell it at all. But if the business sells wedding cakes then sell them to anyone asking regardless of their beliefs about marriage, their sexes, or their sexual orientation or they don’t offer them to the public at all.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker does not have to sell wedding cakes designed and created for homosexual events. Homosexuality is not a protected class such as is an ethnic minority.

            I am sorry , you just seemed young to me and or someone from another country. I have corresponded with enough people to be able to guess things like that. It makes a difference because of what they are teaching young people these days.

            The rights of the Baker is what is being attacked. Religious rights have been protected and have had priority in many cases across the country. The Hobby Lobby case being a good example where a Christian family owed business was not forced to provide insurance that included drugs meant to abort a baby.

            More relevant is the Kentucky Shirt Printer case.————-

            “Kentucky judge rules Blaine Adamson of Hands on Originals isn’t guilty of discrimination for refusing to print gay pride T-shirts

            By JAMIE DEAN Posted 2015
            A Kentucky court has ruled Lexington printer Blaine Adamson has a constitutional right to decline to print messages that conflict with his Christian beliefs, and that he isn’t guilty of discrimination for refusing to print pro-gay T-shirts in 2012.

            “It is their constitutional right to hold dearly and to not be compelled to be part of an advocacy message opposed to their sincerely held Christian beliefs,” Judge James Ishmael wrote in a decision released Monday.

            Late last year, a Lexington human rights commission found Adamson guilty of discrimination after the owner of Hands On Originals refused to print T-shirts for Lexington’s gay pride festival.
            Adamson told a member of the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) he couldn’t print the shirts because of his Christian faith, but he offered to refer him to another local printer who would offer the same price. (Adamson had declined in the past other orders he found offensive.)

            When the GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban Human Rights Commission, local demonstrators protested Adamson’s business, and the company lost three of its biggest customers, including the University of Kentucky.

            In addition to finding him guilty of discrimination, commissioners ordered Adamson to stop discriminating and undergo diversity training.

            A Kentucky court disagreed. In a 17-page ruling, Ishmael said Adamson’s website made his Christian convictions clear, and that he refused the gay pride order because of the message, not because of the customer’s sexual orientation.

            The court’s ruling said the First Amendment protects Adamson from compulsion to participate in a gay advocacy message that conflicts with his religious beliefs. The judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wooley v. Maynard: “We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” ——————————————-“Adamson’s case has national implications for the growing slate of other business owners facing fines and lawsuits over their unwillingness to participate in same-sex weddings. Christian cake bakers, florists, and photographers have argued their professions are forms of speech, and they shouldn’t be compelled to participate in same-sex weddings against their consciences.”

          • Guest

            Sorry, Gibby, but that you don’t know that sexual orientation is a protected civil rights class in Colorado makes this whole discussion pointless.

            And your case you cited was decided because it DIDN’T involve a protected class but was because the print shop owner always rejected any client that encouraged promiscuity or sex out of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation. You have proven my point – this case wasn’t decided why you thought it was.

            In all these cases involving wedding the owners have been very upfront this was because of religious bias, which IS a protected civil rights class as is the sexes involved and since it involved marriage it is the total opposite promiscuity.

            As I suspected and your continual comments indicated you don’t understand the issues involved.

          • GibbyD

            Religious rights and free speech will trump the desire of those who like perverted sex.
            The protected class in the Print Shop was and is the printer.
            I understand the issue and the law. I understand that the Constitution to be a unwavering Rock of authority which will not be supplanted.

            The Baker made his beliefs known a long time ago.

          • Guest

            And there you go – “perverted sex” if the printers had uttered those words they would have lost their case, just as any comment of religious bigotry would have. The print shop was unique in that they had not disparaged any protected class, not the case of the bakery shop here.

            The Colorado state constitution states that liberty of conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others, in this case the customers.

            The Constitution will be the unwavering Rocks and the Bakery’s verdict will stand.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker did not call it perverted sex, I did and do .

            The Printers case shows that you cannot demand that someone participate in your sin.

          • Guest

            No it doesn’t but its become clear that discussion with you is pointless so go on pretending that wantever you want means whatever you want. Hope that works out well for you.

          • GibbyD

            Christ and what He has accomplished on my behalf , cost HIM much but it has worked out well for me and all those who have , ” repented toward God and have placed their faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB.

          • Guest

            The only tyrant here is the business owner who thinks he can treat customers as if they share his beliefs when they have a state and federal constitutional right not to share them and still take him up on his freely made offer.

            Let the tyrant stop making illegal offers of sale to the public and start running his business legally which he could easily do if he weren’t so prideful.

            And spamming a cut and paste doesn’t help you at all.

          • GibbyD

            Most of what I have posted is my own. I cut and paste when someone says something better.

            The homosexuals can go elsewhere . The Baker, Florist and photographer will be exonerated when the USA Constitution is properly applied

          • GibbyD

            The Baker does not service homosexual events. “The State decides which ties it will recognize. No religion has a word to say about it. AT ALL”

            — Our founders had a word for entities that believed as you and is part of the reason why they left to come to America .

            “Changing the legal term “marriage” is not one change in the law, but rather amounts to thousands of changes at once. The term “marriage” can be found in family law, employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many others. These laws affect and pervasively regulate religious institutions, such as churches, religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and families. When Church and State agree on what the legal term “marriage” means (the union of one man and one woman), there is harmony between the law and religious institutions. When Church and State disagree on what the term “marriage” means (e.g., if the State redefines marriage in order to recognize so-called same-sex “marriage”), conflict results on a massive scale between the law and religious institutions and families, as the State will apply various sanctions against the Church for its refusal to comply with the State’s definition. Religious liberty is then threatened.”

            It is easily foreseeable that many church ministers and communities could be sued in court over this question.

            The legal redefinition of marriage can threaten the religious liberty of religious institutions and individuals in potentially numerous ways, involving various forms of government sanction, ranging from court orders compelling action against conscience, to awards of money damages and other financial penalties, to marginalization in public life:

            Compelled Association: the government forces religious institutions to retain as leaders, employees, or members those who obtain legalized same-sex “marriage”; or obligates wedding-related businesses to provide services for same-sex “couples.”

            Compelled Provision of Special Benefits: the government forces religious institutions to extend any special benefit they afford to actual marriage to same-sex “marriage” as well.

            Punishment for Speech: preaching, political action, or conversation reflecting moral opposition to same-sex “marriage” represents actionable “harassment” or “discrimination,” or forbidden “hate speech”.

            Exclusion from Accreditation and Licensure: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from participation in highly regulated professions and quasi-governmental functions, as licenses are revoked and religious institutions lose accredited status.

            Exclusion from Government Funding, Religious Accommodations, and Other Benefits: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from receiving government grants and contracts to provide secular social services, and from various tax exemptions.

            Has this already begun to happen ? Yes,consider the following , “Legal action taken against a Catholic high school for firing a teacher in a same-sex relationship (Ohio, 2013); florist who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” sued by state Attorney General (Washington, 2013); bed-and-breakfast owners who declined to host a reception for a same-sex “wedding” had to pay $30,000 and agree to never host wedding receptions again (Vermont, 2012); Catholic hospital sued by employee for not providing health insurance for the employee’s same-sex “spouse” (New York, 2012); University administrator placed on administrative leave for signing petition to place marriage redefinition law on a state ballot (Maryland, 2012); high school student threatened with suspension for writing school newspaper op-ed opposing adoption by persons of the same sex (Wisconsin, 2012); counseling student expelled for requesting not to counsel persons in a same-sex relationship (Michigan, 2012); public notaries told by state officials that if they perform any weddings, they must provide wedding services to persons in same-sex relationships or face a human rights violation (Maine, 2012); the loss of funding and licenses to provide adoptions and/or foster care for refusal to place children with same-sex couples (Catholic Charities in Massachusetts [2006], DC [2010], and Illinois [2011]). These threats have been manifest in other countries as well, often to an even more persistent and invasive extent.”

            “Doesn’t a religious exemption protect institutions and individuals if they believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

            Sometimes. A religious exemption may provide protections, but so far those protections have been drawn very narrowly and fail to cover known risks. More broadly, because “marriage” so pervades the law, it is difficult to foresee all circumstances where religious freedom conflicts may arise. But even further, no religious exemption—no matter how broadly worded—can justify a supportive or neutral position on the redefinition of marriage Such “redefinition” is always fundamentally unjust, and indeed, religious exemptions may even facilitate the passage of such unjust laws. Protecting marriage protects religious liberty; the two are inseparable.”

            “Religious liberty is “the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person” Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits”

            Tyrants, religious or of Government, better back off. The American Revolution was fought to include the elimination of all such from our lives.

        • W.J. D

          Can a court force a Jewish or Muslim baker to bake cake with particular pork content.

          • acontraryview

            You are referring to a business choosing to offer a certain product or not offer a certain product. That is the right of the business. Mr. Phillips is free to not offer wedding cakes as a part of his business. if he does choose to offer wedding cakes, he must make them available without violating the laws of CO.

          • GibbyD

            Nope. KFC does not vary much on it’s menu. What you see is what you get. Burger King allows you to adjust and ” have it your way” altering the sandwich according to the way you like it. The Baker in this story sells a traditional wedding cake to a man and woman for their wedding ceremony and participates greatly with that couple developing that cake , delivering it etc. He does not vary by altering his menu to work with wicked people who would pervert and disrespect the institution of marriage .

          • acontraryview

            “to a man and woman”

            So he restricts who may buy his product based upon gender. That is a violation of CO law.

          • GibbyD

            Because a marriage is only between a man and woman and not that of two of the same gender.

            The answer to your lack of peace and all your fear and confusion is to have a real relationship with The LORD Jesus Christ. The relationship begins with, “..repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB.

          • acontraryview

            “Because a marriage is only between a man and woman and not that of two of the same gender.”

            From a legal standpoint, they are the same.

          • GibbyD

            With two plugs and or two sockets , call it what you may, there is no power. Not until you join a plug and a socket will there be power and things working the way they are suppose to .

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            It’s not a good analogy. A court can no more “force a Jewish or Muslim baker to bake cake with particular pork content” than it can force a Mexican restaurant to serve sushi.

          • Guest

            You don’t seriously think that’s a valid question do you? This is about a business that DOES sell wedding cakes and refusing to sell one to one customer that they would to another, not asking them to sell something they don’t sell to anyone.

            And that is the solution for the business owner – if they truly feel they can’t sell wedding cakes as the law requires then they just shouldn’t be selling them by public offer to anyone. If they feel compelled to religiously discriminate they have other business models they can use rather than that of one making the public offers of sales.

          • GibbyD

            He sold traditional wedding cakes . Homosexual cakes were never on the menu

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There’s no such thing as a “traditional wedding cake” or a “homosexual wedding cake.” There are just “wedding cakes.” The only distinction is the type of couple he’s selling them to: gay or straight. Which is an illegal practice.

          • GibbyD

            It is unconstitutional to force an artist or anyone to create art or voice opinion that violates his beliefs. That would be like me forcing you to worship and obey The LORD Jesus Christ .

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Right, so what? How is that relevant here? He’s not being forced to work; he would happily have made the cake for this couple, IF THEY HAD BEEN STRAIGHT.

          • GibbyD

            False !!! He would also NOT sell a homosexual styled wedding cake to a straight couple just as he said he would not sell anything perverse and profane and disgusting .

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, but he would sell a wedding cake, which is all the gay couple was asking for.

          • GibbyD

            This kind of high end Baker , does not just ” sell wedding cakes”. He creates and designs each one and participates with that man and woman getting married. He would deliver , set up and may even serve at the event .

          • Guest

            What is a homosexual styled wedding cake? Wedding cakes are wedding cakes as the businesses own web page and other bakeries show.

            Again not even the business or its lawyers are making that argument, probably because they know it is ridiculous.

          • afchief

            What is two men on top of a wedding cake? Brothers? Are you really this ignorant????

          • WGB

            Yes, he is.

          • GS

            It is not against the law to not sell toppers of two men (unless they do sell toppers of two men, but will only sell them to certain people). If that decoration is not something they offer to anyone, then there is no law being broken. Other than that, there is no distinction between a “homosexual” or “traditional” cake. That’s like saying a hardware store owner sells oak tree axes, but not pine tree axes (even though we can all agree that an axe is an axe).

          • afchief

            Wrong! What is “two men dolls” on top of a wedding cake mean? It is a homo wedding cake. Pretty clear to me!!!!! But to the reprobate mind, NO!

          • GS

            Other than the cake toppers, there is no difference between a homosexual cake and a traditional cake. So as long as they weren’t asking for a specific decoration, what is the problem?

