Oregon Christian Bakers Pay Over $135,000 in State-Ordered ‘Emotional Damages’ to Lesbians

Sweet-CakesPORTLAND, Ore. — The Christian owners of a bakery in Oregon have paid over $135,000 in state-ordered “emotional damages” for two lesbian women who filed a complaint after being told that the couple could not provide a cake for their “wedding” ceremony due to their convictions not to be a partaker in other’s sins. (1 Timothy 5:22, Ephesians 5:7)

As previously reported, in February, a judge with the Oregon BOLI declared Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa guilty of discrimination for declining to make the cake, thus moving the matter into the sentencing phase.

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

But the Kleins told the court that they too had suffered because of the attacks that they received over their desire to live out their Christian faith in the workplace. They stated that they endured “mafia tactics” as their car was vandalized and broken into on two occasions, their vendors were harassed by homosexual advocates resulting in some businesses breaking ties with them, and they received threatening emails wishing rape, death and Hell upon the family. As a result, they had to close their business and move it into their private home.

In April, Alan McCullough, an administrative judge with the bureau, recommended a payment of $135,000, with one of the women receiving $75,000 and the other $60,000. Prosecutors had sought damages of $75,000 each.

In June, BOLI officially accepted McCollough’s recommendation and ordered the Kleins to pay the women $135,000 in light of the damages Cryer and Bowman listed.

The Kleins then asked for a stay of the order, but were denied. As the couple initially refused to pay the damages, officials moved to docket the judgment and seek permission to place a property lien against the Kleins or collect the money in other ways.

  • Connect with Christian News

But according to reports, the damages were paid on Monday, as the couple dropped off a check for $136,927.07, which includes interest. Neither the Kleins or their attorneys released a statement about the matter as of press time.

As previously reported, some outlets had claimed this past summer that the Kleins were not ordered to pay damages for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian’s same-sex ceremony, but were rather punished for inadvertently “publishing” the women’s addresses on Facebook by uploading the filed consumer complaint—a public document that had not been redacted by the government—on their new personal page that only had 17 friends at the time. The Kleins deleted the status after being informed that the document was not redacted.

“I was just notified that the [complainants’] info was on the document I posted. Totally didn’t think about that, was a mistake and I apologize. I hope nobody used it for anything bad,” Aaron Klein posted.

The order from BOLI outlines that the complaint form that one of the women completed included a disclaimer noting that once submitted, their information would now become “subject to Oregon’s public records law.” This means that the personal address and phone number that was supplied might be able to be seen by the public and Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

However, the woman said that because she submitted the form via her Smartphone, the disclaimer “was not visible.”

While BOLI concluded that the Kleins were “guilty” of discrimination for declining to supply the cake for the lesbian’s same-sex event, and were willing to award the women $135,000 in damages for emotional distress for the denial, it ultimately refused the women any additional damages for the Facebook incident nor surrounding the matter having been in the media.

As assertions in the media about the reason the Kleins were fined were inaccurate since the couple was solely ordered to pay damages surrounding the denial of the cake, several outlets retracted their claims and apologized for disseminating the information.


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
  • Reason2012

    “How will homosexual marriage affect you?” they lied.

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

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

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Ruth Davis

      Amen

    • Oshtur

      Your cut and paste is off topic, this case is about civil rights laws and refusing to sell a product publicly advertised to a responding customer because of their membership in a civil rights class. There was no marriage license required or involved.

      Again the simple solution – can’t sell something to the public as the law requires, don’t sell it to the public. That would be the Christian solution as well.

      • Reason2012

        It’s about the promotion of homosexuality, so it’s right on topic.

        They didn’t have a “same-gender wedding cake” product – never had one.

        They have no problem selling generic cakes to those who feel the need to announce they’re into homosexuality – the issue is they can’t be made to support the ACT of a same-gender wedding with their business.

        Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to support the racist act of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

        No. The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker out to support this act. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers to force them to support such anti-Christian acts.

        America is waking up to the deception, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

        • Oshtur

          If some idiot said they didn’t sell gay wedding cakes I’d just respond “that’s ok, I’ll take one of the straight wedding cakes then.” Check out their website cake gallery – most of their cakes would do just fine for a couple of any sexes. Ironically there are several Halloween theme ones with witches and ghosts.

          Sorry everyone has a constitutional right to not share their beliefs about weddings and still do business with them.

          Again, can’t sell something respecting the civil rights of a customer as required by law the Christian solution is not offer for sale at all.

          • Josey

            This was a set up on this christian bakery to begin with, they went there knowing that these were Christian bakers, they probably called before hand, God knows, and then they asked specifically for a wedding cake designed to promote their union. They were offered any other cake but that isn’t what they wanted because when this Christian baker told them they only support the Biblical marriage God has set up, that’s when their lawyer probably on hold also got into the act. So be it, the Bakery has paid the amt. the court ordered after losing their appeals, they are now free and they obeyed God at the same time in their profession, good for them. It’s a shame this is going on but there is solace in knowing God will right these things soon. Hopefully, these two women will find Christ and repent and become a testimony to God’s grace and mercy before it’s too late.

          • Oshtur

            Josey saying that shows you know nothing about the case. The customer went in with their mother for whom they had previously bought a wedding cake at that every same business – this was a returning, satisfied customer who had no idea the business was making fraudulent offers or running their business illegally.

            If the business wanted to sell wedding cakes only to people that had certain beliefs they shouldn’t have been offering it to the general public which has a constitutional and statutory right to their own beliefs about marriage. Again, they made the offer knowing what the law required and so doing so knowing they were going to religiously discriminate against customers means they were making fraudulent offers, something a Christian should never do, right?

            Again, they want to only sell to people of certain beliefs then only sell to weddings performed at certain churches, or only those being performed by vetted ministers who have joined a private club.

            Theirs is the need to religiously discriminate, its up to them to do it in a legal manner.

          • Reason2012

            Which shows this is not about the Christian discriminating against a professing homosexual, but the homosexual being a bigot towards the Christian, demanding they support anti-Christian acts. It would be the same if a white person demanded a black baker support their anti-black meeting.

          • 201821208 :)

            Amen!!!

          • Oshtur

            No, the business willingly offered wedding cakes for sale to the public knowing full well they couldn’t refuse a customer because their beliefs were not the same as theirs about marriage and weddings.

            And they have a total right to avoid any such participation – don’t offer wedding cakes for sale to the general public. The business owners are the ones who made illegal, fraudulent offers of sale to the public – what Christian would do that?

          • Reason2012

            False: the business never offered anyone a same-gender wedding cake (one specially made for it). Solution? Buy a generic wedding cake and go tailor it yourself.

          • Oshtur

            No one asked for a same gender wedding cake (what ever that is). The just wanted a wedding cake probably very much like the one they had sold the previous customer.

            what do you think is a ‘same gender’ wedding cake? What ingredients does it have an ‘opposite gender’ wedding cake doesn’t? Again, there is no gender indication on the vast majority of the cakes the business uses on their wedding cake gallery web page. And the customer was discriminated against before the design of the cake was even discussed.

            Again, the only person here not dealing with the facts is you.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!

            If someone comes into a bakery and orders a wedding cake with two women or two men on top, it is quite obviously a homo cake!!!

            Stop with your lies!!!!

          • Oshtur

            And since no one did you are wrong again. (What century are you living in – most don’t put figurines on their cakes any more. )

          • afchief

            Yes, you are quite the liar!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “False: the business never offered anyone a same-gender wedding cake ”

            How would a same-gender wedding cake differ from an opposite-gender wedding cake?

          • Reason2012

            The writing on it? The decoration of two male figures?

          • acontraryview

            Neither were requested. So you are saying as long as no particular writing is requested that would indicate the cake was for a same-gender marriage, and as long as no particular decoration were requested, such as a topper with two male or female figures, then the baker should fulfill the request, correct?

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!

            Federal Law and Private Businesses

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

            This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

            So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation — and some have publicly done so.

          • Oshtur

            Until you bother to look up Oregon law you are just looking ill prepared and wrong no matter how many !!!! S you use.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law.

          • Oshtur

            The Oregon civil rights statutes? If you haven’t read them in learning about this case or can’t find them yourself then it just shows how worthless your rants of ‘liar!!!’ are.

          • Reason2012

            Didn’t say “gay” wedding cakes – said “same-gender” wedding cakes. It’s about the act of two people of the same gender – not the sexual proclivities of the participants.

            Black people who have no problem serving white people also have the right to deny using their business to promote anti-black activities. It’s their civil right to avoid anti-black bigotry. Christians also have the right to deny being a part of bigoted anti-Christian ACTS. But if they want a generic product? No problem.

          • Oshtur

            And the SCOTUS ruled on that long ago involving the sale of goats for slaughter.

            If you offer goats for sale you can’t refuse to sell them because someone is going to use them for a religious purpose you don’t approve of, in this case goats for slaughter. In a 9-0 ruling the court said the customer can use their purchase for whatever legal religious based use they want, they can’t be prevented from buying it because of religious discrimination by the business.

            Sorry, either the business sells wedding cakes or they don’t to the public. If they do they can’t religiously discrimination – apply a religious test the customer must pass – to complete the transaction.

            Again, if the business can’t sell something legally then don’t offer it to the public at all is the simple, sensible, and Christian solution.

          • Reason2012

            That’s a case of buying the exact same thing: a goat.

            This is a case of making them create a new product: same-gender wedding cake. Solution? Buy a generic wedding cake that’s not tailored to same gender. But of course they won’t allow that and hence we have our anti-Christian bigotry case.

          • Oshtur

            Goats are no more identical than cakes are. And you obviously haven’t gone to the sites web page, most of their wedding cakes are genderless – they could be used by a couple of any sexes.

            And the customers were religiously discriminated against before cake design had even been discussed. Your desperate attempts to twist the truth of this case just shows where the error lies.

          • afchief

            You are quite the liar!!!

            Federal Law and Private Businesses

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

            This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

            So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation — and some have publicly done so.

          • Oshtur

            And this is a state law case not federal so you are wrong once again.

          • afchief

            If it is, then show me the law.

          • acontraryview

            “This is a case of making them create a new product: same-gender wedding cake.”

            How is a same-gender wedding cake different from an opposite-gender wedding cake/

            “Buy a generic wedding cake that’s not tailored to same gender.”

            They made no request for any alteration to a generic wedding cake, which you have stated they should have been able to buy, yet they were refused, which means by your definition, what they did was illegal.

            “promote an anti-Christian ACT that they cross the line into anti-Christian bigotry.”

            Baking a cake doesn’t “promote” anything. If they baked a wedding cake for people who had been previously divorced, would they be “promoting” divorce? If they baked a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother, would they be “promoting” sexual relations outside of marriage? If they baked a cake for a Muslim couple, would they be “promoting” Islam?

          • 201821208 :)

            gotquestions dot org/gay-marriage dot html

          • acontraryview

            I reviewed the link you provided. What point is it you were hoping to make that is relevant to the issue?

          • Reason2012

            // How is a same-gender wedding cake different from an opposite-gender wedding cake //

            The writing. The figures put on it. The request itself in fact.

            // They made no request for any alteration to a generic wedding cake, which you have stated they should have been able to buy, yet they were refused, which means by your definition, what they did was illegal. //

            False. They made it clear it was for an anti-Christian act.

          • Oshtur

            Who has wrlting or figures on a wedding cake in 2015? Again, the design of the cake wasn’t even discussed and is NOT even a point of contention.

            And since many Christians believe God blesses marriages regardless of the couples ‘male or female’ what you’re really saying is you have no case at all, same as the business.

          • acontraryview

            “The request itself in fact.”

            How does the request change the cake?

            “They made it clear it was for an anti-Christian act.”

            Your criteria was writing and figures on the cake. Are you now saying that is not the case?

            “So I guess you’re going to have to feign ignorance that people do in fact decorate cakes with words about the wedding and/or figurines.”

