‘Everything Was Gone’: State Emptied Christian Bakers’ Bank Accounts Before They Paid ‘Emotional Damages’

Sweet-CakesPORTLAND, Ore. — The Christian owners of a bakery in Oregon who 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 say that the state emptied all three of their personal banking accounts earlier this month—including money set aside to pay their tithe.

“It was like my breath was taken away,” Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa told conservative reporter Todd Starnes this week. “I panicked. Everything was gone.”

She explained that she and her husband have three personal bank accounts: one checking, one savings, and one account marked “God’s money” for their tithe at church. The three accounts contained just under $7,000 total, and when Klein checked on her bank accounts a few weeks ago, she noticed that they were empty.

“They just took it,” she said.

Faced with a nine percent interest penalty for not paying the $135,000, the Kleins then opted to submit a check for the amount in full, using money donated by supporters that was not in their personal bank account. They dropped off a check for $136,927.07 on Monday.

It is not known whether the state plans to return the Kleins’ personal money that was taken out of their bank accounts.

As previously reported, in February, a judge with the Oregon BOLI declared the Kleins guilty of discrimination for declining to make a cake last year for the same-sex ceremony, which the couple viewed as a form of participation in the event. The Kleins had served the women in other ways, but did not believe they should be helping with the ceremony due to their biblical convictions.

  • Connect with Christian News

The matter was thus moved into the sentencing phase.

The two lesbian women who filed the complaint with the state, 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.

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 would able to be seen by the public and the subject of the complaint.

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
  • Cady555

    The Kleins collected over $500,000 from social media to pay the $135,000 fine, yet despite collecting about 250% if the amount due, they refused to pay.

    Notice how hard it was for them to write a check once the state enforced the law. They have enough money.

    Yes. If the court orders someone to pay a fine, they have to pay it or the state will garnish bank accounts.

    The size of the fine was a direct result of the Kleins choices to publicize the plaintiff’s personal information.

  • Cobra

    the total gay agenda is discusting

    • acontraryview

      Seeking equal treatment under the law and not being discriminated against based solely upon one’s sexuality is “discusting”?

      • Cobra

        God law says it is an abomination…Gods law trumps all

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          God’s law trumps all – in some countries that is true. Thankfully not in the United States.

          • Cobra

            It has nothing to do with country when God is the creator and ruler of the universe…his law covers every where… because USA is going to hell does not exempt USA from Gods laws

          • mantis

            go read the Constitution and tell us were it say your god has authority over anything

          • Cobra

            Jesus spoke: give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God”s…Our bodies are the temples of the Lord…they are not to be defiled… even you on judgment day will be begging on your knees and admitting Jesus Christ is Lord…until than you are free to believe as you wish…Merry Christmas and my prayer for you is that the Holy Spirit will soften your heart and that you come to the knowledge and belief of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and accept his precious gift to redeem us for our sins

          • mantis

            so what?

          • Chrissy Vee

            ~And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
            Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
            Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.~ Acts 5:27-29
            From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law. Even if it means fines, jail time or loss of a job, in the end, His followers will be greatly rewarded for standing up for the faith! Praise Jesus! o/ ♥

          • mantis

            so what?

          • Chrissy Vee

            (O_o) Sigh…. I should have known better.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Mantis is a real hard-core pro-abort. Probably one of Valri’s multiple personalities.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh. Wow. Thanks for the heads up! 😀

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yeah, he or she is trolling on Live Action News a lot lately.

          • Chrissy Vee

            I will steer clear!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yeah, he or she is a stalker too. Only stalks the best – a compliment to you. 🙂

            Check out this story, Chrissy! (just take the 3 spaces out)

            https://www .lifesitenews .com/news/dad-from-three-hour-armed-hospital-standoff-that-saved-his-sons-life-is-fre?utm_source=LifeSiteNews .com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cf85f496f4-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-cf85f496f4-397685045

          • Chrissy Vee

            Why thank you kindly WGC! 🙂
            And I will check that out right……..now!

          • Chrissy Vee

            Wow… life is just so insignificant now isn’t it? :'{
            That was a story…. God bless that man for his courage.
            I saw another story while I was there about the Femen Brazil girl. That one really moved me too. Praise, honor and glory to our holy Father. o/

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, she seems like she is now a truth seeker, doesn’t she? That would be amazing to see God convert someone THAT lost!

          • Chrissy Vee

            Most def!

          • Chrissy Vee

            Hey….question/observation…. I think acontraryview is DNelson incognito. Same MO… what is your opinion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yeah, I was kind of wondering if we had seen him before. A lot of similarity there. ACV seems a little more emotional than DNelson, but it could be true – they both have very similar and persistent ways of approaching things. Both are somewhat disingenuous and overtly ideological, but ACV seems to strawman more than DNelson did, but, now, I am not so sure. That is quite an observation you make – I wish I was that observant!

            Some good news, Chrissy: we had 2 turnarounds yesterday at our abortion mill – 2 women came out and chose life instead of having an abortion. 🙂

          • Chrissy Vee

            YAY!!! / Praise be to Jesus! Wonderful news to end the evening, thank you!
            As far as the other thing, I am pretty sure and will shut him off as I did before. If it isn’t him, then they must belong to the same atheistic cult. Oh well, good night WGC. Nice chatting with you again. 🙂 May God bless your ministry!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen, Chrissy Vee! God bless you too and thank you for speaking out for Jesus and His little ones.

          • Valri

            Wrong again, Crazy. Valri is right here, using one alias as she always has, and watching you talk around her like a gossipy schoolgirl as is your wont. As with most fundamentalists though, this isn’t going to sink in until I prove it another 500 times. Which I can do, no problem…I have time.

          • StanW

            You may have time, but you have no proof.

          • Valri

            Fundie troll

          • StanW

            Good example of you having nothing to contribute to the discussion.

          • acontraryview

            “Even if it means fines, jail time or loss of a job”

            Well then there’s really nothing to complain about in this situation, is there? They made a choice. The choice was against the law. They were fined.

            Done and done.

          • Chrissy Vee

            I still feel for them. It’s called compassion… empathy for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, seeing as we must endure ridiculous matters such as these while we are here.

          • acontraryview

            Well you don’t HAVE to endure matters such as this. No one is forced to open their own business. No one is forced to operate a business in a state the provides protections based upon sexual orientation. This couple was not forced to offer wedding cakes as something their business provided. They did not have to turn down the order. Those were all choices they made. I don’t have sympathy for people who makes choices, then don’t want to face the consequences for their choices.

            Would you have compassion for them if they had turned away an interracial couple with the reason that they have a sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix?

            Were they turning away couples who wanted a wedding cake if either of the couple had been divorced for reasons other than adultery? Were they turning down orders for a wedding shower if the couple were having sexual relations? Were they turning away orders for a cake for a baby shower is the mother was unwed? Were they turning away orders for a wedding cake if the wedding wasn’t happening before the god they chose to believe in?

            How would any of those be acceptable based upon their religious beliefs, but a cake for two people of the same gender be not acceptable?

            They were applying their religious conscience on a very selective basis. There’s a word for that – hypocrisy.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Maybe they were turning away people for all those reasons and the lesbian couple were the only ones who filed a lawsuit

          • acontraryview

            If they were making other decisions based upon their biblical beliefs they most certainly would have brought that up in the proceedings as a defense of their actions.

          • Chrissy Vee

            I am sure they do not ask people what their marital backgrounds are. First and foremost, that is between the engaged and God. The baker is making a cake without that knowledge and is therefore not sinning against their conscience. The fact that the couple was lesbian was clear and in God’s Word abominable. They never turned away gay customers… it was about the wedding.
            And none of you take into account that “gay marriage” was not legal before any of these Christians established their businesses. It is unfathomable to me that NOBODY took into consideration EVERY person that would be involved in/affected by that decision to make a God forsaken lifestyle a legal matter. Everybody just has to shut up, lay down and obey.
            And by the way, when a Muslim business turns gays away, where are the law suits? The outcries? The migraines? The loss of confidence? The harassment? Hm?
            What you and a lot of people don’t see behind the “law” is the homosexual agenda, just a small segment of the web of deception (yes, they are being duped) being woven to obliterate all things Christian. You probably don’t see or believe that either.

          • acontraryview

            “I am sure they do not ask people what their marital backgrounds are.”

            Why not? If not participating in something that is against their religious beliefs is so very, very important to them, shouldn’t they have been asking? Or, better yet, they could have put a sign up:

            We don’t make cakes for:

            * weddings if either of the couple have been divorced for reasons other than adultery

            * wedding showers if the couple is having sexual relations

            * baby showers if the mother is unwed

            * weddings if the ceremony is not taking place before the Christian god

            yet, they didn’t? Why not?

            “They never turned away gay customers.”

            And yet the Bible makes clear that it is BEING homosexual that is an abomination and mentions NOTHING about two people of the same gender entering into a civil marriage. So how could they possibly justify serving homosexuals at all? There mere sexuality is a biblical abomination.

            “And none of you take into account that “gay marriage” was not legal before any of these Christians established their businesses.”

            The legality of gay marriage has nothing to do with it. Gay marriage wasn’t legal in Oregon when this situation occurred.

            “Everybody just has to shut up, lay down and obey.”

            Clearly not. People are free to not open a business that deals with wedding related matters. You have obviously not “shut up” about it. And no one is required to marry someone of the same gender – so no one is forced to “obey” the legality of same-gender marriage. Spare me the hyperbole and false persecution complex.

            “And by the way, when a Muslim business turns gays away, where are the law suits?”

            Are you aware of any?

            “being woven to obliterate all things Christian”

            Oh, please, Chrissy. Spare me the hyperbole. How in the world does allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage or providing protections in public accommodation, housing, and employment based upon sexuality, result in the obliteration of all things Christian?

            Have all things Christian been obliterated in Canada, Spain, France, England, or any of the other countries that have had same-gender marriage for far longer than the US?

            You need to take that big Christian chip off your shoulder and recognize that just because you can’t control and limit the lives of others based upon your religious beliefs does not mean that your beliefs are being obliterated. They just simply are no longer a basis for controlling the lives of others.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Much ado about…? You sure went through a lot of hubbub without any understanding of what I wrote. I am not surprised as you are blind to spiritual matters but, hey, it’s your time. Speaking of, I am not wasting any more of mine. Bonne chance et bonne nuit.

          • acontraryview

            I understood everything you wrote and addressed every single item in your post.

            By your lack of response I assuming that you can come up with no good reason why they didn’t ask questions that would ensure they would not participate in something that was against their religious beliefs. You can come up with no explanation why they couldn’t place a sign up indicating the type of events they did not want to be involved in. Therefore, you agree that their application of the religious belief in this one situation was hypocritical.

            Further, you are not aware of any similar situations involving Muslim business owners so your inquiry has no validity.

            You can provide no examples of Christianity being “obliterated” in other countries where gay people fought for legal marriage nor can you explain how being allowed to enter into civil marriage, nor being protected in public accommodations, housing, and employment, results in the “obliteration” of Christianity, which renders your assertion without merit.

            And clearly, you have not removed that big Christian chip from your shoulder. Ahhhh…the poor widdle Christians that want to limit what other people can do because they don’t agree with it aren’t getting to any more. Waa, waa, waa.