          • afchief

            The problem is whether the baker should have to bake a homo cake or not.

          • GS

            Again, what is the physical difference between a traditional cake and a “homo” cake? I still haven’t gotten an answer.

          • afchief

            The two men on top.

          • GS

            So if they didn’t ask for two men on top, which they didn’t, why is it still OK for the baker to refuse them a cake? If two cakes are identical and they aren’t asking for any decorations defining it as a “gay” cake, what is the difference? There is none. They came in and said they wanted a wedding cake, and he immediately shut them down. They didn’t even get a chance to look at options or decorations. They could’ve been asking for a plain white wedding cake.

          • afchief

            That’s his right!

          • GS

            No it’s not, the law says he can’t refuse service just because someone is gay. If it were his right, the law would say “businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”. The law litteraly says he does not have a right to refuse service to them. A “right” is a guaranteed privilege granted by the government.

          • afchief

            Hmmm….no shoes no service. Someone who is too poor to buy shoes can be denied service? Is that not discrimination?

          • GS

            I think you are grasping straws here. First, if someone can afford a service they should be able to afford shoes. If they can’t afford shoes, there are places such as Salvation Army to help them. There are certain types of discrimination that are allowed, such as denying alcoholic drinks to someone underage, even though you aren’t allowed to discriminate against someone because of their age. Shoes are a health and safety issue. Also, people who don’t wear shoes are not a protected class under the law. The fact is simple: the law says he must serve everyone equally who comes to his shop. He agreed when obtaining his business license. He broke the law. Is it really that hard to understand? If I sell a pen to Sally, and George wants one too, I have to sell one to him too. It doesn’t matter if he is going to use it to write, draw, build a bridge of pens, or stick it up his nose. I offer pens to the public, that means all of the public, regardless of how they will be used. That doesn’t mean I am endorsing or encouraging him to stick it up his nose… In fact I can disapprove of it all I want and even tell him why I think that’s a bad idea. But I can’t just flat out refuse him the pen just because I don’t like what he will do with it or what it stands for. If Sally gets a pen, everyone gets a pen.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            A “homo cake”? What in bloody hell is a “homo cake”?

            Jack Phillips has a beautiful wedding cake sitting in his cooler for any couple that needs one on short notice. There are even “bride & groom” figurines on top of the cake, so it is obviously a “hetero cake” as I suppose you would describe it.

            A Gay couple comes into Masterpiece Cake Shop needing a wedding cake on short notice. They’re willing to purchase the cake AS IS, with the intention of removing or revising the figurines on their own.

            Should Jack Phillips be able to turn them away?

          • afchief

            It should be his choice. But IMO and as a Christians I would not turn away a gay couple. It would give me a chance to share the Gospel with them and show them the love of Christ. But, that is me!

          • Guest

            Again if a business tried that lame excuse I’d just respond “ok I’ll take one of the ‘traditional’ wedding cakes then.

            A wedding cake is a style of cake that need not be used for a wedding at all. Either they sell them to customers regardless of their belief-based use for it – in this case for their wedding completely in accord with their beliefs – or they shouldn’t be selling them at all.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker said he would sell them any other cake. They could have used that in their evil union ceremony. This Baker is more than just a cake baker. He treats his cakes as artwork and gives much time to each one.

            It is unconstitutional to force an artist or anyone to create art or voice opinion that violates his beliefs. That would be like me forcing you to worship and obey The LORD Jesus Christ .

          • Guest

            Stop with ‘the baker’ nonsense. He doesn’t want to make the cake let someone else but as the business owner he is obligated to give a customer full access to all services regardless of their beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation. If the business owner can’t do that he shouldn’t be offering the offending service to the public at all. All civil rights acts have business models that can religiously discriminate, sell using one of those legally.

          • GibbyD

            Homosexual “wedding” cakes is not on the menu. Those sodomites knew this and is why they are persecuting the Baker because of his Christian beliefs.
            That ” Full access” does not include homosexual wedding cakes because that is not on his menu of services. It is not discrimination because the Baker would also NOT sell a homosexual styled wedding cake to straight people either .
            The Bakers offer to the public has always and only been traditional wedding cakes.

          • Guest

            Then the customer can buy a traditional wedding cake, the one on page 13 in the cake book with blue frosting, white cake and raspberry fill will do nicely.

            What exactly is a ‘homosexual’ wedding cake anyway?

          • GibbyD

            Being Black is not an activity . What Sodomites do , is.
            Designing a wedding cake, which is what this Baker does. is more than just baking one. The customer asks for particular arrangement and design of the cake. The Baker delivers to the event and may even serve. They then preserve a portion for the man and woman. All of that would involve the Baker being part of an evil , sinful event . The Baker said he would sell them a cake but would not do all of the above concerning the typical traditional wedding cake .

          • Guest

            Actually being black is no more an activity than being gay is. Point of fact there is nothing either group does that other groups don’t also do. And again, if he doesn’t want to be involved in ‘evil, sinful events’ he need not sell wedding cakes at all – problem solved.

            Sorry, every customer has a constitutional right to NOT share the beliefs of anyone at the business and still do business with them, that’s the law and the constitution. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this in a 9-0 ruling which is why they refuse these cases whenever someone tries to submit them.

            Either the business sells wedding cakes to public no matter their beliefs – even if they include marriage regardless of sex, or they shouldn’t be selling them at all.

            Pick one.

          • GibbyD

            A person is a homosexual because he has sex with the same gender. Being a homosexual is not the same as being a race or ethnicity.

            The Baker has the right not to be a partaker in another man’s sins.

          • Guest

            No a person is gay because they are attracted to someone of the same sex, that’s it. And you might be very young but people are racist because of the ‘activities’ and qualities that race supposedly has, just as you are assuming them of gay people.

            And of course, unless baking a cake is a sin your last statement makes no sense, and even if it did, the bakery wouldn’t be selling wedding cakes in the first place if they couldn’t ‘do so as the law requires.

          • GibbyD

            You cannot be forced to espouse things contrary to your beliefs. The violates the 1st amendment.

            Homosexualty is an sinful perverted evil acitvity. Being black or of any other ethnicity is not an activity and or a sin.

          • Guest

            Again, no one is forcing him to offer wedding cakes to the general public. If he can not in good conscience do so and treat the customers as the law allows he shouldn’t be offering the to the public at all.

            The way you put it you act like he could rob banks if it was part of his religious beliefs and not be held accountable – that’s not how it works. He knew the rules – its been illegal in Colorado to religiously discriminate against a customer since 1951.

            if he can’t sell something to the public as the law requires then shouldn’t be selling it to the public. Now he can religiously discriminate if he wants as a private club or non-profit, he needs to get off his lazy posterior and do it that way if he wants to sell wedding cakes to just some of the public.

            This is the solution that the owner of Arlene’s Flowers has followed – it no longer offers wedding floral services, hasn’t for several years. Doing just fine.

          • acontraryview

            “You cannot be forced to espouse things contrary to your beliefs. The violates the 1st amendment.”

            Agreed. Nor is anyone being forced to.

          • GibbyD

            If by threat of lawsuit, fines and or loss of livelihood, it is an attempt to force someone to do that which is contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Americans should never be in that position to have to decide between making a living for their family at the expense of compromising their religious beliefs and liberties.

          • acontraryview

            “it is an attempt to force someone to do that which is contrary to strongly held religious beliefs.”

            Since the baker is not required to offer wedding cakes, he is free to not do so. Since he is free to not offer wedding cakes, he can’t be “forced” to do something is contrary to his religious beliefs.

            “Americans should never be in that position to have to decide between making a living for their family at the expense of compromising their religious beliefs and liberties.”

            Agreed. That is why he is free to not offer wedding cakes and free to pursue employment where he would not have to be involved in activities that violate his religious beliefs.

            If a baker said that it is his sincerely held religious beliefs that the races should not mix, is he therefore entitled to turn down a request from an interracial couple? If he believes that a marriage ceremony that is not held before the Christian god is sinful, is he entitled to turn down a request from non-christians?

          • GibbyD

            AGAIN , you cannot compare race with perverted sexual appetites. Besides, there is NOTHING in Scripture that would forbid interracial marriages. NOTHING !!!

            The Baker is free to sell and serve wedding cakes to couples if one is a make and one is a female. He does not have to restrict his business because you have a desire for perverted sex.

          • acontraryview

            “Besides, there is NOTHING in Scripture that would forbid interracial marriages. NOTHING !!!”

            While you may believe that to be true, your belief is not shared by others. The Virginia judge in the case of Loving v Virginia said:

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            So tell me, Gibby, who are you to say what is, and is not, a valid sincerely held religious belief? If a person says it is their sincerely held religious belief that people of different races or religions should not marry, will we turn to you for a decision on whether that belief is a valid reason to turn away customers? Will we turn to the courts? Do you really want the courts deciding what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief?

            “He does not have to restrict his business because you have a desire for perverted sex.”

            Agreed. He does, however, have to conduct his business in accordance with the law.

          • GibbyD

            There is NOTHING in Scripture that would forbid interracial marriages. NOTHING !!!

            Race is not the same as what particular kind of sex you want to have .

            The USA constitution will protect the baker and not the sodomites in this case.

          • acontraryview

            “There is NOTHING in Scripture that would forbid interracial marriages. NOTHING !!!”

            Again, Gibby, while I certainly appreciate that you do not believe that to be true, not everyone agrees with you.

            I’ll ask again: Who are you to say what is, and is not, a valid sincerely held religious belief? If a person says it is their sincerely held religious belief that people of different races or religions should not marry, will we turn to you for a decision on whether that belief is a valid reason to turn away customers? Will we turn to the courts? Do you really want the courts deciding what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief?

            “Race is not the same as what particular kind of sex you want to have .”

            Agreed. Nor is this issue about what particular kind of sex people want to have.

            “The USA constitution will protect the baker”

            What portion of the Constitution provides protections for business owners to refuse to provide a product based upon the owner’s religious beliefs? There have been numerous cases that have come before the courts regarding the ability to discriminate based upon religious belief. None have been successful.

          • acontraryview

            “A person is a homosexual because he has sex with the same gender.”

            No. A person is homosexual because he/she is romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Whether or not that attraction is acted upon does not change the person’s sexuality.

          • GibbyD

            A wedding, among other things, is a public declaration of intent to have sex with another person. You do not have to have sex and or marry anyone you say or think you love and or have “romantic” feelings for.

            A homosexual is one that wants to have sexul ACTION with someone of the same gender whether or not he or she has that action or not. This action that is carnally desired by the homosexual is an ACTIVITY. Being “black” or of some other ethnic or racial group, is a state of being. It is not related to any particular action. You are a racist if you think that it does. Your analogy fails.

          • acontraryview

            “A wedding, among other things, is a public declaration of intent to have sex with another person.”

            Really? When do couples who get married publicly declare that they are going to have sex? Is it part of the marriage vows? “Love, honor, obey, and have sex with….”? How many people do you think you would have to ask “what public declarations are being made by marrying someone?” before you found one that said: “That I am going to have sex.”?

            “Being “black” or of some other ethnic or racial group, is a state of being.”

            So you don’t think that sexuality is a state of being? You don’t think that heterosexuals are heterosexuals regardless of their actions? You don’t think a celibate heterosexual is still a heterosexual?

            “You are a racist if you think that it does.”

            How does stating that sexuality and race are both traits make me a racist?

          • GibbyD

            I said ” among other things” . The primary reasons and my stated one are essential otherwise why marry in the first place ? What do you think it means when the Bible says Adam knew his wife and the two became one flesh? Don’t be foolish.

            Being black is a protected class based upon his ethnicity and or color of his skin. A homosexual is one that desires perverted sexuals interests. Those two are not similar in any way. One class is protected because of race. We do not protect and or give special rights simply because of your particular appetite for sin.

          • acontraryview

            “The primary reasons and my stated one are essential otherwise why marry in the first place ?”

            People enter into civil marriage in order to establish legal standing for the couple. It is not required.

            “A homosexual is one that desires perverted sexuals interests.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding the sexual interests of homosexuals as being “perverted”, to homosexuals they are not. They are natural.

            “Those two are not similar in any way.”

            They are both traits.

            “We do not protect and or give special rights simply because of your particular appetite for sin.”

            But we do, Gibby. People are protected even if they do not believe in the Christian god, which is a biblical sin. People are protected in their speech, even if that speech takes the Lord’s name in vain, which is a biblical sin. People are protected in their ability to make false idols, which is a biblical sin. People are protected in their ability to have sexual relations outside of marriage, which is a biblical sin. The list goes on.