            Not at all. Many people request writing on cakes as well as toppers. With that said, the baker is not legally required to put any writing that is requested on a cake, nor is the baker required to carry and supply toppers that show two men or two women.

          • afchief

            You are a Liar!!!

            Federal Law and Private Businesses

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

            This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

            So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation — and some have publicly done so.

          • Oshtur

            I am truly sorry if you don’t understand the difference between federal and state law.

          • afchief

            If same sex marriage wasn’t legal in OR in 2013, then why are the bakers being held accountable for not supporting something that wasn’t even legal in the state at the time?

          • Oshtur

            The customer’s came to buy a wedding cake, no one needs a license to have s wedding.

          • afchief

            Liar!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you are saying that in order for a couple to have a wedding ceremony they are REQUIRED to have a marriage license? Please cite that law.

          • acontraryview

            “then why are the bakers being held accountable for not supporting something that wasn’t even legal in the state at the time?”

            They aren’t being held accountable for not supporting something. They are being held accountable for refusing an order in violation of Oregon law.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!

            Federal Law and Private Businesses

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

            This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

            So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation — and some have publicly done so.

            http://blogs.findlaw. com/free_enterprise/2014/02/can-your-business-legally-refuse-to-serve-gays.html

          • Oshtur

            This is a state case Russ.

          • Bob Johnson

            afchief has pasted this response five times – it must seem important to him. He is usually in favor of state’s rights. So he should be quoting Oregon law, however, that law probably lists sexual orientation (after all the State of Oregon won the case).

          • Oshtur

            It does, obviously. An entire chapter in fact, 659A.

            It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that practices of unlawful discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age, disability or familial status are a matter of state concern and that this discrimination not only threatens the rights and privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.

            And yes its obvious Russ knows this and is avoiding it with his usual suave and nuanced discussion skills.

          • acontraryview

            “So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary”

            There are such laws in Oregon.

        • acontraryview

          “They didn’t have a “same-gender wedding cake” product – never had one.”

          How is a same-gender wedding cake different from an opposite-gender wedding cake?

          “They have no problem selling generic cakes to those who feel the need to announce they’re into homosexuality”

          Wedding cakes are generic.

          “Bake a cake for a professing homosexual? No problem. Support an anti-Christian ACT? No.”

          So you are saying that being homosexual is NOT a sin, but two people of the same gender getting legally married IS a sin? Please cite where the Bible backs that up.

          If a business owner had a sincerely held religious belief that two people of different races should not marry, then it should be legal for the owner to refuse to bake a cake for their wedding? If the owner had a sincerely held religious belief that two people of different faiths should not marry, it should be legal for the owner to refuse to bake a cake for their wedding?

          Did these bakers also turn away orders for a wedding cake for people who had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery? Did they turn down birthday cakes for a child born out of wedlock? Did they turn down baby shower cakes for a woman who was not married? Did they turn down engagement party cakes for people who were having sexual relations outside of marriage?

          • Reason2012

            // How is a same-gender wedding cake different from an opposite-gender wedding cake? //

            The writing? The figures on it?

            // Wedding cakes are generic. //

            False.

            // So you are saying that being homosexual is NOT a sin, but two people of the same gender getting legally married IS a sin? Please cite where the Bible backs that up. //

            No. Asking for a cake is not promoting anti-Christian acts. Asking for a same-gender wedding cake is promoting anti-Christian acts.

            // If the owner had a sincerely held religious belief that two people of different faiths should not marry, it should be legal for the owner to refuse to bake a cake for their wedding? //

            Now you’re catching on. If you are forcing this person to support ACTS that violate his beliefs, yes.

            // Did these bakers also turn away orders for a wedding cake for people who had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery? //

            If the person did not admit this was the case, they wouldn’t know. If a person asked for a wedding cake that was for a same-gender wedding, but didn’t tell the baker, same difference.

            Why did the customer demand a Christian baker support such anti-Christian acts? Bigotry, nothing less. Why would someone demand a black baker support anti-black acts? Bigotry, nothing less.

          • Oshtur

            If the business couldn’t sell something to people as the law requires then they wouldn’t have offered for sale in the first place, if they were a Christian business.

            Why did the business offer something for sale they had no intention to sell legally? Why didn’t they respect the customer’s constitutional and statutory right to NOT share anyone at the businesses beliefs and still accept the product for sale?

            Again, this case would have never happened if the business hadn’t chosen to operate illegally.

          • acontraryview

            “The writing? The figures on it?”

            So as long as no writing or figures are requested then it’s not a same-gender wedding cake, and the order should be fulfilled, correct?

            “False. See above.”

            I don’t know about you, but I’ve been in plenty of bakeries that offer wedding cakes. They typically have a book showing pictures of cakes. Those cakes typically do not have any writing or toppers on them. Just different sizes with different types of decorations – flowers, etc. That seems pretty generic to me. What is it that makes them non-generic?

            “Asking for a same-gender wedding cake is promoting anti-Christian acts.”

            How is asking for something “promoting” any act at all?

            “forcing them to make a product they never sold is the only discrimination here.”

            Again, if the cake does not contain any writing or topper (per your criteria) then it is not a same-gender wedding cake. It is simply a wedding cake, which the bakery does sell. Oh, by the way, they were not forced to make any cake. They did not make a cake for the customers.

            “If you are forcing this person to support ACTS that violate his beliefs, yes.”

            Ahhh. So you would support repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation that provides protections against discrimination based upon religious belief, correct?

            “If the person did not admit this was the case, they wouldn’t know.”

            Why wait for the customer to offer up the information? If not participating in an event that is contrary to their religious beliefs is so very, very important to them, why not ask? It would be very simple.

            Male/Female Couple: We’d like to order a wedding cake

            Baker: Great. Has either of you been divorced for reasons other than infidelity?

            If no, then proceed. If yes, then refuse the order. Not complicated at all.

            Even better, they could post a sign:

            We don’t make:

            * Wedding cakes for people who have been divorced for reasons other than infidelity

            * Engagement party cakes for couples who are having sexual relations

            * Baby shower cakes if the mother-to-be is unwed

            * Wedding cakes unless the ceremony is being held in a Christian church before the Christian god

            I wonder why they wouldn’t post such a sign? Could it be that they applied their avoidance of activities that involve Christian sin only in certain cases? Why, yes, I think that’s the case. There’s a word for that: hypocrisy.

            “Why did the customer demand a Christian baker support such anti-Christian acts? Bigotry, nothing less.”

            So you believe that holding a business owner accountable to the law is “bigotry”? If a baker refused service to a Christian, and the Christian filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, would that also be bigotry? How about a mixed race couple filing a complaint after being turned away? Also bigotry?

            “Why would someone demand a black baker support anti-black acts?”

            I’m not aware that anyone has. Do you have an example?

    • BigHobbit

      The fact that some folks are bisexual is no argument that no one is homosexual. All you are showing is that sexuality is fluid for some. If YOUR sexuality is fixed, it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to think that others sexuality might also be fixed.

      • Reason2012

        It’s not a “homosexual” wedding cake or “bisexual” wedding cake or “heterosexual” wedding cake. It’s a Christian wedding cake: one man and one woman. If they’re both bisexual who cares?

        By admitting sexuality is fluid you admit it’s not genetic.

        • 201821208 :)

          Amen!!!

        • BigHobbit

          By pointing out that SOME peoples sexuality is fluid has nothing to do with whether or not sexuality is genetic or not. SOME people have red hair or are left handed.
          Your argument is as nonsensical as saying that if some people are ambidextrous, therefore left handedness can’t be genetic.

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

  • bill_1944

    Good Christians must respect the law of the land. Even when it is so blatantly unjust as in this case. When they were sent to the lions, Christians prayed for their emperor and their tormentors. As their lord admonishes them: Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. If this is what Caesar demands, they must comply as long as it does not contradict any of God’s laws. Love is the only rule Christians can follow, and that is why the world’s main religion is Christianity. I am sure the Kleins are praying for these two unfortunate women and the judge, and at the same time praising God for their own sufferings since they are witnessing to him, and carrying their crosses for him.

    • 201821208 :)

      gotquestions dot org/laws-land.html

    • Bill

      Nope. Read your Bible….

      • Oshtur

        Hmmm, running a business illegally is called an abomination in the Old Testament. Jesus said it was ok to pay taxes to a Roman god (Caesar) in coins bearing the god’s image and declarations of his divinity, and Paul said it was ok to have dealings with those of this world, their sins are between them and God.

        So the Bible says the Kleins shouldn’t have been offering something they couldn’t sell in good conscience as the law requires in the first place, and if they did they can still sell it no matter what the ‘of this world’ customer might use it for – that isn’t on their shoulders or their burden.

        • Bill

          1 Timothy 5:22 Do not share in the sins of others. Psalm 50:18 When you see a thief, you join with him; you throw in your lot with adulterers.Acts 5 27-29, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’“ How would reconcile this….

          • Oshtur

            Sharing in a sin is committing it, again if it is a sin to make wedding cakes according to the law then a Christian wouldn’t be offering them.
            Psalms is old covenant, old news. Christians are mandated to gather the outcast.

            And God said it was appropriate to obey the law, even as a tax paid to a pagan god in idolatrous coin, and that it was alright to have business with those of this world, their sins are between them and God.

          • Bill

            Thanks, I’m not sure i agree, but I’ll think on it….

          • afchief

            You have absolutely NO understanding of scripture. NONE!!!

            1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

          • Jade

            2
            Corinthians 11:16-21 Once again, don’t think that I have lost wits to talk
            to you like this. But even if I do,
            listen to me, as you would to a foolish person, while I also boast a
            little. Such bragging is not
            something the Lord wants, but I am acting like a fool. And since others boast about their human
            achievements, will too. After all,
            you who think you are so wise, enjoy listening to fools! You put up with it when they make you
            their slaves, take everything you have, take advantage of you, put on
            airs, and slap you in the face. I’m
            assumed to say that we were not strong enough to do that! But whatever they dare to boast about –
            I’m talking like a fool again – I can boast about it, too!

          • Oshtur

            And that makes you a natural man, Mr. !!!!!

        • afchief

          Don’t even try and quote scripture. You are of a reprobate mind and have NO understanding of what it says. NONE!!!

    • Josey

      So what is a “good Christian” going to do if the law requires them to bow down to a false religion? False god? There are limits. Christians must first of all obey God’s law as written in the Bible and on our hearts.

      • Oshtur

        If they can’t in good conscience offer something as the law requires then don’t offer it. Same as a Jewish deli owner – they choose not to offer pork, but in that choice also willingly give up any potential pork profits.

        Can’t sell wedding cakes to people of any gender, sexual orientation, or belief, then don’t offer them to the public. There are other business models that DO let you religiously discriminate – private clubs and non-profits. If religious discrimination is that important to you bother to do the due diligence to do it legally.

        • afchief

          Show me the law they violated?

          Why can a business refuse to render service to someone with no shoes or shirt?

          • Oshtur

            Russ, you have proven you have no interest in a conversation, take your !!!!s and share them with someone else.

            You can google the Oregon civil rights statutes as easy as I.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!!!

            Federal Law and Private Businesses

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation — only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

            This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

            So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation — and some have publicly done so.

            http://blogs.findlaw. com/free_enterprise/2014/02/can-your-business-legally-refuse-to-serve-gays.html

          • acontraryview

            “So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation”

            That is true. But in Oregon there ARE state laws which make it illegal to refuse service to customers based upon their sexual orientation.

      • bill_1944

        Josey, like I said as long as he law does not contradict any of God’s laws. If it does, then Christian, take up your cross.

    • acontraryview

      “Even when it is so blatantly unjust as in this case.”

      In what way is this law “unjust”?

      • bill_1944

        Hi Contrary. I love your contrairian view! We all need it to keep us honest. However, please be nonpartial in your views, and you will do both sides of any issue a great service.

        The law was written by anything but impartial people. It was written with a nasty intent to force a change in the mores of a declining civilization. Sort of like what a pathogen does when it attaches a weakened body. The left has been assulting western values for well over a hundred years, and my hat is off to it since it has spectaclularly succeeded, unfortunately.