            Give it a rest, Chrissy. This is the US. We aren’t run according to the Christian belief system. Just because you don’t get to tell others how to live or what limits they have to live under based upon your beliefs doesn’t mean that your belief system is being “obliterated”. It’s just not being used as a basis for controlling others. You are still free to judge all you want, live as you care to within legal bounds, and pretend that because you have chosen to believe something, everyone else is wrong and going to spend eternity in a lake of fire.

            I firmly support your right to believe as you care to and to make decisions regarding your personal life that are in accordance with your beliefs. I will fight any effort to take that right away from you. But that does not mean you get to impose your sense of what is right and wrong on others. The moment you attempt to do that, you put your rights at risk.

            If you want to live in a Christian Theocracy, then move. I understand Vatican City is beautiful at this time of year.

          • Chrissy Vee

            ;o zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Janice James

            YES, YOUR HYPOCRISY,, THE LESBIANS MADE THEIR CHOICES,AND WHINED TO THE COURT WHEN THE RAN INTO CHRISTIANS STANDING FOR THEIR OWN FAITH,,, CHOICES THAT SICKEN OTHERS, BUT NONE THE LESS CHOICES TO GO AGAINST SOCIETY. JUST BECAUSE THEIR IS A LAW SAYING WE CANNOT SPIT ON A SIDE WALK,, DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE IS GOING TO THE CURB TO SPIT! GO FIGURE.

          • acontraryview

            “THE LESBIANS MADE THEIR CHOICES,AND WHINED TO THE COURT WHEN THE RAN INTO CHRISTIANS STANDING FOR THEIR OWN FAITH”

            Really, Janice, take off your caps lock key. It just looks childish.

            So you think that holding people accountable for breaking the law is “whining”?

            “CHOICES THAT SICKEN OTHERS,”

            Oh, Janice, I don’t think that someone choosing to be Christian sickens anyone.

          • Janice James

            AGAIN CRISSY THANK YOU ! o/ JAN

          • Chrissy Vee

            😀

          • Janice James

            THANK YOU CRISSY VEE, I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!
            o/ JAN

          • Janice James

            THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS, THE FIRST SCHOOL BOOK WAS THE HOLY BIBLE,, FAITH AND BELIEF HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUR COUNTRY. JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT THE MONEY, DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU FROM PAYING LATER, GOD WILL JUDGE YOU ON THIS STUFF.

          • mantis

            go read the Constitution and tell us were it say your god has authority over anything

          • acontraryview

            Your belief is not a basis for our laws, Cobra, as much as you may want them to be.

          • afchief

            It sure is the basis for our laws. Your knowledge of our history and country is quite ignorant. As usually!!!!

            Do I need to post our history to show you truth.

          • acontraryview

            “It sure is the basis for our laws.”

            Then please explain why the protections of our Constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments.

          • afchief

            Which ones and how?

          • acontraryview

            The first, second and fourth commandments directly conflict with the Constitution’s protections regarding religious belief.

            The third commandment directly conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of free speech.

            The fifth and seventh commandments directly conflict with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of association.

            The tenth conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of thought.

            By the way, you really should give some thought to the ninth commandment. It is one you violate on a regular basis.

          • afchief

            “The first, second and fourth commandments directly conflict with the Constitution’s protections regarding religious belief.”

            How?

            “The third commandment directly conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of free speech.”

            This applies to Christians

            “The fifth and seventh commandments directly conflict with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of association.”

            How?

            “The tenth conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of thought.”

            How?

            “By the way, you really should give some thought to the ninth commandment. It is one you violate on a regular basis.”

            Yes, you are a liar!!!!

          • acontraryview

            If our country was based upon the Christian belief system:

            There would not be protections regarding freedom of religious belief as Christianity requires belief in only the Christian god.

            People would not be allowed to take the Christian’s god name in vain.

            People would be required to honor their mother and father and would not be allowed to commit adultery.

            People would not be allowed to covet their neighbors possessions. Coveting is an emotional state. Therefore it would be illegal to have that emotion.

            “yes, you are a liar”

            Yet you continue to be unable to point to anything I have said that is a lie. In other words, you are bearing false witness. How do you plan on explaining that to God when you come before him?

          • afchief

            These are moral laws. You cannot understand them since you are of a reprobate mind.

            I will not go into the spiritual side of these commandments since I know you cannot understand them.

          • acontraryview

            “These are moral laws.”

            Those are Christian moral laws. Christianity is not the basis for the laws of our nation.

            “since I know you cannot understand them.”

            it’s clear you do not understand the moral law of bearing false witness, as you do it on a regular basis. How are you going to explain that to God?

          • afchief

            Defining a Christian Nation

            Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

            Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

            [I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

            So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

            Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

            In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. 10

            Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

            [W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. 11

            Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

            A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;

            The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);

            Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;

            A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and

            A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

            Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

            American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

            With his statement, President Barack Obama became the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. 13 JOHN ADAMS

            [T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. 14 TEDDY ROOSEVELT

            America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. 15 WOODROW WILSON

            American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. 16 HERBERT HOOVER

            This is a Christian Nation. 17 HARRY TRUMAN

            Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. 18 RICHARD NIXON

            There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

            Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, 19 not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church. 20

            (The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. 21 While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” 22 )

            Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

            No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. 23

            President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).

            Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

          • acontraryview

            While whoever you plagiarized this time is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, the fact remains that our country was not founded on the Christian belief system, our Constitution is largely at odds with the Christian belief system, and our laws are not determined based solely upon the Christian belief system.

          • afchief

            Yes, you are quite the liar!! Go read our Declaration of Independence and tell me if it mentions God?

            The Founders stated that the republican form of government formed by the Constitution can only work for a virtuous people. We have strayed from, abused and debased the Constitution because our society has strayed from, abused and debased our morals i.e homosexuality, etc. What used to be shameful, is now permitted, and unfortunately becoming normalized in some states and communities (and our schools). Leaving Natural Law and morals is leaving the foundation of the Constitution. Leaving the Constitution necessarily means that we are no longer a republic (a representative federation).

          • acontraryview

            “Go read our Declaration of Independence and tell me if it mentions God?”

            It does not. I mentions “their Creator”. Further, the DoI does not serve as a basis for our laws. The Constitution serves as that basis and the Constitution makes no mention of God.

            I’ll ask again: What lies have I told?

          • afchief

            You really are quite ignorant!! What does Creator equal. A rock?!?!? Christianity has always been the prevalent religion of this Country. The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity.

            Yes, you are a liar!!!!

            Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

            http://christianity.about. com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

            Preamble.

            …We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new Constitution of Civil Government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, DO agree upon, ordain and establish, the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS.

            Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

            Art. I — All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

            Art. II.— It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

            Art. III. — As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

            Thus the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution, and first three Articles of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, principally authored by John Adams. The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1780, and served as a model for the federal Constitution which was drafted seven years later.

            The Massachusetts Constitution has the distinction of being “the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world.”

            It is QUITE OBVIOUS which God it was!!!

            Thanks so much for the ping to this engaging article, dear YHAOS!

            WHAT PLACE DID GOD, CHRIST, THE BIBLE, AND CHRISTIANITY HAVE IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND

            COLONISTS? PLEASE JUDGE FOR YOURSELF FROM THE EVIDENCE BELOW.

            All of us posting here have been brought up in an America whose early history was largely revised, removed from local libraries, and/or deliberately removed from school textbooks. We must remember that the so-called “liberal” or “progressive” movement began before we were born, and by the time we were in school, much of the work to distort, dissemble, and remove the essential ideas of liberty from textbooks and public discourse already had begun to occur. As a result, we must look to early histories, original documents, or the writings and speeches of the day. Even Theologians are not a reliable source for answers to these questions, for they have been trained in similar educational institutions as the rest of us.

            An 1872 history by Frothingham is available for reading online. “Rise of the Republic of the United States . . . ” traces the “Christian Idea of Man” as the idea which underlay the development of America. Then, there is an 1876 Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon by Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, available in the American Memory Section of the LOC (African-American Collection) which provides great detail and documentation for the idea that America was, indeed, founded as a “Christian” nation, including references to Supreme Court Justices’ statements and other documentation from records.

            As for Jefferson, for obvious reasons, he did not discuss his personal faith publicly, and said so. Some of his pertinent comments in letters have been posted on this thread already, and I will not repeat those. There are others though which may provide another glimpse that the censors and mind controllers of the Left have failed to acknowledge in their quest to misuse a single phrase from his Letter to the Baptists.

            For instance:

            “Our Saviour… has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

            Then, we might examine “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 2.

            Author: Thomas Jefferson

            Editor: Paul Leicester Ford

            Part of: The Works of Thomas Jefferson, 12 vols Notes on religion l

            This should be read in its entirety as an indication of Jefferson’s diligent study of the subject. The following are only a selected few observations from these “Notes.”

            To Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 January 1808 “Sir, -I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

            “I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

            “I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.”

            To James Fishback, 27 September 1809 (L&B 12:315):

            “Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all nations agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness,) and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality. In all of them we see good men, and as many in one as another. The varieties in the structure and action of the human mind as in those of the body, are the work of our Creator, against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniformity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. It is, then, a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize.”

            To Miles King, 26 September 1814 (L&B 14:197-8):

            “He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of His state, He can feel pain or pleasure in anything we may do; He is far above our power; but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by One whom you and I equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone. I inquire after no man’s, and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes, are exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind, and find ourselves united in those principles only in which God has united us all.”

            “Our Savior chose not to propagate his religion by temporal punishments or civil incapacitation, if he had, it was in his almighty power. But he chose to extend it by it’s influence on reason, there by shewing to others how they should proceed.”

            “Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. together in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ This is his definition of a society. He does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. Without them it suffices for the salvation of souls.”

            “Compulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgment, but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.

            “Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth, or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way, cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses: & whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses & therefore prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child. It should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children: it is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs. They may therefore be religiously sacrificed, but if the good of the state required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.

            “Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error. If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner & no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for faction & flagitiousness.”

            “Our wish… is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:382

            “It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

          • acontraryview

            “What does Creator equal.”

            It refers to generic Supreme Being, not any specific religions view of a Supreme Being.

            “Christianity has always been the prevalent religion of this Country.”

            Agreed.

            “The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity.”

            No, they are not. As I have pointed out, the protections of the Constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments, which clearly shows that the US was not designed to be a country which based its laws on the Christian belief system.

            “yes, you are a liar!!!!”

            Again, you have failed to cite one thing I have said that is a lie. Why do you continue to bear false witness?

            “The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1780, and served as a model for the federal Constitution which was drafted seven years later.”

            Since the Federal Constitution makes no mention of God or the worship of God, that statement is clearly false.

            While I doubt it was your intent, the quotes from Jefferson merely bolster my point that the government is to play no role in religion and is to not make decisions based upon religious belief. Thanks for supporting my position.

            Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Jefferson himself wrote his own version of the Bible, leaving out any portions that referred to Jesus as being of divine origin.

          • afchief

            “It refers to generic Supreme Being, not any specific religions view of a Supreme Being.”

            BYE! I’m done dealing with a liar and stupidity. Both of these traits are yours 100%!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            If what I said is not true, then why did they specifically choose the phrase “their Creator” rather than “the Christian God” or simply “God”?

            “BYE!”

            It’s always interesting to see how long it takes you to flee when your arguments are proven false. Not doubt that is tiresome for you.