            We are not a Christian Theocracy, Gibby.

          • GibbyD

            civil rights discrimination legislation does not apply to what particular football team you cheer for, what flavor of ice cream you choose or what king of sex you want to have.

          • acontraryview

            Agreed. Nor is it being applied for any of those choices.

          • GibbyD

            You want to apply it to what kind of sex you want to have.

          • Victoria Day

            You are really trying hard to be contentious. Gibby D. is right all the way. Your comments show your complete lack of honesty. You yourself know that sex is the chief component of the LGBT community and their agenda even includes promoting homosexual sex in schools. Anyone who has seen a gay pride event (news or attendance) can attest to the extreme sexual aspect. The “beast” system we are developing into may someday force Christians out of the workplace…or have we arrived? I applaud the baker for not taking “the mark” (hypothetically speaking)

          • acontraryview

            “Your comments show your complete lack of honesty.”

            Please cite the specific comments I have made that are not honest.

            “You yourself know that sex is the chief component of the LGBT community”

            No, I do not know that nor is it true.

            “Anyone who has seen a gay pride event (news or attendance) can attest to the extreme sexual aspect.”

            Anyone who has seen a Mardi Gras parade can attest to the extreme sexual aspect. So, based upon your logic, sex is the chief component of the heterosexual community, which is clearly not true.

            “may someday force Christians out of the workplace”

            Given the protections provided by the Constitution as well as various civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation that would not be possible without repeal of that legislation and amending the Constitution. So unlikely as to be absurd.

            “I applaud the baker for not taking “the mark””

            You are certainly entitled to applaud or not applaud whatever you care to.

          • Victoria Day

            Go away.

          • acontraryview

            Unfortunate that you accuse me of being dishonest but then provide no support for your claim. Christians refer to that as “bearing false witness”. How do you reconcile bearing false witness with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • Victoria Day

            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Victoria Day

            Boring…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • acontraryview

            I hope you had a good sleep. Now that you’re rested, perhaps you can provide a basis for your accusation that I was dishonest in my comments. Or are you simply going to make the accusation without providing any backup for it? Isn’t that referred to as “bearing false witness”? Why, yes, it is.

          • acontraryview

            “Being Black is not an activity”

            Neither is being homosexual.

          • GibbyD

            Black is a state of being black. The word homosexual is about “sex” . Sex is an action and not a state of being . Homosexual is about having sex with that of the same gender. There is no other meaning to the word.

          • acontraryview

            “The word homosexual is about “sex” . Sex is an action and not a state of being . Homosexual is about having sex with that of the same gender.”

            Therefore, heterosexuality is about “sex” and the action of having sexual relations.

            So, Gibby, tell me, what sexuality is a celibate heterosexual? What sexuality is a person prior to having sexual relations?

          • GibbyD

            Hererosexuality is speaking about the sexual interest of a person for natural sexual relations.

            Unless a person is a-sexual in which there is no sexual interest or action, a heterosexual will have interest in sex with those of the opposite gender. A celibate heterosexual is a myth in most cases because Jesus said if you have thought the act , you are as guilty as if you have done the act. The natural and normal interests in the opposite gender need to be controlled and subdued until marriage. For the homosexual and other sinful interests , a repentant heart toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ is needed. (Acs 20:21)KJB. Those heterosexuals that are fornicators and any other unsaved person , needs to be Born Again so that they can have a new nature and get victory over those sins. ( 2 Corinthians 5:17)KJB. Nothing held onto is worth going to Hell about. Since a lost person cannot control themselves , the best answer for them is to turn to Jesus for help and trust in His sacrificial work at Calvary, experience the new birth , be granted the Holy Spirit when they do and then they can overcome those evil past desires.

          • acontraryview

            “A celibate heterosexual is a myth”

            Celibate: “abstaining from sexual relations or marriage”

            No, a celibate heterosexual is not a myth.

            “Hererosexuality is speaking about the sexual interest of a person”

            Then, contrary to your previous statement, it is not about action. it is a trait.

          • GibbyD

            sex is an action in mind or deed.

          • acontraryview

            Sex is an action.

            Thinking is an action.

            But thinking about sex is not an act of sex.

          • GibbyD

            It cannot be done without thinking about it . And you can think about it without doing it . In either case , it is an action .

          • GS

            Can you describe what a “homosexual” wedding cake looks like? Is it in the shape of a penis?

          • GS

            And how do they determine which businesses are run by Christians? Nothing in the business name suggests they are a strictly Christian business. If an atheist decided not to sell a cake to a homosexual couple and they brought it to court, would you agree they are targeting that business just because the owner is atheist?

          • GibbyD

            Did you read his statement. The Baker made it clear that he would only create cakes and product that honors God . His stance and Christian views were well known and that is why the homosexuals targeted him.

            ““Phillips … honors God through his creative work by declining to use his artistic talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs,” the petition states. “This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.”

            “He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol,” it continues. “Consistent with this longtime practice, Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching….”

            “The freedom to live and work consistently with one’s faith is at the heart of what it means to be an American,”

          • GS

            So you assume this couple was aware of this before they visited his shop? When you go to a new store, how do you know the owner’s beliefs? If it is your first time in a shop, how are you supposed to know what the owner stands for? You don’t. You assume that as an American you will be able to enter and obtain the product or service advertised, just like everyone else. I don’t know if you are married, but if you are how many bakers did you visit for your cake? Didn’t you look at reviews and see which would be the best option for you? How many of those places specifically stated they are strictly Christian? And if they did state they are Christian, you assume they will follow the law and serve everyone. It wasn’t until they walked in and said they would like a cake that they were immediately turned away. They had no prior knowledge.

          • GibbyD

            They should know that millions of Americans take their faith seriously and the chanced of finding a real Christian is very possible. The homosexuals found one and were told from the very beginning that he would not make a wedding cake for a perverted , sinful activity. They should have left and looked for one that did do that sin.
            His business says that they do not do profane and or evil events or create product with an evil message.

          • GS

            That may be true, but when the state gave him his business license, he signed an agreement to follow the laws of the state, which he broke. That is the simple issue here. Regardless of his beliefs, he agreed to serve everyone. He broke that and should be fined. True Christians believe divorce is sinful, why does he not ask heterosexual couples if they have been divorced to ensure he isn’t partaking in their sin? Why does he not ask heterosexual couples if they are both virgins? Do those sins not matter to him? He is picking the sins HE deems evil, regardless of what the Bible says. And he broke the law. When I go to a store, I shouldn’t have to worry or wonder if they will serve me, and neither should you. If you are OK with him denying service to gays, you are also agreeing any Christian can be denied service by Muslims because Islam deems any other religion as evil. Want to buy some hamburgers at Walmart? Too bad, your cashier is Muslim and doesn’t serve Christians. Wanna get a car loan? Sorry, find another bank because the loan officer is Jewish and the Christian faith goes against her religion! Tough luck bud.

          • GibbyD

            You say , ” he signed an agreement to follow the laws of the state, which he broke. ” BUT –Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman”

            So the law was and is on The Baker’s side. Since Homosexuals cannot get married in Colorado , he should no have to sell them a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for a man and woman that are getting married .

            The Baker does not limit exclusion to homosexuals . Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation.

          • GS

            So only people who are legally able to get married are legally allowed to purchase a wedding cake? What if I want to buy myself a birthday cake, but it is not my birthday? Should I not be able to purchase one? If I buy birthday cake, or a cake for my party, is he part of the celebration?

          • GibbyD

            The baker should not have to participate in a homosexual union ceremony . That violates his constitutional rights.

          • Victoria Day

            Or that violates his conscience.

          • GibbyD

            amen

          • GibbyD

            You cannot equate being of an ethnicity with being a practicing sodomite. One is a state of being born into that racial identity and the other involved a disgusting perverted activity .

          • GS

            You are saying the people’s actions are the deciding factor of their eligibility for goods and services. So heterosexual couples who engage in sodomy should also not be allowed to buy a wedding cake? What about celibate gay couples? If they are not having sexual relations, they are not sinning. Also, Jewish and Muslim are not ethnicity, they are religion. Any person, white, black, Chinese, etc. can be a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim.

          • GibbyD

            race , religion , gender are protected classes , NOT what kind of perverted sex you have.

          • GS

            Ah but you are wrong as Colorado has protection for sexual orientation. In any case, if the kind of sex you have is not protected, then if a man and woman who engage in anal sex come to his shop, it is a perfectly fine reason for him to not sell them a cake, correct? If I think doggy style is perverted, I should be able to refuse service to anyone who engages in that. Good to know. What kind of sex do you have? Let me know before you come to my store so I can make sure you are worthy enough for my services.

          • GibbyD

            Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman

          • GS

            What’s your point? A single person shouldn’t be allowed to go to any bakery and purchase a wedding cake? Only a man and a woman should legally be allowed to buy a wedding cake?

          • GibbyD

            A wedding cake would require that the Baker participate in the same gender ceremony. The Baker makes designs/ creates a cake for the celebration of the union of a man and woman.

          • GS

            You really aren’t getting this are you? If he isn’t prepared to serve ALL weddings, he should not be in this business. If I own a hardware store and sell an axe to someone, does that make me an accomplice if he kills someone with it? Absolutely not!

            This is simple and for some reason you aren’t getting it. He obtained a business license and agreed to serve everyone as the law requires. He broke the law, the judge fined him and told him to not do it again. Yet you claim he is in the right because his religious beliefs exempt him from the law. If he gets an exemption, then every business should be able to deny services to anyone, including blacks and Jews, correct?

          • GibbyD

            You really aren’t getting this are you? Being Black and or Jewish is not the same as what kind of sex you have.

          • GS

            I understand that they aren’t the same, but sexual orientation is protected, meaning you can’t say “you’re gay? No cake for you”. Do you not understand that? Do you also not understand there are plenty of religions against Judaism, but no one is legally able to deny Jews services, or blacks, or gays, or women! And if one business gets to be exempt from that law, all businesses should be exempt from that law. Anyone can claim anything is against their religious beliefs, regardless if it is true or not!

          • GibbyD

            You cannot force someone to be a partaker of another person’s sin or force them to voice opinion that they disagree with

          • GS

            If the law says to serve everyone equally, the government has an obligation to enforce that law on those that break it. If he doesn’t like the law, he can petition to change it, or close his business. The sin you speak of is one man lying with another man. Is he being forced to have sex with another man? No.

          • GibbyD

            No, GS, the act of homosexualty is the sin. Read the portions of Scripture about it , it is not talking about rape , it was speaking of sex , even consensual , between those of the same gender.

            The Baker serves all equally. If a homosexual wants to marry someone of the opposite gender then he probably would make a wedding cake for that couple.

          • GS

            You have no basis for your argument. He broke the law, plain and simple. Any other point you are trying to make is futile. No matter how you spin it, that’s what it comes down to. He is in the wrong and any stupid excuse you can come up with for him to deny services is completely irrelevant. You never answered to the many other instances I pointed out that he could’ve refused service, like to divorcees or a hetero couple who engage in sodomy. Because there is no reason he shouldn’t follow the law that he agreed to when getting his business license.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker’s constitutional rights supercede any other law.

            If you read the article, the Baker says that he would also refuse making wedding cakes to others in relation to marriage
            “Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching….”. That may include the examples you site.

          • GS

            Okay so you do agree that if a hetero couple asks for a cake, he is well within his rights to deny them a cake if he finds out they are living together without being married yet, or if one of them has been divorced? Or even though the law says he can’t deny someone based on their religion, he should get to say no to a Jewish couple if he really believes their marriage is a sinful one?

          • GibbyD

            Homosexual acts are activity that is sin.

          • GS

            So is being divorced, wearing mixed fabrics, and eating shellfish. Yet he isn’t denying people services because of THOSE sins!

          • GibbyD

            The Baker is a New Testament Christian , not an old Testament Jew under the law of Moses.

          • GS

            Attention everyone! Let it be known that GibbyD will refuse you service if you have been divorced, or living with your significant other without being married! Or if you eat pork, or wear mixed fabrics, or have ever talked back to your parents!

          • GibbyD

            The Baker sells wedding cakes for Traditional marriages. That is on the menu for his business.