        As far as the law is concerned, Christians must obey all laws that do not contradict God’s laws. So, since the law does not contracict God’s laws the Kleins must pay up. Whether the judgement is just is a whole other matter.

        I don’t have the time or mental faculties to go into why this law and all of these “hate” laws are detrimental to our society, so I will leave it to you and your contrarian streak to do a little research to find out why. Check out some conservative sources, such as the Drudgereport, and they will perhaps explain, in a far better way than I could possibly do, what the big to-do is all about.

        Be my guest and have fun contrarian these sites!

        Enjoy, and keep up the contrarianisms

        • acontraryview

          “I love your contrairian view! We all need it to keep us honest.”

          Thank you.

          “It was written with a nasty intent to force a change in the mores of a declining civilization.”

          Oh my gosh. I had no idea. All this time I thought it was written because people wanted to live in a society where citizens were not turned away based solely upon their sexuality. But you don’t believe that apparently. You think there was actually a nasty intent behind this.

          Oh, I’m curious, how does having a law that disallows discrimination in public accommodation result in any person being required to change their mores? Is it not one of the mores of our civilization in the US that all men are created equal? Is it not one of the mores of our civilization, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, that discrimination based upon a certain trait is unacceptable? Or do you think the Civil Rights Act as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation – including that which provides protections based upon religious belief – was based upon a “nasty intent”?

          “The left has been assulting western values for well over a hundred years,”

          What values would those be?

          “I don’t have the time or mental faculties to go into why this law and all of these “hate” laws are detrimental to our society”

          Well if you don’t have the time to support your own claims, I certainly will not be doing it for you, as I don’t agree with your claims.

          “what the big to-do is all about.”

          Here’s what the big to-do is about, IMO. Some people in the US are having a hard time, which I certainly understand given a couple of centuries of getting their way, dealing with their religious beliefs no longer serving as a basis for our laws. They are having a hard time dealing with their religious beliefs not being given a place of privilege above other beliefs, or of no belief. They are having a hard time dealing with the fact that, under our Constitution, people will be able to do things that are not consistent with their personal religious beliefs. They are having a hard dealing with governmental bodies/agencies no longer given preference to, and promotion of, their religious beliefs.

          In other words, they are having a hard time sharing. Just like petulant children.

          “Enjoy, and keep up the contrarianisms”

          You enjoy as well, and I will.

          • bill_1944

            Contrary,
            I was disappointed in your comment where you said, “Well if you don’t have the time to support your own claims, I certainly will not be doing it for you, as I don’t agree with your claims.” I had assumed you were a true contrarian, realizing that no side has the truth and each has its faults, and both sides are open targets.

            From what you wrote, I assume that you are a fervent (good for you) apologist for the left (oh, well, who’s perfect). I would, nevertheless, encourage you to do a little investigating into what the conservative (the enemy) view of the world is. You might be very surprised that your pre- judgements about their ideas are completely wrong.

            I once had a lunch discussion with fervent leftist. I could not understand how he could fall for the leftist line so completely. After a very enlightening 2 hours, we both discovered that our ultimate goals were

          • acontraryview

            I do spend time reviewing “conservative” sights and and well aware of the tactics and reasoning they employ regarding social issues. Based upon my review, I stand by my earlier analysis of their main causes of consternation.

          • bill_1944

            Contrary, Well that’s fine then, as long as you can understand both sides and have made up you mind, so be it.

            Just curious, what do you mean by “their main causes of consternation?”

          • acontraryview

            The ones I listed in my response to you.

            Now, would you be good enough to answer the questions I have posed to you?

          • bill_1944

            Contrary, you got my synapses fired up. Thanks. Here’s your answer.

            Correcting societal injustices is never a wrong. How it’s accomplished, however is a completely different matter. If you approve of government using naked power to cower its citizens to enforce its questionable proclamations, you, sir, are supporting fascism.

            Contrary, honestly, you don’t consider what happened outrageous? $165,000 fine for not baking a cake? Confiscating the Klein’s bank accounts? Government bankrupting a defenseless couple to make sure everyone else toes the line, or else? The judge responsible for this outrageous injustice reputed to have said he did this to “change how people think”? Putting a person in jail (Kim Davis)?

            Contrary, this is blatant fascism and naked power. Herr Hitler would be quite pleased, and dear Uncle Joe would smile at the enforced re-education of the population. What are the limits to this governmental abuse of power? Apparently there are none now.

            What happened to the respect, and the constitutional right, of religious liberty? All kinds of exceptions for religious reasons are granted all the time. Why not in this case? This, Contrary, is naked force meant to intimidate anyone who dares to stand up to the leftist agenda. Why does this oppression only apply to Christians? What other group besides committed Christians is this tyranny applied to?

            Is there possibly an alternative agenda, God forbid, to oppress Christianity? I remember at the last democrat convention, when the mention of God was met with howls and hoots of derision. And why this antagonism to religion/Christianity? It seems that since religion conflicts with the power of the state agenda, religion must go.

            That’s what I meant by nasty people behind this blatant abuse of power.

            This is social harmony? this is Love?

            Interesting how non christians are given a pass. No outrage when a man posing as a homosexual goes into a muslim bakery and asks for a cake for his gay wedding and is refused. See Youtube. Why no outrage? Because Christianity is obviously the target of leftist nasties.

            Is it remotely possible that you along with your good intentions to rectify societal injustices are actually being duped by nefarious forces to actually support another agenda? This, after all, is the standard modus operandi of the left. Lenin is reputed to have called such committed folks “useful idiots.”

            There is a force on the left that is ready to put anyone who disagrees with them in jail. Where is individual liberty when the government amasses enough power to do this? It’s gone.

            That is the conservative’s view of the wedding cake.

            Happy New Year

          • acontraryview

            “If you approve of government using naked power to cower its citizens to enforce its questionable proclamations, you, sir, are supporting fascism.”

            Rest assured that I do not approve of that.

            “Contrary, honestly, you don’t consider what happened outrageous?”

            No, I do not.

            “$165,000 fine for not baking a cake?”

            The fine was not imposed for not baking a cake. The fine was imposed for violating the laws of Oregon.

            “Confiscating the Klein’s bank accounts?”

            When a fine is imposed and the person against whom it is imposed fails to pay the fine, one of the remedies is the confiscation of assets. That applies to anyone. The Kleins were aware of this yet failed to comply with the ruling against them. It should have come as no surprise to them that this action was taken.

            “Government bankrupting a defenseless couple to make sure everyone else toes the line, or else?”

            First, they were not bankrupted. They received approximately $500,000 in donations. Plenty to cover the fine and leave them with a significant amount of money. Second, they were not defenseless. They received free representation by Liberty Counsel and went through various levels of due process. Third, wouldn’t you agree that one of the purposes of taking action against those who break the law is to serve as a deterrent to others who are considering breaking the law?

            “Putting a person in jail (Kim Davis)?”

            Ms. Davis was well aware of the consequences of failing to follow an order from the judge. She chose to disobey his order to perform the functions of her job in accordance with the oath of office she took. Do you believe that it is wrong for people to face the consequences that are clearly spelled out for failing to follow a legally issued order from the judiciary?

            “Contrary, this is blatant fascism and naked power.”

            The laws of Oregon were very clear. They were put into place by the elected representatives of the people of Oregon. Due process was followed. How is that “blatant racism and naked power”?

            “What are the limits to this governmental abuse of power?”

            How is it a governmental abuse of power to follow the laws that were put into place by the elected representatives of Oregon?

            “dear Uncle Joe would smile at the enforced re-education of the population.”

            Do you believe that the population of Oregon should not be educated as to the laws of Oregon?

            “What happened to the respect, and the constitutional right, of religious liberty?”

            Nothing. The Constitution provides the protection that Congress (the via the 14th Amendment, the states) will not pass laws which prohibit the expression of religious belief. What that means is that the government is not allowed to pass a law that prohibits, for example, Hinduism. It does NOT mean that citizens are allowed to express their religious beliefs at any time, in any place, and in any manner they care to. There are restrictions. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and businesses of public accommodation were no longer allowed to discriminate in the provisions of service based upon race, did that violate the religious liberty of a baker who had a sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix by requiring that baker not turn away an interracial couple?

            There have been numerous court cases which challenged anti-discrimination laws on the basis of a violation of both the 1st Amendment protections of religious expression as well as the Constitution’s protections of freedom of association. In those cases it was determined that since owning a business is a choice, and that anti-discrimination laws applied to all business owners, regardless of faith or the lack thereof, that such laws did not violate the protections provided by the Constitution.

            “All kinds of exceptions for religious reasons are granted all the time.”

            Not regarding anti-discrimination laws.

            “Why not in this case?”

            See above. Since it is impossible to judge what is, and what is not, a sincerely held religious belief, if business were allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws by citing religious beliefs, those laws would have no teeth.

            “This, Contrary, is naked force meant to intimidate anyone who dares to stand up to the leftist agenda.”

            To the best of my knowledge, the desire for businesses to not discriminate in the provision of services based upon certain criteria is not a “leftist” idea. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by majority vote which included both Republican and Democrat representatives. As was the law in Oregon. I think it is mistaken to suggest that no one on the “right” supports anti-discrimination laws.

            “Why does this oppression only apply to Christians?”

            You are certainly free to view anti-discrimination laws as oppression. Most, however, would disagree with you. These laws apply to all business owners regardless of faith or the lack thereof, not just Christians.

            “And why this antagonism to religion/Christianity?”

            While you are certainly free to view the application of anti-discrimination laws as “antagonism”, most would disagree with you. Given that cases of this nature have involved people invoking their religious beliefs as a basis for breaking the law, it is their basis that has been the focus of these cases. It is not “antagonism” to religion/Christianity. In fact, it is just the opposite. Some Christians have shown antagonism toward, and disrespect for, the law.

            “What other group besides committed Christians is this tyranny applied to?”

            Those laws were put into place in accordance with the guidelines put forth in our Constitution. Why do you believe it is a form of tyranny to enforce those laws? All business owners that provide public accommodation are subject to the law – not just Christians.

            “Is there possibly an alternative agenda, God forbid, to oppress Christianity?”

            A vast majority of citizens identify as Christian. A significant majority of citizens support anti-dsicrimiatnion laws including support for protections based upon sexuality (which, by the way covers both homosexuality and heterosexuality). Anti-discrimination laws apply regardless of the particular religious beliefs of the owner. The decision to open a business of public accommodation is a choice. The decision of what products to offer is a choice. Given those facts, please explain how it would be reasonable to conclude that anti-discrimination laws, and the enforcement of those laws, would be designed to “oppress Christianity”?

            “I remember at the last democrat convention, when the mention of God was met with howls and hoots of derision”.

            I think that “derision” is a bit of an overstatement. That, however, is a matter of opinion. Regardless, I do not fault the convention for being supportive of separating the job of government from a particular religious belief. It is not the role of government to support religious belief. I also find it a bit disingenuous for the Republican party to suggest that they are the party of “god” and it concerns me that, in a secular government, they wish to use Christian religious beliefs as a basis for determining laws and policy which cover citizens of all faiths as well as no faith. Do you have no concern about utilizing the Christian belief system as a basis for determining laws which affect all citizens?

            “And why this antagonism to religion/Christianity?”

            Desiring to separate the actions of a secular government from religious beliefs is not “antagonism”. It is something that goes back to our very founding.

            “It seems that since religion conflicts with the power of the state agenda, religion must go.”

            What “state agenda” are you referring to? Equal treatment under the law? The government not favoring or privileging one religious belief over another? Making decisions that apply to all citizens of all faiths as well as no faith based upon our Constitution rather than the Christian belief system? Is that an agenda you oppose? Would you prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy?

            “That’s what I meant by nasty people behind this blatant abuse of power.”

            So then any person who supports anti-discrimination laws and does not support religious belief as being a valid basis for violating anti-discrimination laws is “nasty”?