            “I’m done dealing with a liar”

            Since you have been unable to point to anything I have said which is a lie, yet continue to accuse me of lying, and who show little knowledge of our Constitution, history, or workings of our legal system, I will assume that you mean you are done dealing with yourself.

            “Both of these traits are yours 100%!!!!!”

            Again with the bearing of false witness. How are you going to explain that to God?

          • afchief

            When you are conversing with a reprobate mind (you) there is no truth in you. When I present the truth…………you lie!!!!

            YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Given that it has been shown over and over that what you put forth as “truth” is, in fact, false, it would appear that you are the one with the reprobate mind.

            “YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!”

            Again with the bearing of false witness. You sure are going to have some explaining to do when you meet your maker.

          • afchief

            The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

            Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

            HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. 24

            SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? 25

            In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

            [T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 26

            On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation” 27 because:

            [S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. 28 (emphasis added)

            President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, 29 and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history. 30

            Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

          • afchief

            The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

            From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

            Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

            One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 32

            His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

            In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 33

            Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

            For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. 34

            Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

            We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 35

            Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

            We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” 36

            Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

            [I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37

            Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

            I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. 38

            There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” 39 filled with “Christian people,” 40 and was indeed “a Christian nation.” 41 Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements 42 but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

            This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. 43

            In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

            For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

            Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. 44

            In another case, the Court similarly explained:

            The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. 45

            And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” 46

            The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

            We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. 47

            The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

            In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . . The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. 48

            For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, 49 across India, 50 Pakistan, 51 Saudi Arabia, 52 Malaysia, 53 and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. 54

            The Supreme Court commended this position 55 and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, 56 when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” 57

            Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

            It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . 58

            The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

            [I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. . . . Thus. . . . “It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ” 59

            The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, 60 and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position 61 – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, 62 including in the late 1990s. 63

            These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation.

          • afchief

            American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

            Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

            This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history. 64

            Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

            [C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with. 65

            Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

            If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe. 66

            Prager further explained:

            I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. 67

            Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

            Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. 68 The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here. 69

            In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

            Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America. 70

            Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

            The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation. 71

            Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

            I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. 72

            Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

            [I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. 73

            In fact, with foreboding he warns:

            Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. 74 God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! 75

            — — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —

            President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” 76

            Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.

            The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

          • acontraryview

            Treaty of Tripoli:

            “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”

            Article 11 of the Treaty: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”

            Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University:

            “By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797.”

          • afchief

            Ahhhh, the liar has spoken again!!! The USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts, despite the far-left’s and homo talking points. When the first people from the European Continent stepped foot on the New Land, they were escaping from the Church of England.

            They weren’t free to hold different beliefs than the beliefs of that Church. What was common among them, was the Ten Commandments. No Islam, Buda, or whatever, was present in the early formation of this Nation.

            We do know the founders were men of conviction and morality, and for this reason they would still abhor even the idea of homosexuality much less be for marriage between two people of the same sex. If you think otherwise, you are delusional. In fact, they would be horrified we’re even having this conversation. In their time, the topic of homosexuality would be whispered among themselves, if at all, and certainly with no ladies present.

          • acontraryview

            “The USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts”

            What concepts would those be?

            “When the first people from the European Continent stepped foot on the New Land, they were escaping from the Church of England.”

            They didn’t “escape”, they left. The reason they left was that they did NOT want to ruled according to the beliefs of the Church. Given that, it would be rather asinine to assume that they left a situation because they didn’t want to be ruled by religious beliefs only to establish a country that was based upon religious beliefs.

            “If you think otherwise, you are delusional.”

            I have no idea what the founders would think but that is not relevant. Most likely the founders would think that black people being treated equally and allowed to vote would be abhorrent. Most likely they would think that allowing women to vote would be abhorrent. Most likely they would think that women being treated equally, and not as property, would be abhorrent. It matters not what they would think.

          • afchief

            Yes, the distorted view of the indoctrinated homosexual left!!! Which is a Lie!!!! Over 30% of the founders were ministers. Most were religious men. They came here to practice Christianity out from under the control of the King. Remember One Nation Under God”.

            The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that our rights come from God. The Founders were very particular on that point, because it assured that any government was subject to the authority of God.

            The State is comprised of people; fallible, whimsical people. Our rights are an integral component of our humanity. The State cannot strip of us our rights, since they are God-given. The State can only actively force or passively coerce us into not exercising them. People-driven (or State granted) rights are not rights at all; they are privileges.

            This is NOT what the Founders intended or designed for America.

            History clearly shows that whenever a people reach a certain point of oppression, where working within the system does not achieve happiness or when freedoms are seriously broached, the people will rise up. This is a universal trait of humanity. The Founders were looking for an authority higher than any on Earth as justification for rising up – they chose God.

            Stop lying with your liberal/homosexual garbage!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Which is a Lie!!!!”

            What lie?

            “Over 30% of the founders were ministers.”

            That leaves a majority who were not.

            “Most were religious men.”

            Agreed. But most were Deists.

            “Remember One Nation Under God”.”

            Which was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s.

            “The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that our rights come from God.”

            No, it does not “specifically” cite God. It cites Creator.

            “because it assured that any government was subject to the authority of God.”

            Since God is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution defines the authority of the Government, as well as its limitations, your statement is false.

            “The State cannot strip of us our rights, since they are God-given.”

            The inability of the state to strip us of our rights is based upon the Constitution. It is not based upon the beliefs of any particular religion.

            “People-driven (or State granted) rights are not rights at all; they are privileges.”

            The Constitution grants citizens various rights. It was written my man. It makes no mention of God.

            “The Founders were looking for an authority higher than any on Earth as justification for rising up – they chose God.”

            God is not mentioned in the Constitution. If what you way were true, then the Founders would have most certainly included such references in the Constitution. They did not, and they did not on purpose.

            “Stop lying with your liberal/homosexual garbage!!!!”

            Again, please cite anything I have said which is a lie.

          • afchief

            BYE! I not even reading you lying stupid homosexual posts anymore!!!

            YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Unfortunate that you continue to bear false witness against me. it merely points out the weakness of your arguments.

        • Chip01

          Christians are no longer under that Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear.

          • acontraryview

            Then why did you quote the OT above?

          • Chip01

            I don’t think I quoted anything…

          • acontraryview

            My apologies. My response was misdirected.

          • afchief

            If homosexuality was an abomination in the OT, why do you think it is not one now?

          • acontraryview

            How one views homosexuality depends on one’s belief system. You are certainly free to believe that homosexuality is an abomination.

          • afchief

            It’s God’s view!!!!

          • acontraryview

            More accurately: It is what you have chosen to believe is God’s view. Unless you are God (which is highly doubtful as I do not believe that God would call someone a liar without being able to prove they are lying, as you are prone to do) you cannot say with certainty what God’s views are.

          • afchief

            I sure can because His Spirit lives within me and I have the mind of Christ. And I am also an ambassador for Christ

            When I state that homosexuality is sin, I am stating what already has been said. IT IS TRUTH!!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you are saying that Christ would bear false witness?

            “IT IS TRUTH!!!!”

            It is certainly true that the Bible says that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is a sin, and you are free to believe that because it is in the Bible it is therefore true.

          • afchief

            Did I not say a reprobate mind cannot see truth?

            I sure did!!!!

          • acontraryview

            You say a lot of things, dear. Most of them false.

          • Bob Johnson

            Kind of arrogant. You alone know the mind of God.

          • afchief

            1 Corinthians 2:16 (NASB) For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

        • acontraryview

          The Bible says that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is an abomination. The Bible also says eating shell fish is an abomination. You are certainly free to believe that the Bible contains God’s law, but that is a matter of belief. That’s why it’s call “faith” and not “fact”.

          • afchief

            No, it is FACT! Even a rational and logical mind knows this. A reprobate mind does NOT!!!

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly free to believe it is fact, but your belief does not make it so. Religion is a matter of faith. What would be considered “reprobate” is also a matter of faith.

          • afchief

            Again, you are on a Christian site and our views will, and cannot change!!! This verse in the bible is dealing with homosexuality.

            Romans 1:28 (NASB) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved (reprobate) mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • acontraryview

            You are free to believe as you like.

          • Bob Johnson

            The views of Christians do change. For example, look to Martin Luther’s Reformation. Or the changing of mass from latin to the native language of the people.

          • afchief

            Apples and oranges! Let me be more specific. Our views on homosexuality will not change. It was sin thousands of years ago, it is sin today.

          • singlemom_4

            Now we don’t live by the old testament, it is simply for our learning, but we are to be living by the standards set in the new testament which is our new covenant cemented by Christ blood, death, and resurrection to life. He is not dead and neither is his requirements for holy living; he is in heaven, sitting at the right of God’s throne, and ultimately he will judge the thoughts and actions of Man according to his words and his standards, not man’s deviation, and not man’s laws. There are many scriptures in the new testament that outline homosexuality as wrong, as exchanging the truth for a lie, as giving one’s self over to disgraceful sexual appetites: changing the natural use of sex into one that is contrary to nature. The Bible says that the males even left the natural use of the female: sexual intercourse, and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males having sex with males, doing what is obscene and receiving the full judgment, which was due for their error (Romans 1:27). It says this both about homosexuals and lesbians in (Rom 1:26-32) and spells out God’s judgment for such activity, as the women started having sex with each other, which works contrary or devisive to nature. Which is why two men or two women cannot produce children together, as it is again, contrary to what is the natural design for how human beings are to function sexually. God’s word says that those who do these shameful things will separate themselves from him in eternal death both physically and spiritually in a place called hell. A place where those who break his laws will be punished (Jude 7).

            And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished (Jude 7). God further says that gay’s (homosexuals and lesbians cannot go to heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10), they must repent and put faith in Christ to save them and must stop practicing sinful homosexuality, and live a Christ centered life. As James so eloquently put it, we must rid ourselves of all the filthiness and sordidness of our flesh, and welcome with humbleness the implanted word that has the power to save our souls (James 1:21). Unfortunately, many have been blinded by the god of this world system, who is Satan, as they are unbelievers, having no faith in God’s words, and they prove themselves to be Satan’s children (2 Cor 4:4).

            As far as faith is concerned,
            Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence (proof) of things not seen. -Hebrews 11:1
            I say that to say this:
            The proof that something exists is not always appearing. Let me explain.

            1. Air cannot be seen, yet you need it for survival. How do you know it’s there? Just inhale and then exhale, continue and you are living by what cannot be seen, but it is a necessary and needed resource to survival.

            2. Monoxide, that colorless, odorless gas that cannot be seen, but if you come in contact with it, without having the proper instruments to advise you of its presence, the results can be deadly. Just fall asleep when it is present, and you will never wake up.

            3. As well, Gravity cannot be seen, but break it’s laws and you will feel it’s response: you are going to break many bones, or worse death.

            So the belief ascribed that something doesn’t exist because it cannot be physically seen is baseless, and is not supported by the ‘evidential’ examples shown and proven in my commentary. The spiritual world, which God is a Spirit—that life giving spirit, literally exhaling his breath into man causing him to be a living soul (a human being), is more powerful than the natural world, in which we live. For the natural world came from the spiritual world, which the human eye cannot behold. We are proof of the spiritual world’s existence, you can’t see it but it’s there.

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. But they are just that – beliefs.