            New Testament Christianity is not thee old testament

          • GS

            I feel bad for you. I really do. I feel bad you will never understand how the law works. That’s like saying I sell axes for oak trees, not pine trees. It’s not my place to tell people how they can or can’t use my product. I’m done. I give up. I have tried to explain how this man broke the law, but you just won’t ever get it. And that is really sad. The simple fact that a seven year old could understand is that he has a business with a license granted by the government, and he agreed to serve everyone equally. He broke that law. There are no other exceptions or factors to this story. He was told “when you open this business, you agree to serve everyone, regardless of their age,sex, national origin, race, gender, or sexual orientation. He agreed, he didn’t follow through. He got in trouble. And it’s sad you will always think he is in the right. It’s sad you will always think that anyone can do anything and claim their religion allows them to break the law. I hope God opens your eyes. Goodbye.

          • GibbyD

            KFC does not sell liver, it is not on their menu. This baker does not sell wedding cakes for homosexual events, it not on his list of things he sells. What is so hard to understand?

            I feel sad for you that you are not born again and saved from the wrath to come. I feel sad for you that you do not have everlasting and abundant life and love. That can change if you want . What you need is ” repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. Nothing else is more important .

          • GS

            KFC does not sell liver to anyone period, they don’t offer it, they aren’t required to sell it. But if they did offer it, they cannot choose for what purpose it is sold. I can go to KFC and buy a bucket of chicken and throw it off a roof if I want. KFC doesn’t get to determine how I use their product once I buy it. They don’t get to choose for what event they will allow their chicken in. If I am a member of KKK, they still have to sell it to me, even if I am giving it to all my racist buddies. They don’t need to approve of my lifestyle, but if one person can buy chicken, everyone can buy chicken. What is so hard to understand? Again, the purpose of the product is not his business. His business is to make cakes and sell them. He doesn’t get to choose which events are acceptable for his product or not. If I craft door handles for the public, I do not get to say “these handles are for oak doors only”. My product line is door handles, not door handles only for oak doors. I’m done with this conversation because no amount of explaining it will get it through your thick skull and hardened heart. Have a good life.

          • GS

            Also the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law in favor of any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But Congress didn’t make this law, Colorado did. Also, free exercise does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want! My religion states I can sacrifice a newborn to my god, so I am well within my rights to kill a child? Good to know!

          • GibbyD

            The establishment clause sets forth that congress shall not make any laws that create an official state church , THAT IS ALL !!! The Government will not have an official brand of religion that is it’s own and it will not prohibit others from acting freely according to their own conscience about their own brand , denomination and or kind of Religion. The context and reason for this clause , was in reaction to the abuse and Nicolaitanism they experienced at the hands of their former country by The Church Of England , which was the official brand of religion in that land at that time .

          • GS

            I’m in agreement with you. But that does not give businesses the right to refuse service. A business is not a person. It does not have a religion. It is open to the public and the owner agrees to follow the laws when they get their business license, which includes serving all customers equally. If he can’t do that, he needs to find a different line of work. It’s that simple. You are overcomplicating this whole issue. Freedom of religion doesn’t give you the ability to do whatever you want because of your faith. If it did, we wouldn’t have prosecuted the KKK, but instead would’ve said “oh well that’s what they believe so they have freedom to kill blacks”

          • GibbyD

            The Baker should also be allowed to refuse making a cake for a KKK event. But you would force him to.

          • acontraryview

            So you believe that the baker, when requested to make a cake for a wedding reception, inquires whether either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, and then refuses the order if so?

            You believe that the baker ensures that the couple accept Jesus as their savior and will be taking their vows in a Christian church and refuses the order if not?

            Do you believe the baker, if asked to make a cake for an engagement party, ascertains if the couple are having sexual relations and then refuses the order if they are?

            Do you believe that the baker, when asked to make a cake for a baby shower, ensures that the mother-to-be is married and then refuses the order if she is not?

          • GibbyD

            You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.

          • acontraryview

            Agreed. He is free to not offer wedding cakes. He cannot be forced to do so. Since he can’t be forced to offer wedding cakes, he can’t be forced to provide wedding cakes for a same-gender wedding reception.

          • GibbyD

            He cannot be forced to sell the service of designing and creating a wedding cake that would require him to espouse views an ideas that are contrary to his strongly held religious beliefs. How would you feel if someone with the threat of lawsuit would try and force you to come to his church and worship The LORD Jesus Christ ? Since you are not a Christian , you would not like that , would you?

          • acontraryview

            Sexual activity is not a protected category. Sexuality is a protected category regardless of what sexual activities the person does, nor does not, participate in.

          • GibbyD

            And you cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.

          • Victoria Day

            So, GS, would you sell a gun to Charles Manson?

          • GS

            I would sell a gun to anyone legally eligible. Also, that situation is completely different than what we are discussing. I highly doubt a convicted killer would be eligible to purchase a weapon. It’s not my job to make the laws, it’s my job to follow them.

            A better question would be: if I am against killing innocent animals, would I sell a gun to someone who tells me they are going to use it for hunting? If they are within the scope of the law, irs not my job to tell them how they can or can’t use it.

          • Victoria Day

            No, it is not a different situation. It was a hypothetical question for the purpose of identifying where you are morally. You are not a Christian so your values are completely opposite of Christianity. It is obvious. For Christians, God’s law must come before any other even if it means death for not bowing to Cesar. Thank you for your reply.

          • GS

            Do you hear yourself right now? You are saying that baking someone a cake that you disagree how they will use it, is the exact same as giving a gun to convicted serial killer.

          • Victoria Day

            You have completely missed the point. You trivialize the spiritual aspect. The Bible is true: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Have you not understood that the baker has the right not to participate in something that violates his conscience? It is not a matter of objecting to the use of a cake, but refusing to participate in evil. Homosexuality is a sin and a grievous one. The baker not only has a right to refuse, but to follow Christ, MUST refuse. But our discourse is over: “What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15) End of convo.

          • GS

            Then as a follower of Christ he should get out of the business if he isn’t prepared to serve everyone. He doesn’t have a right to refuse them service. The law LITERALLY says he does not have that right. If his line of work will cause him to interact with people he thinks are evil, he needs to find a different job. Gays shouldn’t have to be subject to his judgment, just like Christians shouldn’t be subjected to the judgement of Muslims if they go into a shop where one is working. If gays should accept no service, then Christians should accept not being served if they go into a gyro shop for food.

          • Victoria Day

            Still don’t want to discuss the spiritual aspect, GS? Homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes. It is clear from many different scriptures. Homosexuality is not any ethnic group nor is it a religion. The baker has every right to refuse to participate in anything that offends God. I can bet he would refuse to bake a cake used in a Satanic ceremony also. As I said, our conversation is over. You made your point and it is nonsense to anyone of faith. So go your way….

          • GS

            Divorce is also an abomination to God, yet I’m sure he would serve any straight couple. In the eyes of the law, he does not have the right to pick and choose who he serves. What do you not understand about that? When he got his business license he agreed to follow the law which means serving everyone equally. If his job conflicts with that he needs to find a different line of work! If he provides a product or service to one person, he has to provide it for all people. Not doing so is a violation of the law. The government doesn’t say it’s OK to not serve someone because of how they live. It would also be against the law to refuse service to someone based on their religion, the Satanic ritual you speak of. By that measure, if I owned a bakery I could refuse a cake to a Christian church group, claiming I believe it is evil, and you would support that correct? I understand his conviction, and it is his right to have that conviction, but it is also every citizen’s right to go into a shop and expect to be served. No one should need to worry if they are good enough in the eyes of the business owner. And you can’t just dismiss someone in the rude way you did. You don’t own this conversation, you can’t tell me to stop talking.

          • Victoria Day

            I would never want to patronize a business that was so anti Christian in the first place. I didn’t tell you to stop talking. I just won’t read another thing you have to say. Go ahead and spin your wheels.

          • Victoria Day

            Yes, actually I can dismiss you.

          • Victoria Day

            Exactly the same. An animal is not a human being. End of convo.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It doesn’t matter whether they’re equivalent. The law protects them both equally.

          • acontraryview

            “The Baker made it clear that he would only create cakes and product that honors God”

            How does making a birthday cake “honor God”?

          • GibbyD

            It celebrates the miracle of life and the value of those for whom The God of the Universe willing came to die for and redeem.

          • acontraryview

            And if the child was born out of wedlock, wouldn’t that be participating in an event that involves Biblical sin?

          • GibbyD

            What does that have to do with a wedding cake? Biblical marriage starts the moment when two become one flesh, it does not start after you exchange vows at a ceremony.

          • acontraryview

            The rationale provided by the baker was that he does not make cakes for an event that would celebrate something that is considered a biblical sin. Therefore, prior to making a cake for a child’s birthday, he should ascertain if the child were born out of wedlock and if so, refuse the order.

            If he is not applying his rationale in all situations, then he is being a hypocrite.

            “Biblical marriage starts the moment when two become one flesh”

            After my father passed, my mother remarried at the age of 78. I can assure you, she and her new husband did not become “one flesh”. So were they not married according to the Bible? What about a couple where the man is impotent? Not really married?

          • GibbyD

            The Baker said he would sell them any other product. His only limitation was wedding cakes and placing any racist , profane or other-wise vulgar message on any of his creations.

            If your mother or an impotent man have had absolutely no intimate physical knowledge of the one they say is their husband or wife, they were and or are not “married” by the Bible definition of marriage and or what the King James Version calls “knowing” your spouse.

          • acontraryview

            “The Baker said he would sell them any other product. His only limitation was wedding cakes and placing any racist , profane or other-wise vulgar message on any of his creations.”

            But now that wasn’t the question, was it Gibby? The question was whether he applies his biblical restrictions on all the products he sells. Clearly, he does not, or that would have been brought up in his defense. He is a hypocrite.

            “If your mother or an impotent man have had absolutely no intimate physical knowledge of the one they say is their husband or wife, they were and or are not “married” by the Bible definition of marriage and or what the King James Version calls “knowing” your spouse.”

            So if two elderly, devout, Christians get married late in life and do not have sexual relations, you believe that God does not recognize and bless their marriage?

          • GibbyD

            In regards to his other products , why would he need to restrict sales to people unless they wanted profanity or vulgar messages and ideas placed on the creations. As I said numerous times, the wedding cake is served at a ceremony that represents a sacred union that God began. For the Baker to make a cake for that which blasphemes that Holy state, would be a severe and rebellious sin against God.

            Your words, “So if two elderly, devout, Christians get married late in life and do not have sexual relations, you believe that God does not recognize and bless their marriage?”—

            — God would bless them no matter what but they would not be ” one flesh” as The Bible declares what happens when two are married. A marriage is when two come together both spiritually and physically in intimate knowledge one of another. They would be already one in the Spirit if they were true Christians but they would not ” know” one another in the Biblical sense. I could get into a more lengthy explanation as to why they could also be considered as husband and wife before consummation of that union but I think there is sufficient information out there on the internet that you can find all that out yourself.

          • acontraryview

            “In regards to his other products , why would he need to restrict sales to people”

            Because the rationale he provided for not making a cake for a same-gender wedding reception was that same-gender marriage is a biblical sin. If that is his rationale, then don’t you agree that he should not make a cake for any event that celebrates something that is a biblical sin? Doesn’t picking and choosing which sins he will be involved in celebrating and which he will not make him a hypocrite?

            “God would bless them no matter what”

            if God would bless them, and the Bible is the word of God, how can you say that they would not be considered married?

          • GibbyD

            You said, “Because the rationale he provided for not making a cake for a same-gender wedding reception was that same-gender marriage is a biblical sin. “–

            — No , it is a sin but his reason is that he does not want to be partaker in that sin which he would have to do if he created , delivered and served at that event.

            Marriage literally is when two become one flesh through the sexual act.

          • acontraryview

            “but his reason is that he does not want to be partaker in that sin”

            How is that different than baking a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother? Or baking a cake for an engagement party if the couple is having sexual relations? Or baking a cake for a wedding reception where the couple is taking their vows before a god other than the Christian god? Or baking a cake for a wedding reception where either, or both, of the couple have been divorced for reasons other than adultery?

            I’ll ask again: Doesn’t picking and choosing which sins he will be involved in celebrating and which he will not make him a hypocrite?

            “Marriage literally is when two become one flesh through the sexual act.”

            That is what it “is” according to your beliefs. That does not mean that is what is what is “is” for all people.

            I’ll ask again: If God would bless them, and the Bible is the word of God, how can you say that they would not be considered married?

          • GibbyD

            Because with a wedding cake the Baker would have to participate and involve himself at the ceremony. The many examples that you gave are varied. He may or may not sell and or serve in cases that he deems profane , vulgar or against his beliefs , especially if he feels he is participating in another person’s sin. He is not a hypocrite to want to honor God by his actions. To design a wedding cake for a homossexual event affirming that perverted union ,would be condoning that sin.