            How is it an abuse of power to enforce laws that were legally put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives?

            “This is social harmony?”

            As long as there are those who harbor hatred and ill-will toward others based upon nothing more than a difference in beliefs, we will never achieve social harmony. No law can change that. What laws can do, however, is determine what is acceptable and not acceptable in the public sphere. Through that, we move toward a greater acceptance of one the founding precepts of our nation – equality.

            “this is Love?”

            Harboring hatred and ill-will toward others – regardless of which side it comes from – is never equated with “love”.

            “Interesting how non christians are given a pass.”

            The laws apply to everyone, not just Christians.

            “See Youtube.”

            If the video you are referring to is the one by Steven Crowder, you should note that the visits to the bakeries were in Ann Arbor, MI. Further note that neither the state of MI, nor the city of Ann Arbor, provide protections against discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of sexuality, which is also the case in much of the US. Therefore, no law was violated – an important distinction Mr. Crowder omitted in his piece. I wonder why? Perhaps because it would not support his position?

            “Is it remotely possible that you along with your good intentions to rectify societal injustices are actually being duped by nefarious forces to actually support another agenda?”

            I don’t view the inclusion of sexuality as a covered category as nefarious. Obviously you do, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Nor do I view people choosing to include sexuality as a covered category to be a “nefarious force”. What is “nefarious” about including sexuality as a covered category?

            “This, after all, is the standard modus operandi of the left.”

            For example?

            “There is a force on the left that is ready to put anyone who disagrees with them in jail”

            Really? What force would that be? Laws which result in a penalty of imprisonment are put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. Those laws can be changed in the same manner. Please cite one law that is in place that results in a punishment of imprisonment that is based solely upon someone disagreeing with “the left”.

            “Where is individual liberty when the government amasses enough power to do this?”

            The government is elected by the people. They draw their authority from the Constitution. The Constitution clearly provides for protections from laws being put into place that punish people for nothing more than their viewpoints. While government has the ability to put such laws in place, those laws would not stand up to Constitutional review. If you would like to see some examples of such laws that have been struck down, here some examples.

            It was at one time illegal, with potential penalty for imprisonment, for a store to be open on Sunday, as that was the Lord’s Day, and therefore it was illegal for any store to be open (with the exception of essentials such as food and gas).

            It was at one time illegal for liquor stores to be open on Sunday, as that was the Lord’s Day for Christians, and therefore no one should be able to buy liquor. In some places in the US it is still illegal for liquor stores to open on Sunday before a certain hour, as people should be attending church during that time and not thus should not be allowed to purchase liquor.

            It was at one time illegal for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage because Christians believed they shouldn’t be doing that.

            It was at one time illegal for citizens to engage in private, consensual acts of sodomy – regardless of the gender of the people involved – because Christians say that sodomy is a sin.

            It was at one time in certain states illegal for two citizens of different races to enter into civil marriage because Christians said that Bible said that the races should not mix.

            It was at one time illegal for and two citizens of the same gender to enter into the civil contract of marriage – and harmed in the process – because Christians said that doing so was against their religious beliefs.

            Seems pretty tyrannical, wouldn’t you agree? Seems like attempting to criminalize anything that they didn’t agree with, doesn’t it? Seems like non-Christians were the obvious target of, to paraphrase your term, the “Christian nasties”, doesn’t it? Again, to paraphrase you, If you approve of government using naked power to cower its citizens to enforce its questionable proclamations, you, sir, are supporting fascism. Is that the case?

            “That is the conservative’s view of the wedding cake.”

            View it as you like, but it was merely a cake. A cake that the owners of the business chose to offer as part of their product line. In those choices of opening a business and choosing to offer certain products, there is an implicit agreement that they will do so within the boundaries of the law. If they do not wish to operate within the boundaries of the law, they are free to not operate a business or to modify their product offerings.

            Happy New Year to you as well. In that regard I share with you below what I posted on my Facebook page as a New Year’s wish to my friends and family:

            “To all my Facebook friends and family: Happy New Year

            I hope that you will find some joy in every day no matter what the circumstances.

            I hope that you will use the tribulations you face as opportunities to become wiser, stronger, and better.

            I hope that you will empty yourself of any resentment, anger, and bitterness and replace those with love, empathy, and forgiveness.

            I hope that when faced with difficult choices, you will choose the path with the greatest light so that your decision will be viewed as a beacon for others.

            Finally, I hope you have really good bowel movements. They just make every day better.”

            Be well.

          • bill_1944

            Contrary, alas, would that you where on the right (pun) side! I am very impressed with your depth of knowledge and argument.

            My whole response is not that the nasties are those fighting for social justice, but rather, that the nasties are those leftists who are using any injustice to further their own agenda. Dick Gregory said it quite well in the 1960’s: If Americans were as concerned about injustice as they are about communism, they wouldn’t have to worry about communism.

            Yes, you are quite right that laws can be coercive and wrong. Slavery was legal, blue laws were legal, segregation was legal, need I continue? Laws are made by not only fallible men, but men seeking agendas not necessarily apparent to the “voters.” That’s called politics.

            Germany had represented the highest example of western civilization. After being freely elected by an adoring populace on a platform of hope and change, Herr Hitler let Germany down to the pit of absolute demonic savagery and barbarism. I don’t think I have to give you any history lessons since I am sure you are far more versed in the details than I.

            In 1887 Lord Acton penned his famous comment: All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am concerned that the democrat and republican parties are both encouraging greater concentration of power in the state, and fear that this can only lead to fascism.

            My concern, Contrary, is not on homosexual rights or cakes. My concern, as is that of most conservatives, is about the erosion of personal rights and liberties, and the increasing power and coerciveness of government. We are concerned about fascism, and about how our representative political establishment is anything but representative.

            I thank you or your Facebook good wishes, although I’m not quite sure about the bowl movements.

            Pax

          • acontraryview

            Thank you for the compliment.

            “those leftists who are using any injustice to further their own agenda.”

            Which leftists are you referring to what is this agenda you believe they have?

            Are you also concerned about the “rightists”who wish to enact laws that would require all citizens to be limited in their liberty based upon the Christian belief system?

            “I am concerned that the democrat and republican parties are both encouraging greater concentration of power in the state, and fear that this can only lead to fascism.”

            If you believe both parties are involved, then why do you keep singling out “leftists”?

            “is about the erosion of personal rights and liberties”

            What personal rights and liberties do you believe are being eroded?

            “and about how our representative political establishment is anything but representative.”

            How so?

            “although I’m not quite sure about the bowel movements.”

            Go a few days without one and then get back to me. 🙂

          • bill_1944

            Contrary,
            Goodness, you do ask an awful lot of questions. I am afraid your questions could easily lead to an unacceptable level of permutations, and our dialogue could get bogged down into just about every area of human endeavor. Also, I think the good folks who are hosting this site might get a bit aggravated.

            How about we try to keep it down one area.

            If I understand your point, about following the law, and the just punishment meted out to those who dare to violate it no matter how slight ($136,000 fines, confiscation of bank accounts, jail time etc.), then you should be perfectly at peace with the killings of unarmed black and white people at the hands of police, which have been later found to be justified.

            Let’s keep the conversation at that.

            PS I just had to answer your question about the republican and democrat parties. As far as I am concerned, the democrat party has morphed into the Communist Party USA and the republican party has morphed into the democrat party. In the last election, republicans were given an overwhelming mandate to block and dismantle as many Obama/socialists laws and policies as possible. What have they done with this mandate? Voted to fund all of Obama’s policies. That’s why these republicans are known as RINOs (republicans in name only).

          • acontraryview

            “no matter how slight”

            How can their be degrees of violating anti-discrimination laws? Either you follow them or you don’t. You seem to be suggesting that, for instance, turning away a person who wants to buy a pencil is not as bad as turning away a person who wants to buy car. Is that what you are saying?

            “then you should be perfectly at peace with the killings of unarmed black and white people at the hands of police, which have been later found to be justified.”

            How in the world would that be related to violations of anti-discrimination laws?

            “What have they done with this mandate? Voted to fund all of Obama’s policies.”

            Then perhaps they weren’t socialist.

          • bill_1944

            My point is, some laws are unjust, some decisions about enforcing laws are unjust, and some punishments for transgressing laws are way over the top. You don’t swat a fly with a shotgun blast, unless you are a crazy person or a rabid ideologue.

            As far as whether republicans (leadership) are socialists or not, perhaps they are not. Let’s just say they are either traitors to the mandate they received to dismantle the entire Obama/socialist agenda, being paid off, intimated, or blackmailed.

          • acontraryview

            “some laws are unjust, some decisions about enforcing laws are unjust, and some punishments for transgressing laws are way over the top.”

            What one considers to be unjust is a matter of opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours. What do you find to be unjust about a law that includes sexuality as a covered category?

            I find it unjust that mega-church pastors are able to live in multimillion dollar homes and not pay taxes because the homes are listed as being part of their ministry. But, that is what the law allows.

            “being paid off, intimated, or blackmailed.”

            Proof for this?

            I’ll ask again:

            How can their be degrees of violating anti-discrimination laws?

            How in the world would that (killing of unarmed black and white people) be related to violations of anti-discrimination laws?

          • bill_1944

            Correcting injustices, including sexual injustices, is never wrong. Outrageous penalties imposed on a couple who dare to object to the current fashion or politically correct “in thing” is not justice. It is intimidation and a warning to everyone to change their ideas, or else. That is a classic totalitarian tactic. If you approve of that, you approve of fascism, or at least the strong arm of government.

            As I originally pointed out, the couple broke a law (whether just or unjust) and have to bear the consequences. The Christian messiah demanded his followers “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God, what is God’s.” They must follow the law, unless it is so egregious that they must refuse, and than bear the consequences , even, if needs be, as martyrs. History is filled with such committed people.

            I couldn’t agree with you more about the church related abuses you cited. These clearly are completely wrong, and should not be allowed, and they are a disgrace to their belief system.

            RINOs “being paid off, intimated, or blackmailed” etc. is just my opinion and probably that of many millions of other conservatives.

            I’m not commenting about degrees of anti-discrimination laws. I am speaking about the degrees of penalties imposed, hence the comment about the shotgun blast to swat a fly.

            The relationship between (justifiable?) killing of unarmed people and penalties for violations of anti-discrimination is both are legally sanctioned. I cite this since you seem to base your comments on what is “legal.” I try to base my views on what is prudent, reasonable, moral, traditional, and legal. I find this distasteful incident “legal,” but certainly not any of the other, and perhaps more important, criteria.

          • acontraryview

            “Outrageous penalties imposed on a couple who dare to object to the current fashion or politically correct “in thing” is not justice. It is intimidation and a warning to everyone to change their ideas, or else. ”

            The issue isn’t that they objected. The issue is how they chose to act on their beliefs/objections. Laws cannot change what people believe or their ideas. They can, however, provide deterrents and punishments for how people act on their beliefs/ideas. So, no, people are not required “to change their ideas, or else”. They are free to hold to whatever ideas they care to.

            In my opinion, the dollar amount of the fine was too high.

            “The relationship between (justifiable?) killing of unarmed people and penalties for violations of anti-discrimination is both are legally sanctioned.”

            No, it is not legal for police to simply kill an unarmed person. That is why, in at least one case, an officer has been charged with murder.

            “I try to base my views on what is prudent, reasonable, moral, traditional, and legal.”

            I think that’s wise. Of course, each person’s views of a particular law will vary. That is why we have a constitutional republic form of government. You said in your first sentence that “Correcting injustices, including sexual injustices, is never wrong.” Therefore, you find such laws to be prudent, reasonable, moral, and traditional, correct?

          • bill_1944

            Well, Contrary, I’m happy to see we are reaching an agreement, in our discussion, however fragile.

            “In my opinion, the dollar amount of the fine was too high.” Agreed.

            “‘I try to base my views on what is prudent, reasonable, moral, traditional, and legal.’I think that’s wise.” Agreed.