            1. Air can be seen from space

            2. Carbon monoxide, as you stated, can be measured by a meter.

            3. Gravity can be observed by watching objects of smaller mass interact with objects of greater mass.

            “So the belief ascribed that something doesn’t exist because it cannot be physically seen is baseless”

            I’ve never put forth such a belief. I have a strong belief in God. I just do not share your beliefs regarding God. Perhaps i’m wrong and you are right. Perhaps you are wrong and I am wrong. Perhaps we are both wrong. Neither of us will know for certain until we die. Until then, it is belief. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Seperation between church and state. Nope your God law doesn’t trump mans law. But nice try anyways.

          • Cobra

            God sets up his laws for mankind but he will not force you to obey…so yes you are correct on this Earth, but on that final day, yes Gods laws trump all.

      • Oboehner

        That and the 135 grand doesn’t hurt either, so if everything is equal, when are the carpet munchers going to pay the bakery for their “emotional trauma”?

        • mantis

          you realize that they aren’t getting nay of that? they just filed the complaint

          • Oboehner

            Who gets that money then?

          • mantis

            the goverment

          • Oboehner

            Abusing power and robbing us blind.

          • mantis

            nope.

          • Oboehner

            Yup.

          • mantis

            prove it

          • Oboehner

            Read the article at all?

          • mantis

            I did and I don’t care for the spin it’s trying to put on this story, the bakery broke the law and posted the personnel information of the couple online so they would be harassed and get death threats, they deserve all the punishment they get

          • Oboehner

            A simple Google search would have revealed their identities as well as the identities of the bakery owners. I fail to see the difference or the reason to punish the bakery owners for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

          • mantis

            their freedom of speech odsne’t include giving out other peoples personnel information. the couple has a right to their privacy

          • Oboehner

            Which couple?

          • mantis

            the gay couple who were discriminated against

          • Oboehner

            The bakers were discriminated against, forced against their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion in favor of sexual perverts exercising an activity choice which is not protected.

          • mantis

            no they aren’t, it’s not discrimination to be expected t follow the same laws as everyone else.

          • Oboehner

            A lifestyle choice does not trump constitutionally protected rights – no discrimination involved except against the bakery.

          • mantis

            exactly, the lifestyle choice of religion doesn’t trump the couples right to be free of discrimination

          • Oboehner

            Then you can show me sexual deviancy as a protected right in the Constitution? Don’t think so, activity choices are not a protected right.

          • mantis

            several state list sexual orientation as a protected statues including the one the bakers live in and choices are protected like your choice to be Christian

          • singlemom_4

            Aren’t the Sweet Cakes owners suppose to pay taxes on that $135,000? I notice they didn’t put the money in the personal bank accounts. I wonder why? It would have been easier to just bake the cake. God won’t judge anybody for baking a cake, it’s just food. Why did they overpay? It’s clear to me that they didn’t put much forethought to their actions. What an ordeal to have to face. And I’m quite sure they don’t have the money to cover the taxes on that $135,000. Just bake the cake or shut the business down. Thank goodness Florida doesn’t have these kind of laws. I’m pretty sure we’d all be suing for emotional damages. Floridians are some of the most fraudulent people on the planet.

          • mantis

            Florida does have anti-discrimination laws and lesbians don’t hate men they just aren’t attracted to them

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Roflmao! So every woman who is hetero and desides to stay single hates men too then?

          • Oboehner

            Haven’t been following the story have we? Save the knee-jerk reaction until you’ve read the whole thing.

        • acontraryview

          The lesbians didn’t break the law, so there no issue of equal treatment under the law that would require a payment to the bakers.

          • Korova Milk Bar

            they hurt people and the people have answered. funds raised to show support against the agenda of hate, like muzzl’ems hate, just like it.
            everyone doesn’t get a trophy

          • acontraryview

            Expecting people to conduct business according to the law is an “agenda of hate”? How so?

          • Korova Milk Bar

            faulty comparison. agenda that all know. play a game but WE won’t. fund raisers saw it and maybe some day you will as the muzzl’emz are throwin you off of a roof? that’s what is coming in the same “basket” of trash that this is

          • acontraryview

            How is it faulty? The case was about a business that broke the law. The customers held them accountable for breaking the law. How is that an “agenda of hate”?

          • Korova Milk Bar

            so this is the VERY FIRST time it happened in USA? The ABSOLUTE very first time WE got caught hating “you people”?

          • acontraryview

            Who is “you people”? What “hating” are you talking about?

          • Korova Milk Bar

            “It is clear to me that you are not a truth seeker – not open-minded to data that conflicts with your ideology.”

            Since you haven’t provided any, how is it you are able to come to that conclusion. Your response is truly pathetic – blaming someone else for your inadequacy. Have you always been so insecure that you are unable to admit that you made something up?

          • acontraryview

            Were you trying to make a point? If so, you failed miserably.

          • singlemom_4

            Gay people are the most insecure and ignorant people on the planet, I thought you knew that.

          • mantis

            and you’re evidence for this? because it seems Christians are the ignorant and insecure ones

          • Korova Milk Bar

            I do! It’s as made up as all the rest of it.
            Wake up, eat, cr*p, work, eat,pee, do the dishes and go to bed.
            tomorrow same same ……………………….

          • Janice James

            IT IS HATEFUL IS THAT ANY CLEARER?!!!

          • acontraryview

            No, Janice. Putting something in all caps and using multiple exclamation points does not make it clearer. It makes it more obnoxious. How is it hateful to hold someone accountable to the law?

          • singlemom_4

            When they denied this same-sex couple it was back in 2012 before that law was passed in 2013, so at the time of the denial, they were not breaking any law as those laws didn’t exist. The person who followed this complaint, Advarkian, and advised the administrative judge on how much to originally charge the Sweet Cakes owners is gay himself, so this case was biased. How can you be guilty of breaking a law, when the law didn’t even exist at the time of the denial to bake the cake for the same sex couple?

          • mantis

            the law was the sates nondiscrimination laws

          • acontraryview

            “When they denied this same-sex couple it was back in 2012 before that law was passed in 2013”

            What law are you referring to? The anti-discrimination legislation that was the basis for the charges was put into place in Oregon in 2007.

            “The person who followed this complaint, Advarkian, and advised the administrative judge on how much to originally charge the Sweet Cakes owners is gay himself, so this case was biased.”

            The sexuality of Advarkain does not mean that bias was in play. If that were true, then since the judge was heterosexual there was bias, no?

            “How can you be guilty of breaking a law, when the law didn’t even exist at the time of the denial to bake the cake for the same sex couple?”

            The law was put into place in 2007.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “The person who followed this complaint, Advarkian, and advised the administrative judge on how much to originally charge the Sweet Cakes owners is gay himself, so this case was biased.”

            So who would be unbiased enough to handle this case? An asexual?

          • singlemom_4

            Really, this public accommodations law was passed in 2013. The denial to bake a wedding cake for sad gay couple occurred in 2012—no law existed for them break. Gay civil unions were not legal at the time this event occurred. Again, no laws broken. This came because of pressure from the gay agenda masters, the LGBTIQP. Besides everyone knows all gay’s are going to hell if they don’t STOP their abominable, filthy sex practices. So I don’t know why they’re pushing so hard for acceptance. God doesn’t except you gays, unless you repent, which means change from the wrong you’re doing.

          • acontraryview

            The Oregon anti-discrimination law was effective in 2007.

            “God doesn’t except you gays, unless you repent, which means change from the wrong you’re doing.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty what he accepts and doesn’t accept. Your views are a matter of belief. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • Janice James

            THEY GOT THEIR CHEAP UNEARNED PAYOLA,,, THIS IS CRIMINAL, IN ANY OTHER PLACE,,, BUT THEY WERE SO “SPECIAL” ,,, YA RIGHT!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “THIS IS CRIMINAL”

            Yes, it was criminal. That’s why they were fined.

          • CountryEdge

            Yeah they’re special alright…

          • Oboehner

            Sure they did, they violated the other couple’s right to religious freedom protected in the First Amendment.

          • acontraryview

            They attempted to order a cake. How does attempting to order a cake violate protections provided by the 1st Amendment?

          • Oboehner

            Just order a cake? Or did the lesbo’s want the bakers to serve up at their debauchery celebration?

          • acontraryview

            They attempted to order a cake. There was no discussion regarding who would be serving the cake as the discussion never got that far.

            I’ll ask again: How does attempting to order a cake violate protections provided by the 1st Amendment?

          • Oboehner

            Haven’t been following the story have you? The bakers stated they sold baked goods to mentally challenged perverts all the time, but declined when it went farther and were asked to deliver and set up – which meant a degree of participation. But again somehow the “rights” of sickos trumps the constitutionally protected right to practice one’s religion.

          • acontraryview

            You really don’t know the story, do you? As soon as the bakers were told that the cake was for two people of the same gender, they declined the order. There was ZERO discussion about any other details.

            “But again somehow”

            That “somehow” was the people of Oregon approving a change to their anti-discrimination laws. You know – state’s rights – the will of the people – those things that those who were fighting for the states to be able to determine their own laws regarding marriage were so heavily touting. But I guess they only support that when it is in line with what they agree with, huh?

            “trumps the constitutionally protected right to practice one’s religion.”

            The Constitution’s protections regarding religious expression do not extend to areas of public accommodation as relates to anti-discrimination laws. You would benefit from a better understanding of the law and the Constitution.

          • Oboehner

            Again – The bakers stated they sold baked goods to mentally challenged perverts all the time, but declined when it went farther and were asked to deliver and set up – which meant a degree of participation. This was in an earlier article posted on the same instance. You really don’t know the story, do you?
            Show me public accommodation in the Constitution, not some vague representation, but where it explicitly states that a private business doesn’t have the right to refuse service, then show me where sexual perversion is a protected right in that same document.

          • acontraryview

            Again, you are mistaken. No request for delivery or serving was made. The moment they found it was a cake for a wedding celebration for two women, they refused the order. Here are statements made by one of the owners:

            “he said, and they’ve turned down requests in the past to bake cakes for those occasions.” Note: “TO BAKE”. Not: “to deliver and serve”.

            “He said he told them that his business doesn’t sell cakes for same-sex marriages and that he was sorry for wasting their time.” Note: “SELL” Not: “to deliver and serve”.

            You really don’t know the story, do you?

            “Show me public accommodation in the Constitution”

            Laws are not contained in the Constitution. Laws are contained in federal, state, county, and local legal codes. Federal protections regarding public accommodation are found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, although sexual orientation is not currently included in federal legislation. In addition, states, counties, and cities also have anti-discrimination legislation which covers public accommodation. In the state of Oregon, that includes sexual orientation.

            It appears that in addition to being misinformed about this case, you are also misinformed about the Constitution and the law. Unfortunate that you continue to comment when doing so from such a misinformed standpoint.

          • Oboehner

            “I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” he said. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”
            “We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, noted.
            How do you think the cake was to get to the pervert party?

            “Laws are not contained in the Constitution.” I see you don’t understand that either, the Constitution is the pillar of law, it is the rule all other laws are measured – hence the Supreme Court finding one law or the other unconstitutional. And when activist judges overstep their bounds, we have impeachment and juror nullification listed.

            So – Show me public accommodation in the Constitution, not some vague representation, but where it explicitly states that a private business doesn’t have the right to refuse service, then show me where sexual perversion is a protected right in that same document. Everything else is just bla bla bla.