            When you were young you probably lived with your mom. I am sure you loved your mom but were you married to her? Living with someone does not make it a marriage. ———————————–Marriage is when two become one flesh through the sexual act. Anyone you may or may not have had sex with , you have become one flesh with them and in God’s eyes you married them.

          • WGB

            Ignore the person who’s trying to compare being homosexual to being black. I was born black and can never change or hide that. My ancestors suffered as a result of something we couldn’t hide and had no control over. It is so offensive to me when some manipulative person tries to compare the two experiences as if they’re identical…and whats more google racism in the gay community. You’ll see how much some homosexuals really identify with black people.

            *Excellent comments btw. God bless.

          • GibbyD

            Thank you.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know that anyone is arguing that being black is the same as being gay. However, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the same or not. They’re equally protected by public accommodation statutes. Why they’re protected is irrelevant. Whether they both deserve to be protected is equally irrelevant. The fact remains that they are

          • WGB

            I disagree. I stand by my comments. Honestly I didn’t read your entire comment. I don’t value your opinions. We disagree about almost everything.

            You initiated this exchange which I’m not interested in continuing. Please don’t start harassing me.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, we do disagree. Because you refuse to accept reality.

            It’s not my opinion. The law prohibits businesses from discriminating against patrons based on sexual orientation. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

          • WGB

            ☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God you’ve mocked.

            God bless.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, you continue to announce, proudly, that you’re not reading my posts. But you’re lashing out at me, accusing me of things I didn’t say, because you refuse to read what I post.

            Why are you so terrified of having to confront and defend your beliefs?

          • WGB

            Again, Did not read ☝🏽. I stand by my comments. In fact:

            “☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God you’ve mocked.

            God bless.”

            Finally, I will NEVER read anything you submit. Your harassment, stalking, and trolling only makes you look bad and confirms my reasons for not valuing your thoughts and/or comments. Your insistence on harassing me is just proof of your bullying tactics and attempt to force your sin on others. But it won’t work.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How do you know my opinions are worthless if you wont read them?

          • acontraryview

            “Did not read.”

            Again, you say that as if it matters to me. Adorable.

            “So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me.”

            You once again accuse me of harassing you, but you fail to explain how I am harassing you. Speaking of stalking….you are searching the threads for comments OTHER people made to me. That pretty much sounds like stalking to me.

            “Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level”

            I have made no such demand. You are lying about what I said. How do you reconcile your lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “Your blood is on your own hands”

            Actually, my blood is inside my hands.

            “you will bow before the same God you’ve mocked.”

            When did I ever mock God?

            I wish God’s blessing on you as well. Perhaps through that you will learn to not bear false witness, nor lie, and to operate with integrity.

          • WGB

            “☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God/Word you’ve mocked.”

            Again, lol. You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll – trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination. Being black is not a behavior nor is it a sin to be black. Sodomy is a behavior and God calls it an abomination, i.e., a filthy sin. You are obviously desperate to win supporters-lol😂, even if it involves claiming connections that do not exist, lol😂.

            Moving forward you will only receive comments I have already sent as you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.

            Good day”

            Again, God bless.

          • acontraryview

            Your seem quite adept at cutting and pasting. Unfortunate that you are not equally skilled at backing up your accusations against people, telling the truth, and acting with integrity. Oh well.

            “You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll”

            Refusing to answer questions about your statements, refusing to provide backup for your accusations, and lying, is pretty much the definition of a troll.

            “trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination.”

            I made no such comparison. That is another of your lies.

            “as you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.”

            Quite the hypocritical comment from someone who says they do not read comments.

            Again, may God’s blessing be on you as well. Perhaps you will learn to be honest, not bear false witness, and act with integrity, although the signs of that are not good.

          • WGB

            Again: “☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God/Word you’ve mocked.”

            Again, lol. You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll – trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination. Being black is not a behavior nor is it a sin to be black. Sodomy is a behavior and God calls it an abomination, i.e., a filthy sin. You are obviously desperate to win supporters-lol😂, even if it involves claiming connections that do not exist, lol😂.

            Moving forward you will only receive comments I have already sent as you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.”

            Again, “God bless.”

          • acontraryview

            “I was born black and can never change or hide that.”

            How is that relevant to equal protection under the law? Are you suggesting that if you could have changed your race that it would have been reasonable to require you to do so in order to be treated equally under the law? Are you suggesting that if you could have somehow hidden the fact that you are black and been able to pretend that you were white, that it would have been reasonable that you do so in order to receive equal protection under the law?

            It’s amazing to me that any black person, knowing how members of their race where mistreated in this nation based upon nothing more than prejudice, could possibly support unequal treatment of other citizens based upon nothing more than prejudice. Perhaps for some, now that they have their protections, they have no concerns for others. Sad.

          • WGB

            I stand by my comments. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

            edit: I finished this conversation days ago. Move on.

          • acontraryview

            Why would you stand by comments that you cannot defend?

            “Your opinion is irrelevant to me”

            Why?

            “does not make sense.”

            How so?

          • WGB

            LOL😂LOL.

            Again, I stand by my comments (read them again if you’d like for clarity), but either way your opinions and thoughts are still irrelevant to me.

            edit: If you persist in harassing me after I’ve dismissed you and your thoughts I will neither read nor respond to your comments moving forward (and may flag you for trolling). Good day.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t explain why you would stand by comments you can’t defend.

            So you can’t explain why my comments are irrelevant to you.

            So you can’t explain how my comments do not make sense.

            i figured as much. Thanks for confirming.

          • WGB

            “LOL😂LOL.

            Again, I stand by my comments (read them again if you’d like for clarity), but either way your opinions and thoughts are still irrelevant to me.

            edit: If you persist in harassing me after I’ve dismissed you and your thoughts I will neither read nor respond to your comments moving forward (and may flag you for trolling). Good day.” cc

          • acontraryview

            Odd that you would find your inability to answer questions amusing.

            In what way am I “harassing” you? Do you view asking you questions about your statements that you are unable to answer, thus exposing the irrationality of your statements, as “harassment”?

          • WGB

            ☝🏽️Did not read, but again:

            “LOL😂LOL.

            Again, I stand by my comments (read them again if you’d like for clarity), but either way your opinions and thoughts are still irrelevant to me.

            edit: If you persist in harassing me after I’ve dismissed you and your thoughts I will neither read nor respond to your comments moving forward (and may flag you for trolling). Good day.” cc

            Edit: FYI I haven’t read any of your comments in their entirety. I can recognize trolls from their first sentence.

          • acontraryview

            So not only can you not explain why you would stand by comments you can’t defend, nor explain why my comments are irrelevant to you, nor explain how my comments do not make any sense, you also cannot explain how I am harassing you.

            I’m assuming you must be laughing at your yourself. I know I am.

          • WGB

            “☝🏽️Did not read, but again:

            “LOL😂LOL.

            Again, I stand by my comments (read them again if you’d like for clarity), but either way your opinions and thoughts are still irrelevant to me.

            edit: If you persist in harassing me after I’ve dismissed you and your thoughts I will neither read nor respond to your comments moving forward (and may flag you for trolling). Good day.” cc

            Edit: FYI I haven’t read any of your comments in their entirety. I can recognize trolls from their first sentence.”

          • acontraryview

            Thanks for the confirmation.

          • WGB

            “☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God/Word you’ve mocked.”

            Again, lol. You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll – trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination. Being black is not a behavior nor is it a sin to be black. Sodomy is a behavior and God calls it an abomination, i.e., a filthy sin. You are obviously desperate to win supporters-lol😂, even if it involves claiming connections that do not exist, lol😂.

            Moving forward you will only receive comments I have already sent as you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.

            Good day.

          • acontraryview

            “Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level.”

            I have made no demand that you accept what you believe to be sin. You are free to accept or not accept whatever you care to. Is it normal for you to lie about what other people say?

            “trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination.”

            But I made no such comparison. Again, is it normal for you to lie about what other people say?

            “You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it would seem that a person who responds to comments without reading them and is unable to answer basic questions about their statements and accusations, would qualify as “the worst and most pathetic kind of troll”.

            “you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.”

            Since you are the one, by your own admission, who is failing to read the thread, it is clear that you are the lazy one.

            Enjoy your day.

          • WGB

            “I disagree. I stand by my comments. Honestly I didn’t read your entire comment. I don’t value your opinions. We disagree about almost everything.

            You initiated this exchange which I’m not interested in continuing…”

            “…Finally, I will NEVER read anything you submit. Your harassment, stalking, and trolling only makes you look bad and confirms my reasons for not valuing your thoughts and/or comments. Your insistence on harassing me is just proof of your bullying tactics and attempt to force your sin on others. But it won’t work.”

          • acontraryview

            “I disagree.”

            If you don’t read my comments, as you stated, what is it you disagree with?

            “I don’t value your opinions.”

            Why?

            “Finally, I will NEVER read anything you submit.”

            Either that is a lie, our your statement “I disagree” is a lie, since disagreeing would require that you read my comments. So which lie is accurate?

            “Your harassment”

            You accuse me of harassing you, but you are unable to define the way in which I am harassing you. I believe that is what Christians refer to as bearing false witness. How do you reconcile such behavior with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “which I’m not interested in continuing”

            Then why do you? if you don’t wish to continue the exchange, stop responding. But, if you are going to continue to make accusations against me, at least have the integrity to explain the basis for your accusations. Unless, of course, integrity is not important to you. We shall see.

          • WGB

            I agree with “GibbyD acontraryview • 3 days ago

            The most important thing that you need right now is The LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus died to save you from going to Hell. “Repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. That is what will save you from Hell and grant you everlasting and abundant life and love.

            You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.”

          • acontraryview

            So you do lack integrity. Unfortunate.

          • WGB

            I agree:

            “GibbyD acontraryview • 5 days ago

            Because a marriage is only between a man and woman and not that of two of the same gender.

            The answer to your lack of peace and all your fear and confusion is to have a real relationship with The LORD Jesus Christ. The relationship begins with, “..repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB.”

            God bless

          • acontraryview

            “I agree”

            I’m glad to see that we agree that you lack integrity. That’s at least one thing you have been honest about.

          • WGB

            ☝🏽️Did not read, but again:

            “I agree with “GibbyD acontraryview • 3 days ago

            The most important thing that you need right now is The LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus died to save you from going to Hell. “Repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. That is what will save you from Hell and grant you everlasting and abundant life and love.

            You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.”

            fyi-I still have not read one of your comments in its entirety and never will.

          • acontraryview

            “fyi-I still have not read one of your comments in its entirety and never will.”

            You say that as if you think it matters to me. That’s adorable. Everyone has limits on their abilities. Don’t be too hard on yourself.

            “You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.”

            If you had fully read my response to Gibby, you would have seen that I agreed with her.

          • WGB

            “☝🏽️Did not read. So, you have resolved to stalking and harassing me. Predictable.

            Again, your opinions are worthless to me. That is why I do not read the foolishness you spout. Your ramblings and demand that we all support your sin is offensive on every level. “It is better to obey God than man.” Acts 5:29.

            Just leave me alone as your attempts to convince me to support your abomination or change my mind regarding sin is futile. Research the remnant. Your blood is on your own hands and you will bow before the same God/Word you’ve mocked.”

            Again, lol. You are the worst and most pathetic kind of troll – trying to compare a person’s race to another person’s sexual behavior/sin/abomination. Being black is not a behavior nor is it a sin to be black. Sodomy is a behavior and God calls it an abomination, i.e., a filthy sin. You are obviously desperate to win supporters-lol😂, even if it involves claiming connections that do not exist, lol😂.

            Moving forward you will only receive comments I have already sent as you have shown yourself to be too lazy to read the entire thread for yourself.

            Good day”

            God bless.

          • acontraryview

            How would a “homosexual wedding cake” differ from a heterosexual wedding cake?

          • GibbyD

            A Traditional marriage and cakes made for it honors the covenant that God established of a marriage between one man and one woman, the other would perpetuate the sin and shame of that which is contrary to what is right, good and holy.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t say how a “homosexual wedding cake” would differ from a heterosexual wedding cake. Got it. Thanks.

          • GibbyD

            The most important thing that you need right now is The LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus died to save you from going to Hell. “Repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. That is what will save you from Hell and grant you everlasting and abundant life and love.

            You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.

          • acontraryview

            “You cannot force an American citizen to participate in somebody else’s sexual perversion and or event trying to honor that sin.”

            Agreed. Nor is anyone being forced to do so.

          • GibbyD

            A Homosexul event that perverts the sanctity of marriage by claiming same gender unions and ceremonies, is an abomination and gross sin.