            “Therefore, you find such laws [correcting sexual injustices] to be prudent, reasonable, moral, and traditional, correct?” Yes, correcting all social injustices is never wrong and should be vigorously pursued.

            Point: “No, it is not legal for police to simply kill an unarmed person.” If it’s found to be “justifiable,” it’s legal. So, my simple point is: just because it’s legal does not mean it is right morally. We should use the filters of prudence, reasonableness, morality, and tradition to help us determine what is a good vs. bad law.

          • acontraryview

            “”‘I try to base my views on what is prudent, reasonable, moral, traditional, and legal.’I think that’s wise.” Agreed.”

            I agreed, with caveats.

            “If it’s found to be “justifiable,” it’s legal.

            The act itself is not legal in all circumstances. As you point out, it must be found to be justifiable. Until justification can be determined, there is question as to its legality.

            “So, my simple point is: just because it’s legal does not mean it is right morally.”

            What is considered moral and what is not varies based upon individual perception, and you are certainly free to view a particular law as being immoral based upon your belief system. Personally, I think that capital punishment is immoral. Yet, it exists, and is supported by many people who identify as conservative Christians.

            “We should use the filters of prudence, reasonableness, morality, and tradition to help us determine what is a good vs. bad law.”

            Again, because morality varies from individual to individual based upon belief systems, the US chose specifically NOT to base our laws on individual views of morality. Rather, we base our laws on the Constitution and the protections it provides.

            Regarding “tradition”, how that is relevant to our laws? We traditionally allowed slavery. We traditionally disallowed interracial marriage. We traditionally disallowed women to vote and own property, etc., etc. If we use tradition as a basis, there would never been any changes to our laws that expand Constitutional protections to those who had not been previously protected. If social injustice has been a tradition, how would we go about “correcting all social injustices”?

        • lizk

          your wrong God gives everyone a freedom of chose, but He also says, don’t be like the gentiles and Lord it over people. This is how governments act they Lord it over people and they want to control the conscious and no one can control that for God is the moral authority not man. Only those who don’t love God are under bondage of sin.

  • Reason2012

    Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business to support the anti-black act of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

    No. The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker out to support this act. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers to force them to support such anti-Christian ACTS.

    America is waking up to the deception, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

    • 201821208 :)

      “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:20

      • Oshtur

        You realize it is the Klein’s who are absent evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, right?

        • 201821208 :)

          “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

          • Oshtur

            Why do you always leave out that this was a punishment by God on idolators worshipping animal headed gods? This is an admonishment against sexual promiscuity and trendy bisexualism, not for married couples gay or straight (it is never ‘lust’ to be sexually attracted to your spouse)

          • 201821208 :)

            “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” 2 Peter 3:16

          • Oshtur

            And you realize I think this is talking about you, right?

          • 201821208 :)

            “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” Psalm 2:1

          • Oshtur

            I don’t know why you think it doesn’t pertain to you, but its pretty obvious you don’t realize you are the one in the wrong.

          • 201821208 :)

            “a false witness will utter lies” Proverbs 14:5

          • Oshtur

            Its like a fortune cookie with you. You realize I haven’t told any lies, right? Now the Kleins, they made fraudulent offers of sale to the public, they lied big time.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:20-21

          • Oshtur

            And again, you are looking in a mirror when you say that, right?

          • 201821208 :)

            “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” Psalm 2:1

          • Oshtur

            Now you’re just repeating yourself – into the dustbin you go, all out of pearls.

          • 201821208 :)

            “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
            “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

          • Oshtur

            Old Covenant, old news. No Christian is under it and that is talking about a punishment bestowed by God on idolators that worshipped animal headed gods – a punishment to go against their nature in libertine excesses.

            Doesn’t have anything to do with a marriage or a wedding.

          • 201821208 :)

            Rom. 1:26-27

            “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

          • Oshtur

            And Christians in the body of Christ are neither master or slave, male nor female, Jew or Gentile. Christians marry just fine regardless of the sex of their spouse.

          • 201821208 :)

            “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” 2 Peter 3:16

          • Oshtur

            And again talk into the mirror when you say that.

          • 201821208 :)

            gotquestions dot org/gay-marriage dot html

          • Oshtur

            A ‘Christian’ site that has it wrong – most do. The Christian polling organization Barna group showed the majority of Christians have more in common with the Pharisees in both thought and deed than they do with Christ ages ago.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts” 2 Peter 3
            “an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” Luke 6:45
            “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” 2 Thessalonians 2:11
            “they followed vanity, and became vain” 2 Kings 17:15
            “broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” Matt. 7:13

          • Oshtur

            Back to fortune cookies. Ah well… nice chatting.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” Matthew 10:14-15
            “And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.” Luke 9:5
            “But they shook off the dust of their feet against them” Acts 13:51

          • Oshtur

            Yep, and I do shake my feet of your dust.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies…..satan!!!

          • 201821208 :)

            Amen!!!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow, 201821208! That is one nice thread of Scripture rebuking the lost. Well-done – truly outstanding, even among your many other excellent posts! It was a pleasure to watch.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!! There is NO truth in you. NONE!!!

          • Oshtur

            Right Russ. Whatever you say.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and there is no truth in you!!! NONE!!!

          • Oshtur

            It’s scripture Russ, look it up.

          • afchief

            I know scripture and I know you are a liar!!!

          • Jade

            1 Corinthians 6:16 And don’t you know that if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? For the Scriptures say, “The two are united as one.”

          • afchief

            You are a liar and have been given over to a reprobate mind!!! Homosexuality was sin in the OT and it is sin in the NT. It is perverted and deviant behavior. There is nothing decent, moral or clean about it. It is extremely dangerous to one’s health and kills spiritually!!!! It is DEATH!!!

          • Jade

            Where do you get all of your hate from? Church?

          • afchief

            Does the truth bother you?

          • Jade

            No but the hate from you and ISIS does.

          • afchief

            The truth sure does offends!!! Does it not???

          • Jade

            Since we just had Christmas, what birth narrative do you like best? (Matthew or Luke) Do you think Christ was crucified after the Passover meal (synoptics) or before the Passover meal (John)?

          • afchief

            What is your point?

          • Jade

            Truth is the Bible is a very human book and your fragile faith will shatter if you ever take the time to actually read it.

          • 201821208 :)

            gotquestions dot org/who-wrote-the-Bible dot html

          • afchief

            I have been a Christian for 33 years and have read the bible through and through 11 to 12 times. My faith has never shattered and actually has gotten stronger.

            Hebrews 4:12 (NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

            Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

          • 201821208 :)

            gotquestions dot org/Jesus-genealogy dot html

          • lizk

            God hates sin! He loves the sinner but also tell us to repent and turn away. God can forgive all kinds of sin except that against the Holy Spirit. Those who sin will fully do not have the covering of the blood of Jesus.

          • Oshtur

            Homosexuality is never mentioned in the new other than as a type of adultery that had to be listed as there was no single word that covered all in Greek.

            Christians marry regardless of male or female. Just fine. Doesn’t conflict with the New Covenant at all.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!!!

            There Is No Such Thing As a “Gay” Christian

            By Greg May

            ________________________________________

            In a previous article (“Information Highway: Avenue of False Doctrine”) I voiced my concern over the growing number of websites on the Internet promoting false doctrine. Also increasing in number are gay “Christian” websites.

            There is no such thing as a “gay” Christian.

            Homosexuality is a sin according to God’s Word. It is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. In Old Testament times, people who practiced homosexuality were to be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death. It was the rampant promiscuity of this lifestyle that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah:

            And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is Great, and because their sin is very grave…” (Genesis 18:20).

            The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood in the time of Noah are examples of the coming judgment upon the world as recorded in the book of Revelation. Just as Noah and his family were put inside the Ark before the Flood, and Lot’s family were sent away before burning sulphur fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, so will God’s people be removed from earth when Jesus appears in the clouds during the Rapture.

            There is a striking similarity between the days of Noah and Lot and the conditions of the world today: The economy was prospering, business was good and the construction industry was flourishing. Violence was widespread and the pursuit of pleasure was the main objective: “If it feels good do it!”

            Homosexuality and immorality were proliferating as well.

            Paul wrote in the New Testament:

            “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Romans 1:26, 27)

            “…and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions”: Could Paul have been prophesying about AIDS?

            Today our society glamorizes the lifestyle; celebrities are applauded when they “come out of the closet” and others are persecuted when they speak out against the gay lifestyle.

            The late Patrick Heron once wrote, “I would hope that people with opposing views would be tolerant of the Christian position. After all, we are constantly being asked to be tolerant of the gay community.”

            I remember watching on TV news back in the 70s when a member of the gay community pushed a pie in Anita Bryant’s face when she spoke out against gay rights issues in Florida. Today the gay community is bringing lawsuits against people who don’t go along with their agenda.

            Satan is the master of deceit and the father of lies. He has a talent for presenting something that goes against God’s will in a nice gift-wrapped package for people to sample.

            The disco 70s did more to make “being gay okay”’ than anything else. The disco movement which was widely supported by the gay community burst upon the American pop culture scene like an atomic bomb. Now it was the “in thing” to dance at gay clubs because, “They always have the best music” and gay people know how to “party” better than anyone else.

            Two of the most prominent “Disco Queens” – Gloria Gaynor and the late Donna Summer became born-again Christians. In fact, Summer’s career took a nosedive when she confronted her gay audience during a concert telling them, “AIDS is your sin.” But Grace Jones continues to exploit her androgynous look and popularity with the gay community to promote her career; and her father and brother are both ministers.

            Female impersonators are being paraded everywhere and are now featured in mainstream entertainment. Recently, a female impersonator was quoted in the media as being a “drag queen for Jesus” and ABC TV’s Diane Sawyer presented a full-length interview with former Olympic star Bruce Jenner who is changing his sex.

            God loves the sinner but He hates the sin.

            Jesus went to the cross and died for all; anyone can be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. Mary Magdalene was caught in adultery in which the penalty was death. But Jesus didn’t condemn her – in fact, He pardoned her. It was Mary Magdalene who stayed at the foot of the cross after Jesus’ disciples left.

            In the past, churches shied away from reaching out to the gay community. Today there are ministries that are being offered at many churches to bring men and women out of the lifestyle of sin and darkness and into the light and joy of God’s Word.

            Those who claim homosexuality is not a sin in God’s eyes are blinded by Satan.

            The love that David and Jonathan had for each other in the Bible is often misconstrued by the gay community to suggest they were lovers.

            “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been

            unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”

            (2 Samuel 1:26)

            The love that David and Jonathan had was a supernatural and pure love in the form of a godly covenant between them – they were not homosexuals.

            “And they two made a covenant before the Lord” (1 Samuel 23: 18).

            Jonathan loved David beyond the love he had for women and also beyond the love for his father and his own life, just as Christ commanded us to love Him:

            “If any man comes to Me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

            God’s Word makes it unmistakably clear that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

            “. . . for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave

            traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the

            sound doctrine . . .” (1 Timothy 1:10).

            In these last days we need to be about the Father’s business which is winning souls for Christ. Although the Bible makes it clear homosexuals will have no place in God’s Kingdom, He makes a way for the sinner to be cleansed and washed white as snow by the redemptive Blood of the Lamb that was shed when Jesus was crucified at Calvary.

          • Oshtur

            Lots of non-Christian blah blah blah Russ. You and Greg are quite the pair.

          • Wanda Larrington Becker

            As a Christ follower, I have to disagree with you. Homosexuality is taught as a sin in the Bible. yes, it says God abhors it, but He abhors all sin. If we can’t be a Christian and still sin, then none of us are Christians. Christ died to provide redemption for each of us, whether our sin is homosexuality, pride, anger, adultery, lying, stealing, killing, etc. All each of us needs to do is recognize that we ARE a sinner, and ask Him to be the Lord of our life. Please, we need to relate to those who need Him by sharing His truth in love the way Jesus did.

          • afchief

            Are you telling me the people in Gay Churches are Christians?
            You cannot be a “practicing homosexual” and call yourself a Christian.