          • acontraryview

            “How do you think the cake was to get to the pervert party?”

            Gosh. Let me think. How in the world could a cake get to a venue unless the people who baked it delivered it. Hmmmmm….Oh wait, I know, someone could have picked it up! Yeah. That’s it!

            None of what you wrote changes the fact that the bakers were not asked to deliver and/or serve the cake. The discussion never got that far. Those are simply the facts of the case. As Mr. Klein clearly stated in his comments, the issue was MAKING the cake. Not the delivery and serving of it.

            “I see you don’t understand that either”

            So you are saying that the Constitution DOES contain laws? Please, cite one.

            “the Constitution is the pillar of law”

            Agreed. The Constitution is the document from which are laws are derived. Our laws fulfill the protections and rights provided for by the Constitution. The Constitution itself, however, does not contain laws.

            “And when activist judges overstep their bounds, we have impeachment and juror nullification listed.”

            You should feel free to request that your representative in the House file impeachment charges against whoever you feel is an “activist” judge. Good luck with that.

            How would juror nullification be related to “activist judges” overstepping their bounds?

            “So – Show me public accommodation in the Constitution”

            Again, you show your ignorance of how our laws work. Public Accommodation issues are a matter of law. They are not contained in the Constitution. Just as marriage is not contained in the Constitution. There are, nonetheless, laws which pertain to both issues. No where in the Constitution do you find mention of Driver’s Licenses – let laws exist regarding driver’s licenses. Show me where in the Constitution it says you can’t own a nuclear warhead. Etc., Etc.

            If “show me public accommodation in the Constitution” is all you got – all you got is bla bla bla.

          • Oboehner

            “Oh wait, I know, someone could have picked it up!” Oh wait, then they probably would have sold it to the perverts like they did before!

            “So you are saying that the Constitution DOES contain laws? Please, cite one.” How about all of it, it is the rule of law.

            “You should feel free to request that your representative in the House file impeachment charges against whoever you feel is an ‘activist’ judge. Good luck with that.” Right, because Congress is so constitutional.
            Now explain how driver’s licenses directly contradict the Constitution like sexual perversion seems to trump the First Amendment.

          • acontraryview

            “Oh wait, then they probably would have sold it to the perverts like they did before!”

            Well except that the owner himself said that it was the making of the cake that was the issue. Did you not read the quotes from him I provided?

            “How about all of it, it is the rule of law.”

            So you can’t cite any law that is contained in the Constitution. Got it. Thanks. I’m not really sure how many times I have to say this before you understand, but I’ll give it one more try. The Constitution is THE BASIS for our laws. Our laws are created, and contained in legal codes, that support the protections and rights as described by the Constitution. The Constitution itself DOES NOT CONTAIN LAWS. If you have further questions about this, please Google: United States Code. Take a few minutes to educate yourself.

            “Now explain how driver’s licenses directly contradict the Constitution like sexual perversion seems to trump the First Amendment.”

            Sexual perversion does not trump the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment provides protections that the government will not pass a law which makes the expression of religion illegal. In other words, Congress, and via the 14th amendment, the States may not pass laws that say, for instance, it is illegal to be Muslim, or Buddhist, or Christian. What the 1st Amendment does NOT provide is protections that religious expression can take place at any time, in any place, and in any manner of one’s choosing.

            Now, back to my questions:

            How would juror nullification be related to “activist judges” overstepping their bounds?

            Show me where in the Constitution it says you can’t own a nuclear warhead.

          • Oboehner

            Well except that the owner himself said that they did business with the two deviants before.

            “So you can’t cite any law that is contained in the Constitution.” So simple truth escapes you, got it, thanks. I googled “law” and got the answer I needed.

            “The 1st Amendment provides protections that the government will not pass a law which makes the expression of religion illegal.” They had better pay back that money then.

            “Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.” – Doug Linder http://law2.umkc. edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

            “Show me where in the Constitution it says you can’t own a nuclear warhead.” It doesn’t.

          • acontraryview

            “Well except that the owner himself said that they did business with the two deviants before.”

            And that would nullify his stated reasons for turning down the order, how? THE OWNER stated the issue was baking the cake. He said NOTHING about delivering and serving it as being the reason. Deny the truth all you want, but it does not change the truth.

            “I googled “law” and got the answer I needed.”

            Oh good. Then you now understand that our laws are contained in legal code – federal, state, county, and local – and not in the Constitution. You’re learning. That’s great!

            “They had better pay back that money then.”

            On what basis? Anti-discrimination laws apply to business owners of every religious belief as well as no religious belief. Christians are not singled out. Nor does complying with anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for a citizen to express their religious beliefs. As with all rights, there are restrictions on the right to religious expression.

            “when a jury returns a verdict”

            Please note the words: “when a jury”. So I’ll ask again: how does that relate to “activist” judges?

            “It doesn’t.”

            Oh good. So perhaps now you understand that laws can contain prohibitions that are not directly addressed in the Constitution, rendering your question regarding where “public accommodation” appears in the Constitution to be moot. How wonderful that you are learning. I was becoming concerned that you were not capable.

          • Oboehner

            “And that would nullify his stated reasons for turning down the order, how?” The cake was specifically for the pervert party against their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion.

            “Then you now understand that our laws are contained in legal code – federal, state, county, and local – and not in the Constitution.”Ahhh, no – hence Constitutional law, but if it’s not law, then what is it? A suggestion? An opinion?

            “On what basis?” “The 1st Amendment provides protections that the government will not pass a law which makes the expression of religion illegal.” You best answered that.

            “Please note the words: ‘when a jury’. So I’ll ask again: how does that relate to ‘activist’ judges?” The bakery goes to trial, the jury finds them not guilty, do I really need to go on?
            Not possessing nukes is contained in the Constitution? Like I said… it doesn’t contain that.

          • acontraryview

            “The cake was specifically for the pervert party against their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion.”

            Oh good. You’ve finally moved on from your false claim that this had anything to do with a request to deliver and serve the cake. That’s great. I applaud you for that.

            You may wish to review any number of legal cases regarding anti-discrimination laws vis-a-vis religious protections. Not producing a product is not an expression of religious belief. As I have pointed out, since anti-discrimination laws apply to all public businesses regardless of the religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of the owner, they have been ruled to not violate protections provided under the 1st amendment. Again, religious expression is not without restriction.

            “hence Constitutional law”

            Constitutional law refers to laws that are based upon the protections and rights provided by the Constitution. You are doing so well. If you could just grasp this last little fact that laws are contained in legal code, not in the Constitution.

            “”The 1st Amendment provides protections that the government will not pass a law which makes the expression of religion illegal.””

            Nor did they. They passed a law which says that if you choose to open a business you may not discriminate on a number of different bases. A Muslim store owner could not, for example, refuse to serve a woman by stating the his religious beliefs are that women should not be out by themselves. A Hindu business owner could not refuse to sell party supplies for a steak cookout. A Muslim business owner could not refuse to sell to Christians because he believes they are heathens. A Christian business owner could not refuse to provide a cake for an interracial marriage by stating that he believes that God does not want the races to mix.

            The reason that religious beliefs are not allowed to be used as a basis for refusing service to a particular person is that there is no way to determine what is, and what is not, a sincerely held religious belief. Therefore, if that was allowable as a reason for refusing service, anti-discrimination laws would have no value.

            “do I really need to go on?”

            Yes you do, because that would be the actions of a jury and would have nothing to do with the judge.

            “Not possessing nukes is contained in the Constitution? Like I said… it doesn’t contain that.”

            We’ve moved past that. You have clearly come to an understanding that the content of laws does not have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

          • Oboehner

            I have to applaud you for embellishing and putting words in my mouth.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – unless some sexual pervert doesn’t agree with it…

            Being a woman is nowhere near an activity choice, try again.

            “Therefore, if that was allowable as a reason for refusing service, anti-discrimination laws would have no value.” Try the First Amendment.

            “We’ve moved past that.” Right, because there is no prohibition in the Constitution regarding nukes, however owning one can fall under the right to bear arms. Therefore your perception is off as it is about things that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “unless some sexual pervert doesn’t agree with it…”

            What law has been put into place that prohibits the expression of religious belief based solely upon “some sexual pervert” not agreeing with it” – and what is “it”?

            “Being a woman is nowhere near an activity choice, try again.”

            Sexuality is not an activity. Try again.

            “Therefore your perception is off as it is about things that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.”

            No, the example was spot-on. The Constitution provides a right to bear arms. A nuclear warhead is an arm. Yet, despite the Constitution’s right to bear arms, owning a nuclear warhead is illegal. Yet, there is no mention of nuclear warheads in the Constitution. Therefore, there are things that are illegal that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, which renders your challenge: “show me where public accommodation is in the Constitution” moot.

          • Oboehner

            “and what is ‘it’? How about the expression of religious belief?

            “Sexuality is not an activity” It is a choice which leads to an activity, not the same as being a woman, try again.

            “The Constitution provides a right to bear arms. A nuclear warhead is an arm. Yet, despite the Constitution’s right to bear arms, owning a nuclear warhead is illegal.” Despite nothing, Congress shall make NO law. Public accommodation is moot only because it is not a constitutionally protected right like religious expression.

          • acontraryview

            “It is a choice”

            What is your basis for stating that sexuality is a choice? When did you choose to be straight rather than gay? If it is a choice, then you are saying that you could simply choose today to be emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to members of the same gender. Can you honestly say that you could simply change your sexuality by choosing to be homosexual rather than heterosexual?

            “Congress shall make NO law.”

            Oh, gosh. That’s not where that sentence ends. It continues with the word “prohibiting”. Prohibiting and restricting are two different things. In addition, the protection is one that prohibits congress from passing a law which prohibits the expression of an entire belief system – such as making it illegal to be Muslim or Hindu.

            What the 1st does NOT do is provide a protection for citizens to express their religious beliefs at any time, in any manner, and in any place they care to. There are restrictions, as there are on all rights.

            One of those restrictions is the business owners may not cite their religious beliefs as a valid reason for violating anti-discrimination laws.

          • Oboehner

            One is straight by nature, gay is learned behavior EXACTLY like Pavlov’s dog.

            “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” That covers “prohibited” “restricting” and any other synonym one can come up with.

            What the 14th does NOT do is provide a protection for citizens to express their lifestyle choices at any time, in any manner, and in any place they care to, period. The Bakery was well within their rights.

          • acontraryview

            “One is straight by nature, gay is learned behavior EXACTLY like Pavlov’s dog.”

            Basis? If there were true, then where did the first gay person come from?

            “That covers “prohibited” “restricting” and any other synonym one can come up with.”

            Then why isn’t it legal for citizens to own nuclear warheads?

            “What the 14th does NOT do is provide a protection for citizens to express their lifestyle choices at any time, in any manner, and in any place they care to, period.”

            Agreed. The 14th has nothing to do with expression of lifestyle choices.

            “The Bakery was well within their rights.”

            Not legally.

          • Oboehner

            Study Pavlov’s dog and it should become clear.

            “Then why isn’t it legal for citizens to own nuclear warheads?” It is not any such laws are unconstitutional thus null and void. The only power they have to enforce that is they have more guns and more ignorant people.

            “Not legally” Yes, legally, “The 14th has nothing to do with expression of lifestyle choices”.