            If by threat of lawsuit you demand someone participate in that by creating a wedding cake for those homosexuals in celebration of that evil , then you are attempting to force some against his beliefs to do so or lose his business.

          • WGB

            Your answers/responses have been thorough and you have been patient with that agitator who appears to have nothing else to do than repeat, “you have not responded” or “you can’t answer” AFTER you have responded/answered throughout the entire thread.

            I will not entertain him, but I think I may send him some of your comments as he has turned his stalkerish/trolling/harassing attention to me now. If thats ok with you?

          • GibbyD

            That’s ok. I do pray that he considers how short life is and of his need for The LORD Jesus . God bless you.

          • GS

            “Here is a display case of white frilly cakes for weddings, but I won’t sell those to you because those are ‘traditional’ cakes; we don’t make ‘homosexual’ cakes. THESE are the only cakes I will offer to you: *points to display case of birthday cakes*”

          • acontraryview

            In what way is the cake itself “traditional”?

          • GibbyD

            That depends on how far back you want to go in history. In American culture , at least, it has been used in the reception part of a wedding ceremony . The ceremony of gathering witnesses and the exchanging of vows before celebrating the new Husband and wife. Again , they are declared husband and wife even before they are suppose to consummate the union and become married. They are married in the eyes of God when they actually and naturally come together as one flesh during the normal natural copulation of that man and woman. Some men and women have “opened their presents early” and have married, becoming one flesh through sex, before the ceremony and exchange of vows with those people(family and friends) to witness the vows. Ideally it is best to wait because some men and women do not then later want to stay with that person they had sex with and in many cases never intended to. The ceremony and frills with many witnesses , is a better sign of that future spouse of your real intentions.

          • acontraryview

            Your response covers the ceremony and its meaning, which varies from individual to individual. My question was regarding the cake itself. So, I’ll ask again: In what way is the cake, itself, “traditional”?

          • GibbyD

            Your “question” was answered.

          • acontraryview

            My question had to do with the cake itself. Your response made no mention of the cake itself. So, no, my question was not answered.

          • GibbyD

            a cake designed/ created by the artist for a wedding ceremony reception celebrating a man and woman who have exchanged vows and intent to be married.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            As I’ve told you before, “people who want to eat pork” are not a protected class. LGBT people are.

          • WGB

            Excellent comment.

          • GS

            Who the hell makes a cake containing pork product? Gross. Anyway, they also can’t force a bakery to start making apple pies, because that’s not a product they offer. But if they do make apple pies, they shouldn’t be able to choose who is worthy enough to enjoy said pies.

          • WGB

            Excellent point.

    • afchief

      It only works for Muslims. Not Christians!

      October 28, 2015
      Obama EEOC Fights for Religious Liberty — for Muslim Truckers
      By Daniel John Sobieski

      Well, at least they were not told to bake a cake for a gay wedding. In President Obama’s fundamentally transformed America, Christian bakers are forced by the blunt instrument of government mandate to cater a gay wedding regardless of their religious beliefs, but Muslim truckers can now refuse to transport alcohol because their Muslim beliefs and Sharia law prohibits it.

      As an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission press release cheerfully chirps about its victory over Star Transport, a trucking company based in Morton, Illinois:

      A federal jury in Peoria, Ill., has awarded $240,000 to two Somalian-American Muslims who were fired from their jobs as truck drivers at Star Transport, an over-the-road trucking company, when they refused to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which brought the case. The trial started on Oct. 19, and the jury returned its verdict the next day after 45 minutes of deliberation.

      Judge James E. Shadid, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, found in favor of EEOC after Star Transport admitted liability in March 2015. The resulting trial was to determine compensatory and punitive damages and back pay. The jury awarded Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale $20,000 each in compensatory damages and $100,000 each in punitive damages. Judge Shadid awarded each approximately $1,500 in back pay….

      “EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”

      Read more: at American Thinker

      • acontraryview

        Equal treatment in the workplace as an employee is different than providing services under the law.

        • afchief

          Of course it is!

          Sarcasm off!

          • acontraryview

            Then your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

          • afchief

            More proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder!!!

          • acontraryview

            How is pointing out that a comment regarding employment law is irrelevant to a discussion regarding laws covering provision of service by a business “proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder”?

          • afchief

            IT”S THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not at all. One is an employment dispute, governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The other is a public accommodation dispute, governed by the Colorado Human Rights Law.

          • afchief

            And you call yourself a lawyer????????? You are dumber than a box of rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You keep telling me I’m wrong (with multiple exclamation points), but you never tell me how.

          • afchief

            Read the Constitution!!! Or are you too dumb to do that?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If the answer to every question could be found by simply reading the plain text of the Constitution, we wouldn’t need case law.

            You can’t point me to any provision of the Constitution that explains what happens when a state has a public accommodation law that, to comply with, would conflict with an individual’s religious beliefs.

            Luckily, we have hundreds of years of case law clarifying the situation.

          • afchief

            I’m done dealing with your ignorance. Is it deliberate?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why don’t you try actually responding to something I say, rather than screaming insults at me? It might be better for your blood pressure.

          • afchief

            I told you, GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! There you will find the the “equal protection clause” of the United States Constitution is no longer operative. Actually, the Constitution itself is no longer operative. It’s been replaced by “Fundamental Transformation”.

            OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you want me to read the Constitution, even though it’s “no longer operative?” Why should I read it then?

          • afchief

            Because of that lawless scumbag in the White Mosque!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Now you’re just incoherent.

          • WGB

            Yes it is. He has no control over it.

          • afchief

            The rest of the article.

            Judge Shadid, is an Obama appointee, who, as Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin noted, was the first Arab-American to serve as a state judge in Illinois. He has made his mark in a pretzel-twisting interpretation of the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

            The two truckers knew when they applied for the trucking jobs they might be asked to transport the prohibited alcohol. One suspects that might have been the intention — to force a test case in federal court as part of the Islamization of America, a case they knew the administration of Barack Hussein Obama would support.

            The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa tried to act on their faith but were ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple based on an order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. As the Washington Times reported:

            The order affirms an initial ruling in January that found Aaron and Melissa Klein had violated Oregon civil-rights law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony in 2013 and ordered them to pay damages to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman.

            Crystal O’Connor, member of the family that owns Memories Pizza, got into trouble when she told local ABC news affiliate that she agreed with Indiana’s version of the federal RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no, “she told local station ABC57. Her beliefs and rights and the beliefs and rights of the owners of Sweet Cakes should be respected, just as the beliefs of Muslim truckers are.

            The double standard of the Obama administration knows no bounds. They did not rush to defend the religious liberty rights of the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. But they have gone to court to force the Lirrle Sisters of the Poor to force the group of elderly nuns who aid the impoverished and ill elderly to provide contraception coverage for their staff. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

            The Little Sisters contend ObamaCare not only violates the First Amendment’s religious guarantees, but also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That requires the government to implement its policies in ways that do not impose an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion….

            If the Little Sisters lose their case, they’ll either have to violate their religious conscience or face fines of around $2.5 million a year, or about 40% of what they beg for annually to care for the dying poor. Their ministry would be severely crippled, as would the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.

            The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

            No meaningful accommodations are offered to counter ObamaCare’s infringement of religious liberty. Catholic institutions such as universities and charities are under assault for trying to act on their faith in their daily activities and not just for one hour on Sunday.

            The Muslim truckers could have accommodated themselves by taking another job. Maybe they could open a bakery and be forced to cater gay weddings.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t explain how pointing out that a comment regarding employment law is irrelevant to a discussion regarding laws covering provision of service by a business “proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder”. Got it. Thanks

          • afchief

            I’m glad you got it! LOL!

          • acontraryview

            It was pretty easy to get since you didn’t provide any explanation.

          • afchief

            I repeat this so you will understand because I know liberals and homos have a reprobate mind!!!

            GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! There you will find the the “equal protection clause” of the United States Constitution which is no longer operative. Actually, the Constitution itself is no longer operative. It’s been replaced by “Fundamental Transformation”.

            OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Given your substantial lack of knowledge about the Constitution, the protections it provides, and the role of the judiciary in securing the protections provided by the Constitution, I think it is you who should spend some time in study.

            How is the equal protection clause no longer operative? How is the Constitution itself no longer operative?

          • afchief

            Have you been paying attention to what our lawless Muslim in the White Mosque has been doing for the last 7 years? Or do I need to educate you?

          • acontraryview

            Oh, please, educate me on how the equal protection clause of the Constitution is no longer operative and the Constitution itself is no longer operative. I always like starting my day with a good laugh.

          • afchief

            Because we have a lawless anti-american, anti-christian, lying Muslim in the White Mosque who has trampled on the Constitution. Do I need to list his Constitution violations?

          • acontraryview

            Get back to me when you can explain how the equal protection clause of the Constitution is no longer operative and the Constitution itself is no longer operative.

          • afchief

            A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

            “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” Barrack Hussein Obama. Obama took the Presidential Oath, swearing to “.. preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” but has:

             Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

             In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             *Entered Treaty Agreement with Iran without Advice & Consent of the Senate. No agreement (including one with the UN) is valid without 2/3 Senate approval. Article II Section 2.

             Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.

             Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4

             Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3

             Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

             Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress, and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath.

             Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2

             Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.

             23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment

             Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3

             2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.

             Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

             Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t

            errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

             Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

             Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3

             Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

             Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

             Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

             Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

             Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment

             Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.

             Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.

             NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

             Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything

             Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

             Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress

             Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment

             DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

             Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1

             Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated

             Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade

             Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment

             Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)

             Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.

             ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.

             Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment

             Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers

             Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare

             Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.

             Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)

             The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.

             Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.

             Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.

             Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.

             Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.

             With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.

             Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.

             The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

             Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powersherein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.

             Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3

             Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.

             Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

             Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

             Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

             In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

          • acontraryview

            Again, please get back to me when you can explain how the equal protection clause of the Constitution is no longer operative and the Constitution itself is no longer operative. Until then, I wish you well.

          • afchief

            It’s not operative to homo marriage. That is quite clear!!!!!!!!!!

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      You raise a valid point, that where does the limit of the being able to decline services, race, colour, faith, or sexual orientation. The question is not about buying a pint of milk, it is around marital services, (whether its the vicar or cake maker it doesn’t really matter) and if someone has the right to refuse to do work for an activity they do not believe in. No one is slating anyone for same sex relationships, only not wanting to be involved in a same sex marriage, Sin is without scales, a sin is an act against the wishes of God, the reason he doesn’t want these acts is because it stops our relationship with Him. A thought is as good (or as bad) as an action, to think of violence is the same as murder, to pinch a pen is the same as steeling a car, sex with another mans wife or having sex outside of marriage is as bad as having sex with someone of the same sex. Someone who does not wish to do a service for someone because of their faith should not be persecuted, as there is I am sure many people who would like the trade in this troubled time. This is not racism sexism or any other ism tbh, this is about endorsing an act that is a sin, nothing else.

      • GS

        And if he were to believe two Jews getting married is a sin because the Jewish faith renounces Jesus as the Son of God? Would you support his decision to refuse service as well? Even though refusing service to someone just because of their religion is also against the law? Do you really believe that just because he is providing a service or product that means he is endorsing or approving of it? He did not suddenly become Jewish and is not part of the ceremony.

        • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

          He is not refusing them for their religion only his own faith about an activity they do, there is a massive difference and you are showing no sensitivity to the issue.

          • GS

            And if his own faith deemed Jewish weddings sinful? You would be OK with him refusing them service based on their actions (i.e. marrying each other)? Technically he would be refusing them based on his own faith deeming their wedding sinful.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            He is not randomly finding sodomy sinful by himself, it is biblical, the sins in the bible are pretty clear, no one is judging the couple for their relationship for we are all sinners, however the person who sells a service of cake making (not selling tvs or something) believes that by performing this service he is taking part in / promoting that sin. At no point does the story say the couples faith or religion, and nor is the guy being a bigot, racist, homophobe or judging them for their beliefs, only unwilling to take part in their marriage. Is this world not a free one where you can sell your services to whom you wish to? If you went to a Jewish synagogue and asked as a Christian for a marriage service and they said no – would anyone care? it is purely the nature of the militant left wing who pick up specific causes and try to ruin any business / people who do not share their view of the world. Stop trying to be a white knight with your low brow attempt at making a point.

          • GS

            A synagogue is a religious building, and just like churches aren’t forced to perform ceremonies they don’t approve of, same goes for a synagogue. A bakery serves the public. All of the public. If he is upset that gays can get married now and that he will have to serve them too, he should find a different line of work. No one is asking him to approve of the relationship or ceremony. He wouldn’t be allowed to refuse a Jewish couple a cake just because he thinks their wedding is sinful and against God’s wishes.