          • Wanda Larrington Becker

            Yes, you can! Just as you can be a practicing adulterer and call yourself a Christian.We don’t become a Christian because of what we do, but by accepting what Christ did for us!!!!

          • afchief

            Beg to differ!!!!

            Hebrews 10:26 (NASB) For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

          • lizk

            Jesus calls all of us to repent of the sin and to turn away from it. It is only by His power that can over come. He said I will put my Spirit in you to cause you to walk in my law, statutes and commandments. It is not by our strength. We are told to be over comers. Sin is transgressing God’s law 1 Jn 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

          • afchief

            You are dealing with a homosexual who has a reprobate mind. Don’t waste your time!!!!

          • Jade

            Deuteronomy 23:1 If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the Lord.

          • 201821208 :)

            2 Peter 3:16

          • Jade

            1 Corinthians 7:29 Now let me say this, dear brothers and sisters: The time that remains is very SHORT (2000 years ago!), so husbands should not let their marriage be their major concern.

          • 201821208 :)

            2 Peter 3:16

          • Jade

            Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c AD 100–150 and not written by Peter but by someone pretending to be Peter. All you are doing is quoting some useless comment by a human being.

          • 201821208 :)

            gotquestions dot org/who-wrote-the-Bible dot html

          • Oshtur

            Another interesting fact about 1 & 2 Peter and Jude is that they reference 1 Enoch – a non-canon book – multiple times and there was much consideration on if they should be included in the canon at all.

        • Reason2012

          How so?

          • Oshtur

            So you don’t even know what the fruit of the Spirit is? That explains much.

          • Reason2012

            You still haven’t shown it was violated. Guess you can’t. Just getting that cleared up.

          • Oshtur

            ‘I haven’t shown that ‘fruit of the Spirit’ was ‘violated’?

            What does that even mean to you?

          • afchief

            You are of a reprobate mind and have NO understanding of scripture. NONE!!!

          • Oshtur

            That you don’t understand the Bible or what a reprobate mind is has been obvious for a long time. Christians don’t go all !!!!! on people, ever.

            Have a happy new year.

          • John_33

            He’s a gay activist that has over 10 Disqus accounts. He keeps getting banned on other sites.

          • afchief

            I know! This person is a homosexual and a liar and masquerades around the internet as a “gay Christian”. I have dealt with him/her on other forums.

        • afchief

          Wrong!

          • Oshtur

            Russ do you even know some examples of the fruit? Please point them out in your notes to me.

          • afchief

            You are of a reprobate mind and have been given over to do things improper i.e. homosexuality.

          • Oshtur

            As opposed to your propensity to hysterical cries of ‘liar’ and other such !!!!! things.

            You’ve demonstrated you don’t have a clue what reprobate is Russ which is why your hysterics have no real effect on a Christian.

          • afchief

            Romans 1:18-28 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • Oshtur

            Again people who were punished by God, thank you for confirming that. And of course people red faced screaming ‘liar!!!’ at people would be a wonderful example of the act of a reprobate mind. Or someone possessed by a demon.

      • Jade

        “Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” Psalm 137:9
        “The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.” Hosea 13:16

        • 201821208 :)

          “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” 2 Peter 3:16

          • Jade

            Deuteronomy 23:12-14 Mark off an area outside the camp for a latrine. Each of you must have a spade as part of your equipment. Whenever you relieve yourself, you must dig a hole with the spade and cover the excrement. The camp must be holy, for the Lord your God moves in your camp to protect you and to defeat your enemies. He must not see any shameful thing among you, or he might turn away from you.

          • 201821208 :)

            2 Peter 3:16

    • Jade

      Gay marriage is not an anti-Christian act. It is only for those Christian who worship the Bible – Bible Idolatry. The Bible is a very human book that was written by men who believed that their thoughts and/or dreams were from God. Instead it was just their own personal thoughts and prejudices. I thought these people who claimed to be Christians were Christ-like; where in the Bible did Jesus say anything about homosexuals? These so-called Christians had to pay a big fine for their hate.

      • 201821208 :)

        gotquestions dot org/who-wrote-the-Bible dot html

      • Reason2012

        If a Christian goes by what God says that marriage is one man and one woman, then yes, it’s an anti-Christian act.

        And most of your post was an attack on belief in God – thank you for proving the very point you sought to discredit.

        Jesus said plenty about marriage being one man and one woman.

        But using your “logic”, did Jesus say anything about bestiality? No. Using your logic Jesus must condone bestiality, and of course that’s where your logic falls flat.

        The only hate here is yours as you continue to hatefully attack belief in God.

        • 201821208 :)

          Amen!!!

        • Oshtur

          And a Christian who goes by all what God says knows that male and female don’t matter in the body of Christ, people marry regardless of the sex of their spouse with His blessing. Quit confusing how those outside the body of Christ acted with those who are in it.

          • 201821208 :)

            “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” 1 Cor. 7:2

          • Oshtur

            And there is no male or female in the body of Christ so that is saying the same thing.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts” 2 Peter 3

          • Oshtur

            Like the pretend Christians like the Kleins, devoid of Spirit and love? I agree.

          • Reason2012

            Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

            Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

            Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

            Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

            Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

            Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

            Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

            1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

            Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

            John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

            John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

            The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman. Thank you for the reminder to post this information.

          • Oshtur

            Talking to a group of men under the Old Covenant asking about their wives. The only person there in the body of Christ is Christ.

          • Reason2012

            Doesn’t matter who he was talking about: he’s reiterating the definition of marriage.

            What’s in the Bible about what holidays to celebrate? What does that have to do with the definition of marriage?

            Meats to eat are dietary laws that were meant only for the Israelites.

            If a person lives in willful disobedience to God, they are proving they are not saved, and willful homosexual behavior is one of them. It’s not loving God and obeying the Great Commandment to love God to disobey and mock Him and His Word and promote homosexual behavior as fine with God.

            “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
            1 John 2:3-4

            Those you teach this lie to, their blood will be on your hands.

            Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

            And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

            Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

            1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

            Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

            Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

            Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

            Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

            The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

            Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

            God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

            Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

            Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

            Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

            For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

            Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

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

            And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

            The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

            Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

            And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

            And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

            And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

            These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

            Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

            Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

            Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

            Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

            Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

            1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

            1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

            2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

            Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

            And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

            Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

            Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

            And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

            Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

            May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

          • Oshtur

            And so all you have is repeating mistranslations?

            And of course it matters – those under the Old Covenant were not under the New, they are not in the body of Christ where ‘male and female’ are irrelevant.

            Sorry, its obvious you have a book knowledge of the Bible, pretending you don’t know that Paul addressed the issue of what meats to eat and the disagreement between various Christians about that just shows that is all it is, ‘book knowledge’ interpreted without the Spirit.

            Romans was a punishment, 1 Corinthian and 1 Timothy are talking about one of the types of adultery and Jude and Luke don’t mention homosexuality at all!

            Again, the Lord’s commandments are to Love God, Love Each other, and Love ourselves, all God requires from us flows from them. Married Christians can do all of those regardless of the sex of their spouse.

      • lizk

        so you are calling God a liar? Satan is the father of lies, his motto is do what you want. God does not change, mankind things He has changed are only fooling themselves. What God says He means it.

    • acontraryview

      “Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business to support the anti-black act of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?”

      No he does not. Bigotry is not a covered category under Oregon law.

      “America is waking up to the deception, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.”

      It was the people of Oregon who put the law in question in place. Whether one supports or does not support such acts is not the question. People are free to support or not support whatever they care to. People who own a business of public accommodation are not free to act in ways which are contrary to the law.

      • Reason2012

        I said: “Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business to support the anti-black act of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?”

        You reply: No he does not. Bigotry is not a covered category under Oregon law.

        But then you go on to say
        // People who own a business of public accommodation are not free to act in ways which are contrary to the law. //

        So which is it? Is the black baker forced to support that bigoted, anti-black request or not?

        • Oshtur

          There is no law preventing him from refusing a customer because of their political beliefs.

        • acontraryview

          It is exactly as I said it is. Since bigotry is not a covered category under the law, a baker would be free to refuse the order in your example because doing so would not violate any law.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      The baker would not have to bake that cake because “racist” is not a protected class.

  • rcvj

    The Klein made a good profit on this as they raised over $500,000. Seems discrimination is the way to go!

  • Shanna Thibodeaux

    This is why ‘good’ Christian folk shouldn’t go online and retaliate by doxxing (releasing personal and private information) people who filed a simple complaint about supposed discrimination. The death threats the gay couple received, especially regarding their young foster children, makes the monetary penalties against the bakery more than legitimate in my opinion.

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

      This is an interesting comment, but in this particular case that is not what happened. The complaint is a matter of public record. Unless someone has actually been prosecuted for the threats, the truth of the matter is my no means obvious. Given the malevolent nature of the complaint it is completely possible that the threats are fictional embellishments to the story, or were made by a “friendly party” to increase the mischief.

      • Cady555

        The complaint was not malevolent. It was an online form. It could have been settled with:
        Oregon – “Oregon law says you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation.”
        Bakers – “Oops. You’re right. That is what the law says. We do not agree with the law, but we do believe in a holy book that tells us to obey secular authority. Won’t happen again.”

        At most a token fine and situation resolved.

        The Kleins chose to place personal info about the couple on their facebook page, which is a tad more accessible than city records. They chose to give interviews and claim persecution.

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

          Just roll over and the friendly pagans will gently pat your furry tummy.

  • Josey

    Does anyone know if this bakery is still open?

    • Oshtur

      They closed long before any state ruling due to lack of business and now operate out of their home.

      • Josey

        you know that they closed due to lack of business, how? And operating out of their home probably is better for them for they can choose wisely now on who gets their baked goods.

        • Oshtur

          Hmmmm again Josey, why are you commenting on a topic you seem to have so little knowledge of? The business owners said they closed there storefront due to lack of business.

          That googly thing can help you be better informed before you start typing.

        • acontraryview

          “you know that they closed due to lack of business, how?”

          Because that is what they said.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    It is odd that the article does not mention that the couple raised over $500,000 in a crowd funding scheme. Seems like they did pretty well in this deal.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      I actually read somewhere that the state drained their bank accounts. This report seems to conflict with that. Perhaps the state did that first, and then they dropped off the check?

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        On CharismaNews, an article by Todd Starnes states that the Labor Commission “wiped out the Klein family’s bank accounts – taking nearly $7,000.” Elsewhere I’ve read that their online fundraiser raised $515,000. Presumably, that is where they obtained the funds to pay the fine.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Gotcha – thanks very much!

        • Chrissy Vee

          Good for them! Praise Jesus! o/

      • Oshtur

        The state put a lien on their bank accounts which probably means they hadn’t tapped into their crowdsourcing money yet. And that may have been that their legal team was only pro-bono as long as they couldn’t afford to pay.

    • The Last Trump

      Yes, God tends to take apparent losses for Christians and turn them into giant wins.
      What a God! 🙂

  • BigHobbit

    If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
    If your religious beliefs prevent your lawful behavior in one industry, you have the perfect religious freedom to pursue a career in a different industry. (Or in another community where your behavior doesn’t violate the community values and laws.)
    Not every religious belief is compatible with every career.

    • Chrissy Vee

      If they won’t bake the cake, find someone else who will.
      If your lifestyle choices prevent your unlawful behavior in one bakery, you have the perfect consumer freedom to pursue another bakery in a different location. (Or in another community where your behavior doesn’t force people to violate their conscience and their faith.)
      Not every lifestyle choice is compatible with every business.

      • 201821208 :)

        Amen!!!

      • acontraryview

        “If they won’t bake the cake, find someone else who will.”

        That’s why we have anti-discrimination laws, Chrissy. So citizens won’t have to do that.

        “If your lifestyle choices prevent your unlawful behavior in one bakery”

        Ordering a cake is not an unlawful behavior.

        “Or in another community where your behavior doesn’t force people to violate their conscience and their faith.”

        They were not forced. They were free, as business owners, to not offer wedding cakes as part of what the business provided. in addition, they were free to not operate a business at all. Most people do not own businesses. Finally, they made no cake for the couple. There was no “forcing”.