          • acontraryview

            Being degreed in Psychology, I am familiar with Pavlov’s study. In involved creating a physical response (salivation) to an outside stimulus (the ringing of a bell). So, please, enlighten me as to how that is related to the determine of one’s sexuality.

            “It is not”

            So it’s legal to for a citizen to own a nuclear warhead? Hmmmm…I wasn’t aware of that.

            “any such laws are unconstitutional thus null and void”

            Odd, then, that when certain laws that restrict the purchase of certain weapons have been challenged in court, the judiciary has determined that, in certain cases, those laws are valid. And these rulings span the political spectrum of the judiciary.

            “Yes, legally”

            No, the anti-discrimination laws are clear. Their actions were not legal. Now, as to whether the anti-discrimation laws violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution is another question. To date, challenges to anti-discrimination laws based upon issues of the 1st Amendment as well as issues of freedom of association have been ruled to not violate those constitutional protections. But, as you have clearly stated, the federal judiciary is overstepping its bounds by ruling on issues of state law and any such ruling is only done by “activist” judges.

            “”The 14th has nothing to do with expression of lifestyle choices”.”

            The 14th Amendment is not directly related to anti-discrimination laws, so I’m unclear as to why you keep bringing it up in relation to this discussion.

          • Oboehner

            “So, please, enlighten me as to how that is related to the determine of one’s sexuality.” If you with your education can’t figure it out, I would demand my tuition back if I were you. Take gay men, they are the most promiscuous group on the planet (the reason why the FDA had a ban on them giving blood). The reason for this is they are sexually addicted, their addiction reached the point of turning to each other to satisfy the constant urges. They (like Pavlov’s dog) learned to become excited (salivating) looking at another man (the ringing bell) because of the thought of sexual fruition (food). It is rally quite simple.
            Because of this fact, your discrimination argument is irrelevant. The judges overstepped their bounds in forcing people to accept a lie, then declaring that somehow supersedes the rights of those who know better.

          • acontraryview

            “The reason for this is they are sexually addicted”

            There are sexual addicts in both the heterosexual and homosexual populations. It is not a function of their sexuality. To suggest that all homosexuals are sexual addicts is simply untrue.

            ” They (like Pavlov’s dog) learned to become excited (salivating) looking at another man”

            How does one “learn” to become sexually excited looking at another man? I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma. I had no idea what “gay” was. The only sexual images I was exposed to were heterosexual (the proverbial stashing of a girly magazine under the mattress). Yet, I am gay. So, tell me, how did that come about if your unproven theory is true?

            “Because of this fact, your discrimination argument is irrelevant.”

            Well, first of all, what you stated is not fact. It is fallacy, for which you have zero scientific basis. Second, in what way is my discrimination argument irrelevant?

            “The judges overstepped their bounds in forcing people to accept a lie”

            You cannot force someone to accept something. People are free to accept or not accept whatever they care to.

            “then declaring that somehow supersedes the rights of those who know better.”

            What rights are you referring to?

          • Oboehner

            “To suggest that all homosexuals are sexual addicts is simply untrue.” True, some men have “daddy issues” that turned sexual. In the case of many lesbos, they were abused by a man and now hate and mistrust them.

            Stating they were born that way is fallacy, for which you have zero scientific basis.

            “People are free to accept or not accept whatever they care to.” With a proverbial gun to their heads? Or if they are brainwashed?

          • acontraryview

            “True”

            I’m glad we agree that your statement was false.

            “Stating they were born that way is fallacy, for which you have zero scientific basis.”

            I never stated that. The exact basis for sexuality has not yet been determined.

            “With a proverbial gun to their heads? Or if they are brainwashed?”

            What have you been forced to accept?

          • Oboehner

            “I’m glad we agree that your statement was false.” Too bad I never suggested that all homos are sexual addicts, I also gave other factors.

            “The exact basis for sexuality has not yet been determined.” Problem solved, not accepting them is not discrimination.

          • acontraryview

            “Too bad I never suggested that all homos are sexual addicts”

            Yes, you did. You: The reason for this is they are sexually addicted.

            “not accepting them is not discrimination.”

            What does not knowing the exact basis of sexuality have to do with anti-discrimination laws?

          • Oboehner

            You forgot the rest of what I said with your creative editing. Like the reason most gay men are the most promiscuous group on the planet.
            I hear a loud flushing sound, sounds like your credibility.

          • acontraryview

            There was not creating editing. That was exactly what you said. It is a complete sentence, therefore it stands on its own. You’ve already agreed that your statement is false.

            I’ll ask again: What does not knowing the exact basis of sexuality have to do with anti-discrimination laws?

          • Oboehner

            *creative* That is only part of what I said.
            I’ll tell you again, discrimination does not apply to an activity choice.

          • acontraryview

            And I’ll tell you again that sexuality is not an activity.

          • Oboehner

            And I’ll tell you again, it is an activity choice brought on by a mental defect – discrimination still doesn’t apply.

          • acontraryview

            Despite the number of times that you repeat that, sexuality is not an activity, and you have absolutely no scientific basis for your statement that homosexuality is a mental disease.

            “discrimination still doesn’t apply.”

            Since there are many places where sexuality is included in anti-discrimination laws, your statement is false.

          • Oboehner

            Despite the number of times that you repeat that, sexuality is an activity, and you have absolutely no scientific basis for your statement that homosexuality is not a mental disease merely because it was removed as a result of demands from the mentally deranged perverts themselves.

            Since there are many places where sexuality is included in anti-discrimination laws, they are null and void if they violate the First Amendment.

          • acontraryview

            “sexuality is an activity”

            Please provide an example of a sexuality activity.

            “no scientific basis for your statement that homosexuality is not a mental disease”

            Sure I do. The individuals who are responsible for deciding if something is a mental disease have determined it is not. What is your evidence that it is?

            “because it was removed as a result of demands from the mentally deranged perverts themselves.”

            That is simply a false statement.

            “they are null and void if they violate the First Amendment.”

            They courts have rule that they do not violate the First Amendment. Therefore they are not null and void, which renders your earlier statement that “discrimination does not apply” as false.

          • Oboehner

            “Please provide an example of a sexuality activity.” Gay.

            “The individuals who are responsible for deciding if something is a mental disease have determined it is not.” You forgot the “because it was removed as a result of demands from the mentally deranged perverts themselves.” part that goes with that.

            “That is simply a false statement.” – That is simply a false statement.

            “They courts have rule[sic] that they do not violate the First Amendment.” Yet they do, how can one practice their religion when the activity choice of mentally deranged perverts can override that? Answer, they can’t.

          • acontraryview

            “Gay” is not an activity.

            Please provide proof that the members of the APA voted, against their beliefs, to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, and please cite what pressure was placed on them that was so sufficient that would cause them vote in a way they did not believe.

            “Yet they do”

            So all the courts are wrong? Gosh. You should volunteer your legal counsel on these types of cases. Obviously you have an argument that will clear up years of judicial rulings that were wrong.

            “how can one practice their religion when the activity choice of mentally deranged perverts can override that?”

            Sexuality is not an activity. No one is forced to open a business. No one is forced to offer certain products through their business. Therefore, the ability of one to practice one’s faith is not prohibited by anti-discrimination laws, which is why the judiciary has ruled that they do not violate the protections of the 1st Amendment.

            But, please, sign up as a consultant to legal counsel in a related case. No doubt they would be very appreciative of your insights that will allow for making a case to overturn years of judicial rulings. Let me know how that goes.

          • Oboehner

            “Please provide proof that the members of the APA voted” Have Google? Know how to use it?
            No one is forced to sodomize another, that is a choice – “sexuality” is a choice, time to come to grips with that or prove otherwise. If you want special rights for you perversion, the burden of proof is on you.

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t provide proof of your claim, then you can’t.

            “If you want special rights for you perversion, the burden of proof is on you.”

            It is not necessary that the basis for sexuality be proven in order for it to be a covered category. Marital status is a covered category, and it is a choice. Religious belief is a covered category, and it is a choice. Pregnancy is a choice, and it is a covered category.

            Again, O, it would benefit you to have a better understanding of our Constitution and laws. Yours is woefully inadequate, as you continue to show.

          • Oboehner

            http://www.freerepublic.Com/focus/news/1172711/posts
            There I did some work for you, there is more where that came from as well as testimony from ex-gays.

          • Bob Johnson

            Interestingly, if homosexuality was a mental illness then it would be covered by ADA laws and have even more protection.

          • acontraryview

            Great point. Thanks.

          • acontraryview

            You might find this interesting:

            “However, two undercover reporters from Portland alternative weekly paper Willamette Week discovered the bakery operators were happy to bake goods for celebrations of other things conservatives traditionally scorn, including parties for divorce, a pagan solstice, and stem cell research.

            When one of the reporters called and asked if the business could make two identical cakes to help a friend celebrate the grant she received for cloning human stem cells, a Sweet Cakes employee simply laughed and said, “It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start.”

            A request for a cake to congratulate a friend on her divorce was also happily accepted, with a Sweet Cakes worker saying, “We can definitely do something like that.”

            Sweet Cakes was even happy to take orders for cakes for a pagan summer solstice fete — complete with a green pentagram decoration — and celebrating babies born out of wedlock.”

            It seems that the Klein’s concerns about making a cake for something that is contrary to their religious beliefs is selectively applied. There’s a word for that: hypocrisy.

          • Oboehner

            “things conservatives traditionally scorn” That would be speculation as what their particular religious beliefs are and not relevant.
            Also their alleged lack of judgment doesn’t blanket all nor does it validate the government’s actions.

          • acontraryview

            Oh, so they are Christians who find same-gender marriage sinful and thus do not want to bake a cake for it, but have no issue with creating cakes celebrating divorce, celebrations honoring gods other than the Christian god, and childbirth outside of wedlock. What sect of Christianity is that? The Church of Hypocrisy? I guess that makes them Hypocrites.

            The government’s actions were based upon laws put into place by the will of the people. Do you not have respect for the will of the people? Do you not believe the will of the people should take precedence? Are you saying that the will of the people shouldn’t be enforced?

          • Oboehner

            Still speculating on their religious beliefs?

            “Do you not have respect for the will of the people?” You mean mob rule?

            “Do you not believe the will of the people should take precedence?” Over constitutional protections? No.

          • acontraryview

            Speculating? They claim to be Christians. Christianity is pretty clear on issues of divorce, worship of gods other than the Christian god, and childbirth outside of marriage, is it not?

            “You mean mob rule?”

            Nope. Mob Rule: “the fact or state of large groups of people acting without the consent of the government, authorities, etc”

            How does a vote of the people fit the definition of “mob rule”?

            “Over constitutional protections? No.”

            Oh, that’s great! I agree! And that is determined by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS determined that laws which prohibited two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage violated Constitutional protections regarding equal treatment under the law. So while you and I may have different views as to whether the court was correct in their assessment, we both agree that it is within the jurisdiction of the court to rule on such matters and to overturn the “will of the people” if a majority on the court determine that will is expressed in a way which violates constitutional protections.

            If you don’t agree that the court has such an ability, then it is impossible for you to have the position that the will of the people does not take precedence over constitutional protections since there would be no way to overturn the “will of the people” except via a court ruling, wouldn’t it?

            Oh, by the way, what makes a judge “activist”? is that defined as ruling in a way with which you disagree?

          • Oboehner

            Speculating.