            So you are saying anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason? So refusing to serve someone because they are Chinese is OK with you. As is refusing service to Lutherans. And let’s not forget about women if you so choose. I mean, it’s a free country right?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Actually churches are being targeted for refusing to perform the service of marriage based on discrimination, we are talking the sale of a service not a sale of a goods, how is the public, the lgbt community improved by forcing a business to close down or bow down to them?

            He is not refusing to serve someone for being different from himself, he is refusing to perform a service that propagates an action he does not believe in, there is a huge difference between an action and a faith or ethnicity. In all this you still do not show any sensitivity to the issue.

            Did the couple think of asking him to bake a cake, as an actual cake instead of a wedding cake? you might not see the distinction but there is one, If you wish to see the other view point go watch a movie called Audacity, it better illustrates the Christian view point of same sex relationships, which btw he nor I are condemning, tbh quite the reverse in my case, I would argue the right for anyone to chose their own partner (gay straight, trans-gender), its just i do not believe that those people in that relationship do not have the right to enforce their relationship onto anyone else with differing views. I am a Christian btw, I just do not belive that my faith should impact others in a negative manner but that no one has the right to mess with my faith either. In this case of a service – not a goods the provider should have the right to choice to follow his faith and loose a sale. If this was a case of goods being refused to be sold, or someone being refused a job or accommodation that would be something very different.

          • GS

            There has not been one instance of churches being forced to marry anyone they don’t want to, and they never will. If you can point to a case I would be glad to see it. Also, it does not matter what he deems morally acceptable. As I stated before, if he were asked to create a cake for a Jewish wedding, he would not be allowed to refuse, whether he was just selling it or actually catering the event. A member of the KKK who owns a bakery would not be allowed to deny a product or service to an interracial couple, no matter how strongly he believes it is a sin. He may believe divorce is a sin, but I highly doubt he would refuse to create a cake for a couple where one or both have been divorced. When you run a business open to the public, you serve EVERYONE. You don’t need to approve of their lifestyle, but you must serve everyone. And if he has a problem with that, he needs to become a church or a non-profit organization.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

            Which religion / faith has those precepts, the KKK is not a religion or faith it is a evil assembly of weak men who blame others for the fact that they have numerous short comings and terrorize people.

            I do not believe that any Christian would refuse to do a service for a Jewish couple, Jesus was Jewish of course. Lifestyle implies that people who are gay choose to be gay or not, that is in contention and not something I would like to assume for anyone.

            If someone does not have the right to choose who they sell their services to then do they not have any freedoms at all?

            In the UK we have the right to refuse a sale of a product or service to anyone, without reason though it is usually used in terms of peoples behaviour in a business or lack of proof of id etc,

            Did you watch audacity? I can link it to you if you like? It does a much better job of explaining the Christian perspective of sin in terms of Gay relations / marriage than I can 🙂

          • GS

            So first of all, their business is a for profit wedding chapel, similar to those in Las Vegas. It is not a tax exempt church. That is why they are under the same non discrimination laws any business is under. Again, no CHURCHES are being forced to marry anyone. Second, this isn’t the UK. We have protections so a black person can buy a car if he wants. A Jew won’t be kicked out of a grocery store, and a gay person can buy a cake. The issue is the law states they cannot pick and choose whom to do business with, and he knowingly broke that law. Obviously if someone is being rude or isn’t of age they have every right to not serve them. Also, anyone can claim anything goes against their religion these days. They do not need to prove it to anyone. If I tell my employer I cannot work on Tuesdays because of my religion, they are not allowed to ask for proof, or to see my religious text that states that. That is why we need protections, otherwise anything would be justified because of religion.

            I do not agree with people being forced to do something against their will, but I do expect every public business to serve everyone equally, and if you break the law, you should be fined accordingly. If your religion goes against that, you need to find a different line of work.

    • Victoria Day

      If a cake has already been made by using his talents for the glory of God and is purchased, then it is not the same as being REQUIRED to bake a cake for a specific purpose that violates his beliefs and thereby participating in the sin. No craftsman can really control how his creation will be used, but he can refuse to create something he knows will be misused.

  • Cindy Nunnally

    I feel that a privately owned business should be able to extend their service or refuse to anyone they want. We were a free country the last time I checked. I do not think it is fair for the government to interfere when a business denies their services. We should be able to make a choice. We are a society that is too eager to sue for any reason. The gay couple could and should have gone to another bakery.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      Should a Christian business owner be allowed to turn away Muslims?

    • Michael C

      If these are your feelings, I recommend you contact your local legislators to encourage them to work to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    • BigHobbit

      A business that operates in a “public accommodation”, that has the privilege of a business license to serve the public, is not a “private” company. They are obligated to not harm their customers, or the public. They must follow commercial regulation that protects the public from unsafe conditions, from environmental pollution, and from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or, in some states, on the basis of sexual orientation.
      It is the responsibility of the business owner to understand the regulatory environment, and no business owner can claim a religious right to break the law.

      If you cannot both follow your faith AND the commercial regulation in your industry, you need to find a new line of work, or to move to a community where your behavior will not violate the community standards and laws.

      In the case of the baker who will not sell wedding cakes to same sex couples, well, he may only do that legally if he stops selling wedding cakes, period.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        he did stop selling wedding cakes entirely, woop woop the lgbt community win.. wait they win what?

    • GS

      So you are totally in favor of him if he doesn’t want to bake a cake for a Lutheran and Catholic marrying each other? What if he believes YOUR specific denomination is sinful while you are requesting a service or product he offers for YOUR wedding? It is against the law for him to not serve a group of people based on their faith. By your logic, an atheist can deny services to anyone claiming to be Christian, and you should have no issues with that.

  • Michael C

    I have yet to see any solutions presented to issues like this. What are some possibilities?

    Most of the country does not prohibit discrimination against gay women and men. Is this the solution? Repeal all laws that protect gay people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation?

    Should wedding vendors have an exemption from civil rights laws? Should wedding vendors be permitted to refuse service for whatever religion reason they choose? This would have to include bakers and florists who would refuse to “participate” in interfaith and interracial weddings. Would this exemption only apply to wedding services?

    We could completely repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That would solve this, too.

    Would anyone like to suggest any actual solutions?

    • SFBruce

      These are great question. I’d love to see someone address them.

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      Can i ask something here, can a Christian couple get married in a Jewish Synagogue?

      If someone asks you for a service who you do not wish to sell or give it to them are you persecuting them?

      How does this apply to employment, housing or accommodation?

      The law in his state does not allow same sex marriage so that by itself should be enough reason for him to be able to refuse a service shouldn’t it?

      There is no sin in interracial or interfaith marriage. Or even in same sex marriage for that fact but there is the sin of sodomy which until recently illegal in many countries around the world.

      How does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to same sex marriage? They are not being discriminated on for race, gender, or in fact any other medium, they are being refused a service by a private business for which he should be entitled to do so.

      Why is this such a white knight issue for the left wing who believe that only the rights of certain groups are legitimate and those groups are never the Christian?

      Why do you pose every thought in a question rather than state you very obvious point of view?

      I honestly believe there is a community of people who fought hard for gay rights, and I actually applaud them, they took a beating from the genuine bigots, they fought for the freedom to be themselves in public, to be able to come out without being hated or loosing their jobs. This new generation of white knights have no actual care for the individual or to see people being treated fairly, they just look for the fights where they can show themselves to be better than someone who believes in something bigger, using litigation to close down businesses and churches purely to prove a point.

      This is not the fight that those pioneers who stood up for not only themselves but their community worked for. it is social media justice, a court of public opinion where the only winners are a couples bank balance and moves nothing forwards and fails to improve society. so I ask you who else wins here? close down a cake shop for refusing to perform a service, how is that person who owns the cake shop improved, how has that improved the chances of a couple gay or not purchasing his services? when a church is closed down due to litigation for refusing to perform a service how is it marrying anyone gay or not? Fight the people still beating up someone for being gay, or Christian, Jewish or Muslim, support immigration of refugees, go fight a real battle that is worth a damn cause this one aint it

      • Michael C

        1) No. Churches and synagogues and other religious organizations are exempt from nondiscrimination laws. The First Amendment gives religious organizations special rights that other groups/individuals (in this case bakeries) aren’t permitted.

        2) If a business refuses to sell a publicly offered product to a person, this is called discrimination. If the reason for the discrimination is on the basis of a protected characteristic, this is called illegal discrimination. I never used the word persecution.

        3) The federal denotation of a protected characteristics protects people with that characteristic from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation. For example, religion is a protected characteristic. You cannot be denied service at a store on the basis of your religion. You also cannot be fired from your job or denied housing on the basis of your religion. They all usually go together. (Utah, however, protects gay people from discrimination in employment and housing yet permits public accommodations (stores, restaurants, etc.) to discriminate against gay people.)

        4) No. There were actually three cases where the discrimination occurred in a state that did not legally recognize the marriages of gay couples at the time of the incident. Regardless of marriage laws, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited in those states. …and before you say that they weren’t discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation, but instead because the business owner didn’t want to “participate” in the specific event, let me ask you this; What would it be called if a business owner refused service because they didn’t want to “participate” in an interracial wedding? That would be called discrimination on the basis of race. Similarly, refusing a publicly offered service because one doesn’t want to “participate” in a gay wedding is considered discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

        5) Not all religions are the same. Not all individuals within a religion agree. Some people feel that interfaith and interracial marriage are in opposition to their personal religious beliefs. The government is not permitted to tell them that they’re wrong. The government is not in the business of determining which religious beliefs are correct.

        6) Some people seem to feel that the government should not be able to tell business owners who they cannot serve. For those people, the repeal of all nondiscrimination laws seems to be a viable solution to this problem.

        7) Everyone has rights. Everyone’s rights are important.

        8) My above comment is entirely posed as a question because I would like to hear people’s answers. Unfortunately, nobody has replied with any possible solutions to this situation that they seem to feel is a problem. Do you have any solutions to propose?

        9) The U.S. has come a long way, yes.

        10) …again, churches and other religious organizations are exempt from nondiscrimination laws.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “despite his biblical beliefs not to be a partaker in other men’s sins”

    Oh? Can he point out the Bible passage that says it is a sin for a man to marry another man, or for a woman to marry another woman?

    Does he go shopping on Saturday? Saturday is the Sabbath day, so if he DOES go shopping on Saturday he is partaking in other people’s sins ( specifically the employees of the businesses that are open on Saturday).

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      it is not a sin to marry as a gay couple but sodomy is a sin. Sabbath is a holy day and isn’t Saturdays, there are specific holy days of the year and Jesus healed on these days to much annoyance of the priests of the day.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        Do you know what sodomy is? If you are married ( or single) and have a partner of the opposite sex, if either of you performs oral sex on the other you are committing sodomy.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        “Sabbath is a holy day and isn’t Saturdays”

        According to the old testament ( aka as the Jewish Torah) Saturday is the Sabbath day.

  • SFBruce

    There’s nothing in the Colorado anti-discrimination law which prohibits or requires a baker to sell products which celebrate Halloween, but the law does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means if he sells a product to straight customers, whether that product is a chocolate chip cookie or a wedding cake, he needs to sell the same product to gay customers. From a legal perspective, this isn’t very complicated, and he’d be better served by legal counsel which looked at ways to start doing business which complies with the law, and to look for ways to mitigate whatever losses this infringement will result in. Instead, the ADF has sacrificed their legal obligation to this baker in order to make a political point and raise money.

    • Peter Leh

      it is very simple indeed.

      If I can do it… surely Mr Phillips can as well.

    • Peter Leh

      what do you make of this:

      “A Christian baker in Colorado has appealed an order requiring him to
      provide service for “gay weddings” despite his biblical beliefs not to
      be a partaker in other men’s sins. ”

      It seems Clark is attempting to infer Mr Phillips will be MADE to service weddings when in reality the order requires Mr Phillips to simply cease discriminating based on sexual orientation.

  • Brenda Golden

    Why is it suddenly discrimination to not participate in all things queer? The baker is being discriminated against because he is a christian but that is okay because he is a christian right? Maybe he should make them a shit cake as that is a flavor they recognize. Why didn’t they go to another bakery? Why didn’t they go to a Muslim bakery? This was done to punish the christian. As for the baker being a “homophobe” did he act fearfully? The word phobia means irrational fear when probably what he feels is pity.