        • Chrissy Vee

          Right, yet they were harassed threatened and fined and had to close shop. No. No forcing there. People with no understanding of spiritual matters concerning Christ have no clue about faith and sinning against ones conscience and God.
          Their list of grievances was a disgusting example of how far homosexuals are willing to go to make their stance “acceptable”. But no matter what depths and how far gays go to harm those who don’t wish to be part of their abominable practices, they will never change the truth of God. And what people choose to do to the followers of Christ will be recompensed by God, our avenger, Himself. Hallelujah!

          • 201821208 :)

            Amen!!!

          • Oshtur

            The shop was closed before there was even a judgement by the state and there was a total of 3 days worth of protests at the shop. No they closed the store because people in Oregon don’t want to do business with criminal bigots.

          • Chrissy Vee

            No it was harassment but you believe what you wish. The only bigots I actually witness on an almost daily basis is all of you anti-Christ wonders. It’s okay though. All of this is Biblical. We know how it will end. Praise Jesus!

          • Oshtur

            Please! This is the 21st century – continual harassment would have media documentation which this has zero.

            And I am a Christian and stand against those that say ‘Lord! Lord!’ but are void of the Spirit and don’t even pretend to keep the New Covenant or our Lord’s Commandments to love.

            Yes we do know how it will end for those devoid of love – we all should heed that.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 7:21-23

          • Oshtur

            Exactly! We are in complete agreement.

            As the Barna Group surveys found most US Christians are in thought and deed more like the Pharisee than Christ.

          • 201821208 :)

            Amen!!!

          • acontraryview

            “and had to close shop.”

            They didn’t have to close shop, nor were they forced to. They chose to close their shop.

            “Their list of grievances was a disgusting example of how far homosexuals are willing to go to make their stance “acceptable”.”

            How does their list of grievances result in any person who doesn’t find homosexuality acceptable, now finding it acceptable?

            “they will never change the truth of God.”

            The “truth” of God is a matter of faith, Chrissy. While you are certainly entitled to believe that the “truth” of God is contained within the Bible, that is a matter of faith, not necessarily fact. Unless, of course, you ARE God, Chrissy. Are you God, Chrissy?

          • Chrissy Vee

            No, acontrary view, I am not God, acontrary view. I KNOW God, acontraryview. And one day acontarary view, you will know him too, acontrary view. Hopefully for you, acontraryview, you will have repented by then, acontraryview . Ciao.

          • acontraryview

            “I KNOW God, acontraryview.”

            You believe you know God, Chrissy. You cannot say so with certainty. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            I do believe that one day you will know him as well. Hopefully for you, Chrissy, you will have repented by then.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You cannot say so with certainty.”

            Self-refuting. Then you cannot know Him or KNOW He does not exist either.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh I certainly can and do say with certainty, acontraryview, I know Almighty God, Creator of the heavens and the earth and the seas and everything in them. Your opinion, acontraryview, that it can not be fact is of little significance to me. It exposes your lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding of spiritual truths, too high for your carnal mind to grasp. Repent, acontraryview, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

          • acontraryview

            “Oh I certainly can and do say with certainty”

            Unless you are God, Chrissy, which you have already stated you are not, then, no, you cannot say so with 100% certainty. It is a belief. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            Repent, Chrissy, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh you poor thing. It’s okay. You’ll be alright. Then again….

          • acontraryview

            What a coincidence. I was just thinking the same thing about you.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Yeaaahhh….sure you were.

          • acontraryview

            OK. You got me. Just your first sentence.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Hahaha. Ok that was funny.

          • acontraryview

            We may not agree on everything, but we are still all in this together. Gotta be able to laugh at ourselves. 🙂

          • Chrissy Vee

            🙂 dig.

          • Cady555

            The Kleins disclosed personal info about the couple resulting in such bad harassment of the couple that they almost lost the children they were in the process of adopting. The harm caused by the Kleins was real.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Awww

      • BigHobbit

        You do not understand anti discrimination laws. If the law says you may not discriminate in business on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or, in some states, sexual orientation, than you may not discriminate on that basis. Whether or not there are other businesses that follow the law, or not, doesn’t change the fact that THIS business violated the law.
        If your religion disables you from lawful behavior in one industry, you need to find another industry. Or move somewhere where your behavior doesn’t violate community standards and laws.
        Every business must be compatible with the law.

        • Reason2012

          So if a black baker who has no problem baking cakes for white people is asked to bake a cake to support an anti-black ACT, who’s the bigot?

          • BigHobbit

            If there is no law that says you cannot discriminate against a “anti-black ACT”, (and there is not) than you violate no law.

        • Chrissy Vee

          I rest my case.

        • lizk

          it’s the Christians rights that were violated.

          • BigHobbit

            Nobody has the “Christian right” to violate consumer protection laws.
            If your religion forbids lawful behavior in the wedding industry, your religion prevents your participation in the wedding industry.

          • lizk

            or the people can go somewhere else instead of destroying them. They were out to prove a point. They should just have gone somewhere else that is their right.

          • BigHobbit

            “the people” went to the same bakery that they had been patronizing for years. The bakers, by behaving illegally, by violating a court order by publicizing the names and home address, by refusing to acknowledge that they have a duty to follow the same laws that every other business is required to follow have destroyed themselves.
            You gain no credence with a “blame the victim” approach.

          • lizk

            maybe a lawyer should not be involved they could just as easily go go another or ask for a plain cake to be decorated and then they could get a topping from somewhere else. But to sue is wrong, if someone would not do it for me, I would just go else where. I don’t do the blame game. I might get upset but I would go somewhere else.Just like I don’t like everything but I would just walk away. If someone is beating somebody, that is a different thing, I would help and so would my husband help the person, we would not sit back and watch.It seems that everyone now a days will destroy people for their opinions. I glad not all are like that.

          • BigHobbit

            They didn’t sue, they reported the bakery to the govt agency tasked with enforcing commercial regulations. As any law abiding citizen confronted by illegal activity should do – inform the correct authorities.

          • lizk

            they knew that they would not agree with them because of their faithfulness to God.

          • BigHobbit

            All that they knew was that they had been buying baked goods from them for years, and they wanted the bakers to continue baking for them.
            Don’t you tend to go back to the same stores that you are happy with?

          • lizk

            yes, but knowing their convictions I still would of gone somewhere else for the wedding cake or ask them for a reference. If that was against their beliefs I would of asked for another baker that would do it. I would not destroy their business because of it. To me murder stealing and an outright verbel abuse but just to say no it’s against their beliefs is no reason to sue them or report them.

          • BigHobbit

            You may, of course, shop wherever you like. The rest of us are going to assume that merchants who have a valid business license are going to behave lawfully when we patronize them. SOME customers will take the time to report unlawful behaviors of merchants that they observe, as any lawful citizen has a right to do.

          • lizk

            It is their business and if you don’t like it shop somewhere else . You are tramping on their belief and they were not nasty It is just your pride and whoever wanted to destroy them. It is not lawful in every county and it is wrong to force someone to accept your point of view. To me that is not worth fighting for or destroying a businexx. It is unlawful for people to force their opions on them.

          • BigHobbit

            It is their business. But ALL businesses do not have the private “right” to pick an choose which business laws to follow and which to ignore. What a silly thing to assert.

          • lizk

            I’m sure they have valid business license. But what man thinks is right is not what God thinks and it’s His law that trumps man made laws. God does not change, it is man that thinks it’s oka with God. God is who judges.

          • BigHobbit

            If they continue to flaunt community standards and laws, they will lose their business license.

          • lizk

            you know God predicted this would happen. Man can only kill the body but God can destroy the whole person. When people loss the right to excersize their faith that’s sad. God will look after His people. God destroyed the world through a world wide flood and only 8 people were saved, when Jesus comes back for those that love Him and obey Him He save, all those who hate Him will die.The earth will be like when it 1st existed.Void of all life.

          • BigHobbit

            you know Zues predicted this would happen. Allah can only kill the body, but Kali can destroy the whole person. Odin will look after his people.
            You and I are exactly atheistic about the same hundreds of gods, except that I am for one more than you.

          • lizk

            I don’t think they were flaunting anything it’s they who made a big deal out of it.

          • BigHobbit

            The Bakers, have, indeed made a huge deal out of it. If they had acknowledged what the law required of them, and made it right in the beginning, they probably wouldn’t have had a fine, at all. If they had not violated the Judges orders and posted the couples home address and phone number online, they fine would have been much, much smaller.

          • lizk

            It is Jesus who is judging the living and the dead and when He comes He will have His reward with Him. It seems like people would rather believe a lie then what Jesus says. The god of this world (the devil) has blinded the eyes of people so that they don’t have a relationship with Jesus for He is our salvation, He is the way the truth the life. We all have to answer to God who created everything.

          • BigHobbit

            The main reason we have the first amendment protecting religious liberty, is so that YOUR understanding of God doesn’t turn into laws that form no part of MY understanding of God.
            You cannot prove that YOUR idea of god is any better than the millions of Christians who approve of same sex marriage.

          • lizk

            We all have to answer to God wither you believe it or not and I would rather live my life as there is God than to live my life as there is no God and then find out there is a God who created everything.

          • BigHobbit

            You are perfectly at liberty to believe any dang thing you want. If you believe that baking a cake for a gay couple violates that belief, nobody is forcing you to make wedding cakes for a living.
            If your beliefs prevent you from lawful behavior in the wedding industry, you are going to have to accept responsibility for your religious beliefs, and find a line of work that is compatible with your beliefs.
            You don’t get to violate the law, and then quote your religion. It just doesn’t work that way.

          • lizk

            People do not force you to believe but you force everyone to accept what God says is wrong. Many who are not religious also do not believe what you say. We all have choices but people who truly love God do not kill, murder just because the opinions of others do not agree with them. When Jesus apostle cut the ear of the one who came to get Him, Jesus healed his ear. He did no violence against anybody, He just spoke the truth and people loved their sins more and that’s why He was crucified and if we accept His sacrifice and repent of our sins, we are told in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He gave us His one and only Son, that whoever believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

          • BigHobbit

            “People do not force you to believe but you force everyone to accept what God says is wrong.”
            Everybody and their brother has a different idea of what “God says is wrong.” I am not forcing anyone to accept anything.
            What I am saying is that the laws of this country, and the actions of the govt, including it’s employees, cannot violate the US Constitution.
            If YOUR particular ideas about what “God says is wrong” prevent you from functioning in a govt job, or in lawful behavior in commerce, then you have the perfect religious liberty to have a job where you CAN behave lawfully.
            Not every career is compatible with every religious interpretation.

          • BigHobbit

            How can you possibly know their “convictions”? Do you know them, personally?
            You are just making things up.

            Again, just because YOU are willing to ignore the illegal behavior of business owners, doesn’t mean that the rest of us should ignore the scofflaws.

          • lizk

            People do not have the right to violate the persons conscious. God created us all free. So why did they make a bit deal about it and just go somewhere else? They did not hit them they just said they don’t do it because that is not what they believe in. To me, it looks like oh poor me they didn’t make it for me. I would just go somewhere else and not have a pitty party

          • BigHobbit

            Nobody is forced to open a business or to take a govt job. However, if you do decide to do so, you must behave legally. If your religion prevents lawful behavior in an industry, or in your job, then you have the perfect religious liberty to work in another industry or job.
            Not every religious interpretation is compatible with every job.

          • lizk

            you know it wouldn’t bother me is someone didn’t serve me because he had and issue, I would just find some else, I t wouldn’t bother me. Oviously you have a problem. God hate 3 things lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, pride of life. He not like man His thoughts are higher. He is holy and He asks us to be holy. No one who hangs on to wilful sin can stand in front of a Holy God.

          • BigHobbit

            The fact that a business wouldn’t serve YOU because of their prejudice doesn’t bother you, is no reason to suppose that being illegally discriminated against should suddenly be OK for everyone else.
            That is logically the same as saying because you don’t mind loud noises that there doesn’t need to be noise ordinances, or that because you don’t mind smoking, that there shouldn’t be rules banning smoking in public places.