            Yup Mob rule: “a government by mob or a mass of people”
            “How does a vote of the people fit the definition of ‘mob rule’?” When a larger group imposes it’s will on a smaller one.

            “we both agree that it is within the jurisdiction of the court” I wouldn’t go that far, it is a matter of states rights (Tenth Amendment), unless there is a dispute between states, which isn’t the case – each state was free to enact whatever regulations regarding marriage it wanted through due process. The SCOTUS overstepped its authority, which also answers the activist judge question.

          • acontraryview

            “When a larger group imposes it’s will on a smaller one.”

            Oh, you mean like when people voted to disallow marriage between two citizens of the same gender because they didn’t want those citizens to be able to marry? Or when a majority voted to force stores to close on Sundays because that was the “Lord’s day” and therefore no one should be able to shop? Or when a majority voted to not allow two people of different races to marry because they claimed the Bible did not support the mixing of the races? Or when a majority voted to disallow liquor sales on Sunday because that was the Lord’s Day and therefore no one should be allowed to buy liquor on Sunday? Like that?

            “The SCOTUS overstepped its authority”

            If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, then how would it be possible to ensure the protections of the 14th Amendment?

            if what you say is true, then the Kleins have no reason to challenge the Oregon state anti-discrimination laws in federal court because such laws fall within the rights of the state under the 10th Amendment, and therefore a SCOTUS ruling on the issue would be overstepping their bounds, wouldn’t it? A ruling on such a matter that is the right of the state under the 10th Amendment would make them “activist” judges, wouldn’t it?

          • Oboehner

            “the Bible did not support the mixing of the races” Bunk.

          • acontraryview

            What? You are questioning the religious beliefs of others? You are in a position to tell others that their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?

            From the state court ruling in Loving v Virginia, quoting Judge Brazile:

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

            I’m glad we agree that the examples I gave fit your definition of “mob rule”.

            I’ll ask again: If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how can the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

          • Oboehner

            “From the state court ruling in Loving v Virginia, quoting Judge Brazile:” Not the Bible.

            “I’ll ask again: If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how can the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?” By nullifying the First Amendment obviously. You know an activity choice is clearly covered in the 14th… *sarcasm*

            “the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment” so they can ignore the 1st *more sarcasm*.

          • acontraryview

            “Not the Bible.”

            Brazile cited the Bible as the basis for his ruling. I’ll ask again: You are questioning the religious beliefs of others? You are in a position to tell others that their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?

            “By nullifying the First Amendment obviously.”

            So you are saying that securing the protections provided by the 14th Amendment requires nullification of the 1st Amendment? How so? What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process?

            I’ll ask yet again: So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

          • Oboehner

            Brazile can cite anything, makes no difference in is irrelevant.

            “You are in a position to tell others that their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?” One can claim anything is in the Bible, the difference is actually proving it.

            “What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?” The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to activity choices, gay is an activity choice.
            Contradicting the 1st Amendment is an overstep. If a person of faith wishes to exercise their faith by declining to participate in any way to a pervert party, that is their right. Again one’s activity choice does not trump that.
            Hypocrisy is stating gays are born that way but those who practice bestiality, incest, or pedophilia are not.

          • acontraryview

            How are his religious beliefs irrelevant? Who gets to determine if a person’s religious belief is irrelevant?

            “One can claim anything is in the Bible, the difference is actually proving it.”

            So is that what you want? A system where the courts would be determining what is, and what is not, a valid sincerely held religious belief?

            “The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to activity choices”

            That is correct. It applies to citizens without regard to choices or traits. That is why laws which prohibited same-gender marriage were struck down. You just made an excellent case for why that ruling was the correct one.

            “gay is an activity choice.”

            Sexuality is not an activity. Nor is it a choice. If it were, then you would be able to simply choose to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. Is that simply a choice you could make? Further, if sexuality were a choice, why would someone choose to be gay? For what benefit? To be treated unequally under the law? To be subject to bullying? To be the subject of derision by others? What possible reasons would there be for someone to choose to be gay?

            “If a person of faith wishes to exercise their faith by declining to participate in any way to a pervert party, that is their right.”

            To quote you: Please show me where in the Constitution is says that citizens have a right to decline to participate in any way to a pervert party.

            Of course, you can’t, because no such right is explicitly stated in the Constitution. The question becomes then, do anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodation violate protections provided by the Constitution regarding religious expression. The courts have ruled that they do not. While you are certainly free to disagree with their rulings, they have upheld such laws and, in light of that, no such right exists.

            “Again one’s activity choice”

            And, again, sexuality is not an activity.

            “Hypocrisy is stating gays are born that way but those who practice bestiality, incest, or pedophilia are not.”

            I have never stated that there is proof that sexuality is a born trait. The basis for sexuality – whether hetero/homo/bi – is not known. Any who states that there is proof that sexuality is a born trait is speaking falsely.

            Bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are not sexualities.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections of the 14th Amendment be secured?

            What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?

            So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

            Those were the criteria you put forth as applied to same-gender marriage laws. If they are valid, then they apply to all state laws, do they not?

          • Oboehner

            Did I say his religious beliefs were irrelevant or his claim that something was in the Bible? Can you figure it out?

            How is this:”One can claim anything is in the Bible, the difference is actually proving it.” in any way in the same universe as this: “A system where the courts would be determining what is, and what is not, a valid sincerely held religious belief?” It is completely nonsensical.

            The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to activity choices” “That is correct.” Now we are getting somewhere. Being gay is a choice, one does not have to act on the mental deficiency that causes one to become a sexual deviant. Gay in itself is nothing more than a result of a mental problem, it could be as simple as a sexual addiction. Yes an activity choice and not covered in the 14th.

            “Bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are not sexualities.” then neither is gay, they are all in the same vein.

            “What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?” Since we’ve established that the activity choice of being gay isn’t covered by the 14th, then forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is in direct violation of the 1st.

          • acontraryview

            “Did I say his religious beliefs were irrelevant or his claim that something was in the Bible? Can you figure it out?”

            It really doesn’t matter which, now does it? Why would either is belief or his claim be irrelevant? Who are you to determine the relevancy of his claim or belief?

            “How is this:”One can claim anything is in the Bible, the difference is actually proving it.” in any way in the same universe as this”

            Try to think this though, O. So a person turns away someone in violation of anti-discrimination laws and cites their sincerely held religious belief as the reason. For instance, a baker turns away an interracial couple and justifies it by saying that it is his sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix. You stated that proving such a claim is another thing. Well, O, where would the provision of that proof take place if the couple challenged the baker in court? In court, right? And in court, it would be the judiciary making the decision as to what is, and what is not, a valid sincerely held religious belief, now wouldn’t it? Is that what you want?

            “Being gay is a choice”

            What is your basis for saying that sexuality is a choice?

            “Gay in itself is nothing more than a result of a mental problem”

            Basis?

            “Yes an activity choice and not covered in the 14th.”

            Agreed. All that is necessary to be covered under the 14th is citizenship. Again, thank you for supporting the position that equal treatment under the law is not based upon certain traits or choices.

            “then neither is gay, they are all in the same vein.”

            How is being emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender in the same as being sexually attracted to animals, children, or relatives?”

            “Since we’ve established that the activity choice of being gay isn’t covered by the 14th, then forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is in direct violation of the 1st.”

            We have established that no activity choice is relevant to the 14th Amendment. Only citizenship. Your response is not an answer to my question.

            Putting aside the issue of anti-discrimination laws. If the 14th Amendment provides the protection that state laws cannot result in less than equal treatment nor violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution, if the Federal courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would those protections be secured? If the people of Utah pass a law that says only Mormons can marry, that law would violate the protections provided by the 14th Amendment. However, if the federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of State law, and thus the non-Mormon residents of the state were not allowed to challenge that law in Federal court, how would they achieve the protections provided by the 14th Amendment?

            “then forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is in direct violation of the 1st.”

            Since owning a business is a choice, and the decision as what products the business will offer is a choice, there is no “forcing”. “Forcing” occurs when one has no other choice. That is not the case.

          • Oboehner

            “It really doesn’t matter which, now does it?” It merely demonstrates your credibility or lack thereof.

            “So a person turns away someone in violation of anti-discrimination laws” You yourself said anti discrimination laws don’t apply to an activity choice.

            Then you ask me to disprove a fallacy about gays being born that way, if you had ever read anything before gay activist had it removed there was abundant information on why people are gay. If you would look deeper the evidence is still there – explain why in gay couples one plays the male role and the other the female?

            “How is being emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender in the same as being sexually attracted to animals, children, or relatives?” How is it not?
            Bottom line, the court is trying to shove an activity choice on the people at the expense of rights that are actually protected by the constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “It merely demonstrates your credibility or lack thereof.”

            How so?

            “You yourself said anti discrimination laws don’t apply to an activity choice.”

            They don’t. Sexuality is not an activity choice.

            “Then you ask me to disprove a fallacy about gays being born that way,”

            No, I asked you for proof of your statement that sexuality is a choice and proof of your statement being homosexual is a mental disorder.

            “gay activist had it removed there was abundant information on why people are gay.”

            The removal of homosexuality was done by a vote of the members of the APA. It was not done by gay activists.

            “explain why in gay couples one plays the male role and the other the female?”

            ROFL. Please explain these “roles” you mention. What do they entail?

            “How is it not?”

            Well because one involves two adult people, while one of the examples you gave involves animals and another involves children. Neither of which is related to adult sexuality. Regarding physical attraction to family members, that occurs in both homosexuals and heterosexuals. So clearly it is not tied merely to homosexuality.

            “the court is trying to shove an activity choice on the people at the expense of rights that are actually protected by the constitution.”

            Anti-dsicrimation laws were put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. The court merely enforces those laws.

            There is no right in the Constitution to operate a business outside of the confines of the law.

          • Oboehner

            Sexuality is most certainly an activity choice, learned behavior – just ask the many ex-gays who beat their addiction.

            “The removal of homosexuality was done by a vote of the members of the APA. It was not done by gay activists.” Reluctantly under extreme pressure by gay activists.

            “Please explain these “roles” you mention.” I have already provided an example. One takes the dominant male role, the other (in the case of men) a more effeminate female role. One would have to have no clue whatsoever not to have seen that. It is especially visible in lesbians with one taking the more masculine role.

            You still failed to explain how bestiality, incest, and polygamy, and pedophilia are not sexuality. They are absolutely no different from homo except for the object of their unhealthy desire.

            “The court merely enforces those laws.” Laws you stated don’t include an activity choice, that and the fact gay is not by birth, your whole argument is null and void.

          • acontraryview

            “Sexuality is most certainly an activity choice”

            Since sexuality is not an activity, it cannot be an activity choice.

            “Reluctantly under extreme pressure by gay activists.”

            The APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. Please explain how, in 1973, homosexual activist held so much sway that they could cause the majority of the members of the APA to vote in a way that they did not actually support.

            “One takes the dominant male role, the other (in the case of men) a more effeminate female role.”

            And how are these roles played out? What is “a more effeminate female role”? How is it manifested? And what is your basis for suggesting that is true in every homosexual relationship?

            “They are absolutely no different from homo”

            Given that homo is directed toward members of the same gender, that would be totally different than being attracted to animals. In individuals who have a sexual desire for children it has been found that the gender of the children they molest is not tied to their adult sexual preference. If, however, you are suggesting that bestiality, pedophilia, and incest are sexualities, then explain how they would be different than heterosexuality.