    • Kyler Phoenix

      No, he isn’t being discriminated against. You need to look up the term homophobia. You don’t quite understand it. I actually pity you. You have had a bad life huh? Did you drop out of public high school?

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      Brenda, if I needed a wedding cake, and the only bakery in my town was operated by a Muslim family, you can bet I would go there. My guess is that they’d welcome my business.

      • Josey

        doubt that they would make you a cake to celebrate your homosexual wedding. that could be tested out though, so why don’t you go to a muslim bakery and tell them you are marrying a man and want a specialty cake to celebrate that union, let’s see what happens.

        • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

          As I said, if the only bakery in town was run by a Muslim family, I certainly would go there. And if they turned me away, and my state prohibited such discrimination, I would take them to court.

          • Josey

            good luck with that since our government is for muslims, they would probably tell you that you were being racist for taking them to court.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            No, our government is for equal treatment of ALL people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

          • Josey

            yea, you keep drinking that koolaid

          • Valri

            If you think the president is Muslim, it’s not Kool Aid you’ve been drinking, it’s formaldehyde.

          • Josey

            What are you talking about? I didn’t say the president was muslim, I personally believe he is a chameleon, you probably wouldn’t understand that.

          • Josey

            And Obama has said himself he is muslim and also a christian and who knows what else that is why I call him a chameleon.

          • BarkingDawg

            Being deliberately dense is no way to go through life.

        • GS

          How do you define a “Muslim” bakery? Muslims who run businesses understand laws and know that just because they are serving the public, that does not mean they are personally approving of the ceremony. By your logic, it would be completely OK for a Muslim-owned bakery to ONLY serve other Muslims, as any other religion is against Islam (even though it is against the law to not serve someone based on their religion).

  • GS

    Does he also verify couples that come in for his services have never been divorced? How about those of differing faiths, or who happen to be living together before marriage?

    • W.J. D

      It is his freedom of choice.

      • acontraryview

        If he is going to put forth his Christian beliefs as a rationale, then he should apply those evenly. Failing to do so makes him a hypocrite.

  • BigHobbit

    It is the “Golden Rule”, people. Treat everybody like you would like to be treated. Even if they are different than you. If you sell wedding cakes for a living, sell wedding cakes without discrimination. If you cannot, then you should stop selling wedding cakes.
    Pretty simple.

    • Josey

      sorry bub, I wouldn’t make a pornography cake just because I am in the business, the owner has a right to decline certain cakes. They could have gone to another baker who would gladly made them the cake, there was no need to harass this baker over his faith and decision not to make the cake.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

        What is a “pornography cake”?

        You don’t HAVE to sell certain products just because someone wants them. A Mexican restaurant is under no obligation to serve you sushi, just because you want sushi. But if you’re a baker to specializes in “pornography cakes” (whatever they are), you can’t say, “I will sell my cakes to Christians but not to Jews.”

        • Josey

          I don’t make cakes, the point is if someone comes into the bakery and wants a cake baked that displays pornography and don’t act like you’ve never heard of such a thing, and I can’t because of my faith make a cake like that you want to tell me I would be forced to make such a cake, I don’t think so! They have shops that make those kinds of cakes, guess they need shops just for queers too to end this. Where did they go to get cakes made for their unholy unions before, when they did their silent ceremonies without it being legally recognized yet? This is targeting of Christian businesses.

          • Michael C

            You don’t seem to understand. The couple asked for a cake no different than cakes that the business already makes for other customers.

          • BarkingDawg

            Josey is being willfully ignorant.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “People who want pornography on their cakes” are not a protected class. Gay couples are.

          • Guest

            But this is a wedding cake, usable for anyone. If some idiot told me they didn’t do gay wedding cakes if just reply “ok, I’ll take one of the straight wedding cakes then”

            Case already decided by the SCOTUS 9-0, there can’t even be a law that allows religious discrimination by a business.

            Either the business sells wedding cakes to the public regardless of the customer’s beliefs or they don’t sell them at all – pick one.

            (Yes many beliefs think weddings are blessed by God regardless of the sexes involved. )

      • BigHobbit

        You have YOUR opinion, the state law and the judicial system have THEIR opinion. Guess which one has the force of law.
        If you have a business, it is your responsibility to understand the regulatory environment you operate in. If you don’t think you can follow the law, you need to pic another industry.

      • Guest

        But the customers wanted something the business does offer for sale to the public, a wedding cake. If Christian couldn’t sell a service to people as the law requires they wouldn’t be selling it at all.

        This is about religious discrimination by the business, refusing a customer because they want an advertised service for something their beliefs allow.

        This is pointless, the Colorado constitution specifically says that religious conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others which this business owner is doing. The court will have no choice but to uphold the ruling.

        There is no right to religious discrimination, the owner’s religious freedom ends at the top of the nose of the customer where their’s begin. Can’t sell something to the public regardless of their beliefs don’t offer it to the public at all.

      • acontraryview

        “the owner has a right to decline certain cakes.”

        Absolutely. If Mr. Phillips wants to decline all wedding cakes, he is welcome to. He is not, however, legally allowed to offer a product and then pick and choose who he will offer it to in violation of the laws of CO.

  • Josey

    I can understand his not baking cakes for various reasons that go against his beliefs, such as pornography, homosexual weddings, halloween, etc…it’s his business to run and I am sure this judge is wrong in saying he wasn’t asked to put something on this cake celebrating this ungodly union, even if it were “congrats mullin and craig” because if that were the case then they could have just gone and bought a cake already made, bakeries always have pre made cakes in their displays, these two were asking for a specialty cake, no doubt about it.

    • Michael C

      He refused to sell them any cake if it was to be eaten at their reception.

    • BigHobbit

      If you will sell a wedding cake to one customer, even a specialty cake, and you will not sell the same to other customers, and the basis for that decision is the sexual orientation of the customer, you have made a discrimination. If your state has a law that bans discrimination on that basis, you violate the law by doing so. If you cannot sell wedding cakes without violating the law, then you must stop selling wedding cakes. There is no religious “right” to selling wedding cakes – a business license to sell to the public is a privilege, not a right. That privilege is contingent on lawful behavior.

  • Nidalap

    Good luck, Mr. Phillips. You’re striving for justice from an increasingly unjust system. Stand strong.

    • BigHobbit

      Mr Phillips stands no chance, whatsoever. There is not a single example, anywhere in the US, where someone has prevailed with a religious right to violate anti-discrimination laws.
      No one has the religious “right” to harm others. Discrimination in business is a harm.
      No one has a right to a business license. That privilege is contingent on lawful behavior. If you have a religious disability to follow the law in a given industry, you need a new way to make a living.

  • BarkingDawg

    I predict that his appeal will fail.

    The law is quite clear. He broke it.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Well, the question would be whether laws preventing private companies from engaging in sexual orientation discrimination are constitutional. Since Heart of Atlanta v. United States, such laws have been held to be constitutional, but I don’t know of any ruling that specifically applies to LGBT non-discrimination statutes.

      I do know, however, that the Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, struck down a law that prevented towns, cities, and counties from enacting such non-discrimination statutes.

      • Guest

        These aren’t merely laws, they are acknowledgement of rights, consitutional as per the 10th amendment of the federal Constitution. Civil rights are no less rights than those enumerated in the 1st amendment.

        Fortunately in Colorado and other states the constitutions specifically say that freedom of conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others (licentiousness in 18th century legal speak).

        This case has no chance to justify religious discrimination by s business owner towards a customer with beliefs different than theirs.

  • W.J. D

    Where is the freedom of Choice in US. Along with freedom of speech, freedom of belief this is also a kind of freedom of choice. If he refuses to bake a cake due to his religious belief then so be it. Can the courts force a Muslim baker to bake a cake with pork contents. Why stick to this baker. There might be hundreds of other bakers who will be ready to do it.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      No, they can’t, because “pork eaters” are not a protected class. LGBT people are.

    • Michael C

      He was asked for a product that was already on his menu. He was not asked for a product that he didn’t already offer.

    • GS

      If the bakery makes cakes with pork products (Eww, why would anyone do that anyway?), then they need to make those available to everyone. If it is not a product they offer, then no one can force them to add that to their menu. Is it really that difficult to understand?

      • BarkingDawg

        Hmmmm, a chocolate three layer cake with bacon bits in the frosting.

        You may be on to something there.

      • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

        Where I work we had a candy bar with bacon. I guess some will try anything. That candy bar sold.Ewww as it sounds there is always someone who likes Ewww.

    • BigHobbit

      You have the freedom of choice as to what industry to do business in. If you have a religious disability to follow the law in a given industry, you need to consider doing a different business. This baker had objection to following the law in the case of wedding cakes, only. Fair enough – stop selling wedding cakes, and you are fine. There was no religious objection to selling donuts and other pastries to everyone, without violating the law.

      • Josey

        He has already made the choice to stop baking wedding cakes altogether.

  • acontraryview

    “Phillips … honors God through his creative work by declining to use his artistic talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs,” the petition states. “This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.” He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol,”

    How does NOT making something honor God? It is certainly his right not to make cakes such as those described, because he doesn’t make them for anyone. It is not his right, however, to make cakes for some people, but not others, in violation of CO law.

    “Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching….”

    Oh really? So he won’t make a wedding cake for a couple where one or both have been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery?

    Does he turn down orders for a cake for an engagement party if the couple are having sexual relations? Does he turn down orders for a cake for a baby shower if the mother is not married? Does he turn down orders for wedding cakes if the couple will be saying their vows before a god other than the Christian god? If not, then he is being a hypocrite.

    “The freedom to live and work consistently with one’s faith is at the heart of what it means to be an American,”

    Live, yes. Work, no.

  • BigHobbit

    IF you have the privilege of a business license to serve the public, you have the obligation to follow the law. If you have a religious disability to follow the law in your industry, you need to find a new way to make a living. Or to move somewhere where your behavior doesn’t violate community standards and laws.

  • BigHobbit

    You have the right to practice your religion. You do not have the right to practice your religion on others.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      Exactly. A business is not a church. Whether it’s a bakery or a restaurant, a florist or a factory, operating a business for the purpose of turning a profit come with certain civic responsibilities, including obeying prevailing civil rights laws. While you ARE allowed to determine which products you sell, you don’t get to deny those products to certain demographic groups just because you have theological disagreements with them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    Jack Phillips has a beautiful wedding cake sitting in his cooler for any couple that needs one on short notice. There are even “bride & groom” figurines on top of the cake, so it is obviously a cake that Mr. Phillips intended for a Straight couple.

    A Gay couple comes into Masterpiece Cake Shop needing a wedding cake on short notice. They’re willing to purchase the cake AS IS, with the intention of removing or revising the figurines on their own.

    Should Jack Phillips be able to turn them away?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Forcing anyone to participate in Sin is against God’s Will and Word. Regardless of the natural consequences, those who love and follow Jesus (the) Christ should continue to seek His Will. There is nothing in this life worth sacrificing the soul, not a business, not a career, not family, not anything. Jesus calls people to follow Him, not the practices of false religions claiming to be Christian or compromising with a world which rejects Him. The Scriptures have warned of the persecution and harassment which will come from those who do not love God and follow Jesus (the) Christ. Rather than fighting against it, Christians will accept the mockery and trouble coming from those who do not know the LORD as an honor to suffer for His namesake.

    Even those who claim to know the LORD will harass, hate, and intimidate those who reject their false religious views and practices. They do this while claiming to know the Scriptures. This very thing has helped empower the homosexual movement in America and the world. Rather than representing the LORD and the Power of His Salvation, the falsely religious have set themselves as the executor of God’s Judgement against those in Sin and those who struggle against Sin, all the while practicing their own sin of false religion, which is born from traditions and personal views not from true Faith which come from hearing the Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      A business is not a church.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Christianity doesn’t change, regardless of what Christians do in this life. The problem is that people think Christianity is a multi-plex world religion consisting of a multitude of different factions, but this is false.

        There is only one form of Christianity and only one kind of Christian. Everyone else who claims to be Christian but doesn’t actually know Jesus (the) Christ is just practicing their own form of religion.

        Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • Victoria Day

    As an artist myself, I have no control over how my artwork is used after purchase, but I will absolutely not accept a commission for something that violates my faith. It is ludicrous for the courts to think they can dictate how we use our talent and to whom we sell it to. Whatever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” Challenging businesses and business owners by the LGBT community has become a weapon used by them against Christians in particular and corrupt judges have aided their cause. We can expect much more opposition and more true believers standing firm and having their faith tested. They (LGBT’s) have fired the first rounds but the victory ultimately is in Christ. The harder they push, the firmer we stand – TOGETHER.