          • lizk

            no, it doesn’t and I would not break a business because of pride. They are not killing or hitting that is illegal to do harm to another. What they did is that they did not agree with. No matter what judges say it is what not what God says. Gods word overrides mans word and they will have to answer to God. So people want to tell people to go against their conscious and that is going against God. 3 things God hates lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, pride of life. We are told not to lord it over people, we’re to do good.

          • BigHobbit

            No body is forced to do business, period. Those that do business in public, however are required, as a prerequisite to follow the law. If your religion prohibits you from lawful behavior, you can always make a living a different way.
            No one is forced to sell wedding cakes, but if you CHOOSE to sell wedding cakes, you are required to do so lawfully, without violating commercial laws.

          • lizk

            that is a forced, it still goes against the conscious, and that should not be forced. They did not steal, kill, or hit that is against the law. When you force people to accept a behaviour that is torcing to accept something that is against their conviction that is wrong. Business or no business. They were not mean they just said no. So go find someone else to serve you. It does not bother me if they didn’t agree with me and chose not to serve me, I would just find someone else. But you would rather distroy the business for your pride to me they law is against the business is wrong. Where is freedom of choice? you would lord is over people because they do not agree with the law. The law is in error, so are the judges. I’m glad Jesus will be coming soon. The world will get much worse just like in Sodom and Gomorrah and in the days of Noah. But Jesus will come back and save His people, those that love Him and keep His commandments.

          • BigHobbit

            Nobody is “forced” to have a business license to serve the public. IF you choose to have a business you are required to understand and comply with the law. IF you cannot comply with the rules in that industry, you have the perfect religious liberty to have a career in an industry that your religion doesn’t cause you to behave illegally.
            Not every career is compatible with every religious interpretation.

          • lizk

            that is their business and they should be able to run it as they want. If you don’t like it then go somewhere else. I’m glad not everybody is like you.

          • BigHobbit

            It is their business. It is their responsibility to behave lawfully. They do not get to “run it as they want.” What a silly thing to assert.
            They are not allowed to harm the environment, or to put employees at risk from unsafe conditions. ALL businesses have to conform to business regulation.
            If YOU don’t like this particular regulation, YOU can move to a state that doesn’t ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as many do not. For those that choose to do business in states that do have that law, they have the obligation to follow it.

          • lizk

            it is their business and they put there own money into it. So they should be able to fun it as they want and if people do not like it, you have a chose as to where you want to conduct business.

          • BigHobbit

            “So they should be able to (r)un it as they want ”
            You imagine that. You think is should work that way.
            It doesn’t.
            No business owner can violate the law, then say -it is my business, I get to do whatever I want. Just not how the world operates.

          • lizk

            Gods law is above any man made laws. Jesus cannot be bought or paid off. So is it your pride that’s hurt?Just because a human said that is the law doesn’t make it right. That should not be made law. Killing, stealing, and so on that is law. The world is getting to the same conditions as in Noah’s day. We are seeing the judgement. People have turned away from God and put themselves on the devils ground. It is the devil that is our accuser and he is destroying the people and the earth. It is the people who separated themselves from Go by willfully disobeying God.
            You also said nobody forced them to do business like nobody forced them to ask them to do something that is against their conscious.

          • BigHobbit

            As America is a Constitutional Republic, with a Constitution that prohibits basing laws on any ONE religion, “Gods” law is not “above” man made laws.
            Why? Because everyone and their brother has a different idea of what Gods laws actually are. Some churches are against same sex marriage and gay people. Other churches ordain gay clergy and celebrate same sex marriage.
            Why should YOUR religious beliefs trump MINE? This is America. The land of the free. Part of MY freedom is that I get to have my religion, and YOU don’t get to override it.

          • lizk

            I chose to disagree with you. I’m not being nasty I’m just chose to disagree with you

          • lizk

            no it would not, my pride might hurt but still it would not bother me.

          • BigHobbit

            It is no argument against a law that protects everyone to state that YOU don’t feel that YOU need protection.
            It is equivalent to a women saying that it doesn’t bother her to not be able to vote, so why is everyone else so upset?

          • lizk

            everybody has the right to vote, it’s whether you chose to vote or not, that is right to chose. People can chose to where they want to conduct business.

          • BigHobbit

            People cannot legally chose which business laws they wish to comply with or to violate. People CAN chose where they want to conduct business – if you have a shop, you can chose to open it in a state that doesn’t have an anti-discrimination law that protects sexual orientation. People CAN choose what industry they which to do business. IF people choose to do business in a given locale, they are legally required to behave lawfully, or they will end up paying the consequences.

          • lizk

            why do you have to push your oppion on someone else?

          • BigHobbit

            You mean the opinion that we should all behave lawfully in the public market?

        • lizk

          It seems like you would rather destroy a business to prove your point then go somewhere else to do your business, that is what I would do and I’m glad others do not have so much hate as you do. You cannot force someone to go against their conscious for they are accountable to God (who created all things). God made us free to chose, you made your choice.

          • BigHobbit

            I would rather that those who are incapable of lawful behavior in one industry, would decide to participate in another industry, one where their religion doesn’t require illegal behavior.

          • lizk

            so your forcing people to accept you point of view.

          • BigHobbit

            Sooooo – insisting that we all follow the same set of business regulations?

    • lizk

      that is their business and if thy won’t make a cake, they should of gone else where, who would make it for them.

      • BigHobbit

        No business owner has the “right” to violate the law. If your religion prevents your lawful behavior in an industry, you have the perfect religious right to work in a different industry.

  • Becky

    Homosexuality is an abomination against God. Whatever the price is, that truth will never change.

    • Jade

      Leviticus 19:28 Never cut your bodies in mourning for the dead or mark your skin with tattoos, for I am the Lord.

    • Oshtur

      The word homosexuality or equivalent never appears in the Bible, Old or New.

      • 201821208 :)

        “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” 1 Cor. 6:9 (NASB)
        “and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” 1 Tim. 1:10 (NASB)

        • Oshtur

          Yes, thanks for the false translations, the greeks didn’t have a word for ‘homosexuality’, likewise a single word for all the kinds of adultery – you are mistaking a list of the kinds of adultery Roman culture thought was allowed; heterosexual, homosexual, and prostitutes and saying they aren’t Christian conduct. Has nothing to do with sex within the bounds of Christian marriage, regardless of ‘male or female’.

          • 201821208 :)

            “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord” Proverbs 12:22
            “a false witness will utter lies” Proverbs 14:5
            “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” 2 Peter 3:16

          • Oshtur

            And you realize you should be saying all those into a mirror, right? You are the one that offered false translations, not me.

          • 201821208 :)

            “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool” Proverbs 28:26

          • Oshtur

            Which is what you are doing.

          • 201821208 :)

            “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” 2 Thessalonians 2:11

          • Oshtur

            As you do.

  • Chrissy Vee

    Their list of woes was utterly ridiculous. If they don’t repent, they are going to have to endure some REAL woes. ~It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.~ !Hebrews 10:31

    • Becky

      Amen.

      • Jade

        Ephesians 5:24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

        • Angel Jabbins

          You left out something…you need to read a little further in that passage.

          “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself (died) for her…So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord [does] the church.”
          Submitting to your husband does not mean submitting to abuse, not ever. If a man treats his wife unfairly or abusively, he is disobeying the Word of God.

          • Jade

            1 Corinthians 11:4-6 A man dishonors Christ if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. But a woman dishonors her husband if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. Yes if she refuses to wear a head covering she should cut off all her hair. 9-10 And man was not made for woman’s benefit, but woman was made for man. So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because the angels are watching.

        • Happy Critic

          Weak. How about reading the WHOLE Bible?

    • Jade

      Leviticus 12:2 When a woman becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son, she will be ceremonially unclean for 7 days, just as she is defiled during her menstrual period…5 If a woman gives birth to a daughter, she will be ceremonially defiled for 14 days.

      • Angel Jabbins

        Ceremonial law in the OT applying to Israel as the chosen people of God through whom He would send the Messiah. As God’s chosen people, they were to be set apart from the heathen nations around them, reflecting the holiness of God. Does not apply at all today so why bring it up? Has nothing whatsoever to do with the practice of Christianity today.
        If you want to get upset about something really horrible, why not lament the very real situation (which is becoming a problem even in this country) of young Muslim girls (as young as 9) who are being mutilated (because of the teachings of Islam) so they can never enjoy sex. Instead you bring up something in the Bible that does not even apply to Christians today. How ridiculous and how telling….

        • Oshtur

          All the Law of Moses is in effect until it all isn’t, confirmed in both Old and New Testament.

        • Jade

          1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

          • Angel Jabbins

            The word in Greek for ‘be silent’ does not mean total silence. It literally means ‘to keep it down’. Christian women do ask questions, offer opinions in a church setting just as men do…many teach children and other women and some even present workshops or have ministries where they teach both sexes. Women are always to be under the headship/leadership of their husbands and pastors. The only thing they are truly restricted from doing is being pastors (elders).
            If you are so worked up about women’s rights, why not concentrate on Islam where women are constantly under the thumb of men…abusively so. Their husbands don’t have to be faithful to them…can marry other wives, can divorce their wives for any reason, force them to be covered from head to toe, make them stay at home, not allow them to drive a car, can even beat or kill them if they do something the husband doesn’t like. Yet here you are attacking my Christian faith quoting verses when you do not fully understand the context. It would be pretty hard to find a Christian church where women are keeping silent.

          • Angel Jabbins

            You have such a prejudice against Christianity and want to quote Bible verses to ‘prove’ women are not valued and treated equally. But what it is like to be a women living under Islamic law?
            In this video a Muslim woman shares what life is like for women in a predominately Muslim society… http://video. foxnews. com/v/4657942068001/life-for-women-under-islamic-law-in-saudi-arabia/?intcmp=hpbt1#sp=show-clips

  • mantis

    if you break the law then you get punished.

  • acontraryview

    Well that still leaves them with over $300,000 of donated money. Good for them!

    • Oshtur

      Well those lawyers won’t be cheap.

      • acontraryview

        As I recall, they were being provided free legal counsel by the highly ineffective Liberty Counsel group.

        • Oshtur

          I doubt if there is a windfall of cash they are ‘free’ but we’ll see.

  • bill_1944

    Contrary,
    I’m tired and going to bed right now (been getting ready for a New Years Eve get together). Let’s see if I can get the synapses up for your question. If I don’t get right back to you, have a Happy New Year.

  • BarkingDawg

    OK, so let’s examine this carefully.

    They released the names of the people suing them, knowing full well that hoards of fundamental Christians would violate every precept of Christian virtues just to harass the two women.

    right?

    • Nidalap

      And were the Kleins harassed? Did they receive hate mail and death threats? Ah, of course it’s ‘okay’ as long as the ‘right’ kind of people are harassed. Silly me! 🙂

  • 0pus35

    Lesbians sure do have expensive emotions.

    They must regard themselves as being more valuable than normal people. So they don’t really want “equality,” they want people they hate to occupy a lower status.

  • lizk

    It’s amazing people will force others to think it’s oka just because the judges say so, they are accountable to God who created all things. They will have to answer to God. No one has the right to force anyone to go against their conscious for God made people free. It is sin that puts people under bondage. Many do not believe in a devil but he is real, he made himself to be the devil. For Lucifer was a created being but he wanted to be like the Most High and he wanted the worship of every thing. But in the end the devil will be done away with, and those who follow him..God is letting evil come to head, but that is not His wish, He would rather sinners repent of their sins, it is not His wish to destroy the wicked. He does give every one a choice.I chose to follow Jesus (He says He is the way, the truth and life) His word is true and what He says He will do. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah they were destroyed when Lot went out, and in the days of Noah, God destroyed the wicked people. Probation will close. It will be worse in the last days for He will cut it short before man destroys everything and He will deliver His people.