            “Laws you stated don’t include an activity choice”

            Nor is activity covered in those laws. Sexuality is not an activity. It is a state of being.

            ” that and the fact gay is not by birth”

            CONGRATULATIONS! To be able to make that statement means that you have figured out the basis for a person’s sexuality. That’s great! You know, there are scientists around the globe who are working to see if the basis for sexuality can be determined. To date, they have had no luck. And along comes little O you, with definitive proof that sexuality is not an innate trait. Absolutely amazing!!!! I hope you will be good enough to share your findings with the various research teams that are working on this issue. No doubt they would be very appreciative! Let me know how they respond to your incredible discovery!

            “your whole argument is null and void.”

            How so? Are you saying that anti-discrimination laws should only cover birth traits? If so, then you would support removing religious belief from coverage by anti-discrimination laws, yes?

            I’ll ask yet again:

            If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections of the 14th Amendment be secured?

            What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?

            So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

            Those were the criteria you put forth as applied to same-gender marriage laws. If they are valid, then they apply to all state laws, do they not?

            If the people of Utah pass a law that says only Mormons can marry, that law would violate the protections provided by the 14th Amendment. However, if the federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of State law, and thus the non-Mormon residents of the state were not allowed to challenge that law in Federal court, how would they achieve the protections provided by the 14th Amendment?

          • Oboehner

            “In 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially. Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings. So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!” – Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

            “Sexuality is not an activity. It is a state of being” mentally ill.

            Are you saying that anti-discrimination laws should cover any bizarre behavior? anything?
            Gay is a choice, acting out that choice is an activity, not covered in the Constitution – religious freedom is, end of discussion.

          • acontraryview

            “The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community”

            No, that is not a fact. That is an unsupported claim made by virulent anti-homosexual conspiracy theorists grasping at straws.

            Please tell me what possible pressure gay activists could have put on the membership of the APA that would cause them to vote in way they did not support.

            “mentally ill.”

            You are certainly free to your opinion, but it is a minority one that has no basis in truth.

            “Are you saying that anti-discrimination laws should cover any bizarre behavior? anything?”

            I never said that anti-discrimination laws should cover behavior.

            “Gay is a choice”

            While you are certainly free to believe that, there is zero scientific support for your position. Tell me, O, could you simply “choose” today to be romantically, sexually, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender? If the answer is “no”, and you know that is the answer, then you have proven yourself to be wrong.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections of the 14th Amendment be secured?

            What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?

            So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

            Those were the criteria you put forth as applied to same-gender marriage laws. If they are valid, then they apply to all state laws, do they not?

            If the people of Utah pass a law that says only Mormons can marry, that law would violate the protections provided by the 14th Amendment. However, if the federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of State law, and thus the non-Mormon residents of the state were not allowed to challenge that law in Federal court, how would they achieve the protections provided by the 14th Amendment?

          • Oboehner

            “That is an unsupported claim made by virulent anti-homosexual conspiracy theorists grasping at straws.” Talk about unsupported conspiracy theory…

            Gay is a lifestyle CHOICE, an activity CHOICE.

            Here’s a question for you, say you’re a mentally challenged pervert and you are addicted to being so. You really don’t want to be looked down upon, but rather crave acceptance, to get what you crave you would:
            A) Tell people the truth about it being a choice and hope for the sympathy vote
            B) Coerce and intimidate others to help you lie to people telling them you’re somehow born that way and can’t help it

            “Tell me, O, could you simply ‘choose’ today to be romantically, sexually, and emotionally attracted to someone of the same gender?” No it’s learned behavior EXACTLY like Pavlov’s dog – as I’ stated a hundred times before.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t describe what pressure homosexual activists could have put on the membership of the APA that would have caused them to vote contrary to their actual views. Got it. Thanks.

            “Talk about unsupported conspiracy theory…”

            Considering that out of the entire APA membership, only one person has made those claims, I would suggest that my original statement is accurate.

            “No it’s learned behavior”

            I thought you said it was a choice. So which is it – a choice or a learned behavior? A learned, reflexive behavior (Pavlov’s dog) is not a choice. The dog didn’t choose whether or not to salivate. Salvation is a natural reaction to a stimulus of food.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            If the SCOTUS is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections of the 14th Amendment be secured?

            What part of the 1st Amendment would need to be nullified in order to ensure equal treatment under the law and due process, both protections provided for by the 14th Amendment?

            So do you agree that the Kleins have no basis for challenging Oregon state laws in Federal court since the ability of the state to write laws is protected by the 10th Amendment and such state laws are not an issue between states? And that if the court were to rule on their case that it would be an issue of overstepping their bounds and thus they would be “activist” judges?

            Those were the criteria you put forth as applied to same-gender marriage laws. If they are valid, then they apply to all state laws, do they not?

            If the people of Utah pass a law that says only Mormons can marry, that law would violate the protections provided by the 14th Amendment. However, if the federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of State law, and thus the non-Mormon residents of the state were not allowed to challenge that law in Federal court, how would they achieve the protections provided by the 14th Amendment?

          • Oboehner

            “So you can’t describe what pressure homosexual activists could have put on the membership of the APA that would have caused them to vote contrary to their actual views.” I see you don’t “got it”. You just choose to ignore it, I posted a link with all of the information you need.

            “A learned, reflexive behavior” is learned behavior.
            “Salvation is a natural reaction to a stimulus of food.” Salivation to a bell isn’t.
            Gay is a learned behavior, engaging in it is an activity choice – not a protected right, period

          • acontraryview

            “I see you don’t “got it”.”

            Oh, I “got it”. You just can’t explain it.

            “I posted a link with all of the information you need.”

            I see no link you posted to me.

            “Salivation to a bell isn’t.”

            If the two are tied together, it becomes so, as Pavlov showed.

            “Gay is a learned behavior”

            Then it’s not a choice. If it is a learned behavior, then how do you explain that gay people indicate that they had a sexual attraction to members of the same sex long before they were exposed to any behavior?

            “not a protected right, period”

            Actually, any activity that does not violate the law is protected.

          • Oboehner

            Here’s what we have here, you are attempting to make an argument based on an admitted fallacy, you have no leg to stand on. Gay is learned behavior that can be unlearned, just like the smoker can CHOOSE to keep smoking or CHOOSE to quit.

            “Actually, any activity that does not violate the law is protected.” You mean like the right to practice one’s religion?

          • acontraryview

            On what “admitted fallacy” do you believe I am trying to make an argument?

            “Gay is learned behavior that can be unlearned”

            You are certainly free to continue to state that, but you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back you up and I have shown how your assertion is nonsensical.

            “You mean like the right to practice one’s religion?”

            Within the boundaries of the law, absolutely.

          • Oboehner

            It is you without the scientific evidence to back you up and you yourself have shown how your assertion is nonsensical. You can’t prove they are born that way nor that their perversion is somehow not a choice, therefore any perceived rights they may claim are non-existent within the boundaries of the law.

          • acontraryview

            “You can’t prove they are born that way”

            Nor is that relevant. Religious belief is not a born trait, yet it is covered by anti-discrimination laws. Disability is not always a born trait – it can occur after birth – yet it is a covered category. Marital status is a covered category, yet no one is born married. Being pregnant is a covered category, yet no one is born pregnant.

            Knowing the exact basis of sexuality is irrelevant to anti-discrimination laws.

          • Oboehner

            Religion is covered by the Constitution, sexual perversion is not, sorry.

          • acontraryview

            Anti-discrimination laws and provisions are not included in the Constitution. Prior to 1964 there was no national law which prohibited businesses from discrimination on the basis of religious belief. So, no, religious belief as a covered category in anti-discrimination laws in NOT “covered by the Constitution”.

            If being born a certain way is relevant to anti-discrimination laws, how do you explain the other categories I mentioned above being included in anti-discrimination laws?

          • Oboehner

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – The Constitution. Not baking a cake for carpet munchers falls under free exercise thereof. Tongue and groove activities, not covered, sorry.

          • acontraryview

            “The Constitution”

            That would be related to protections regarding public accommodation based upon religious belief, how?

            “Not baking a cake for carpet munchers falls under free exercise thereof.”

            No, it does not. Just as it does not for people who have a sincerely held religious beliefs that the races should not mix and therefore turn away an interracial couple. Just as it does not for people who believe that individuals should only marry within their faith and therefore turn away an interfaith couple.

            Your knowledge of the law is woefully inadequate to informed discussion.

          • Oboehner

            “That would be related to protections regarding public accommodation based upon religious belief, how?” Seriously? How long are you going to post this asinine crap and expect to be taken seriously? Try again.

          • acontraryview

            “Seriously?”

            Yes, seriously. The protection that the government will not pass a law which specifically prohibits religious expression has nothing to do with laws which protect against religious belief being a basis upon which discrimination can occur in public accommodation. Do you not remember the signs that used to be in some stores: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, it was perfectly legal to refuse service to someone based upon nothing more than the customer’s religious beliefs.

            If that were NOT true, then there would have been no reason to include religious belief in the list of covered categories, would there? Yet, there it is. Why? Because the Constitution does address issues of discrimination in public accommodation, religious belief was a reason why businesses could turn away a customer, and Congress believed that should be changed.

            Please try to educate yourself on our Constitution and laws, O. It is essential part of being an informed citizen.

          • Oboehner

            Wrong tree, a lifestyle choice is not covered. Please try to educate yourself on our Constitution and laws, O. It is essential part of being an informed citizen.

          • acontraryview

            Sexuality is not a “lifestyle choice”, O. Is English not your first language?

            However, if you believe that lifestyle choice is not a covered category, then be sure to let the Kleins know that their choice to live a Christian lifestyle is not covered, and they have no basis for further legal action.

          • Oboehner

            Sweeping gay under the “sexuality” rug doesn’t cut it either.

          • Oboehner

            First Amendment – yet again.

          • Bob Johnson

            http://www.ncslorg/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx
            Be sure to check out the left most columns for Oregon

            http://www.justicegov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations

            civilrights.findlawcom/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

          • Oboehner

            Nice link on protecting religious liberties, but nothing on sexual perversion.

          • Bob Johnson

            NCSL chart columns “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” are both covered in Oregon. As you can see from the introduction, five states do not have such laws so the case would not have been heard in those states.

          • Oboehner

            The Constitution does not, it does however, guarantee the right to practice one’s religion regardless of business ownership or not.

          • Bob Johnson

            Bunk – really? google “is Segregation Scriptural?” “Bob Jones Sr. 1960”

          • Oboehner

            Don’t recall the book of “Bob Jones Sr.” listed in my concordance, yes bunk, I’ve heard all of the arguments, they don’t hold water. The only time intermarrying was forbidden was on the basis of culture, not race. Culture which included idol worship in most cases.

          • Bob Johnson

            Bob Jones Sr. was pastor and founder of Bob Jones University. In his Easter Sunday 1960 sermon Dr. Jones shows using Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17 how racial segregation is the will of God.

            Here is a quote from part of the sermon…

            “For instance, we are living in the midst of race turmoil all over the world today. Look at what they are facing in Africa, and look at what we are facing in this country. It is all contrary to Scripture- it is all contrary to the Word of God. I am going to show you that the Bible is perfectly clear on race – just as clear as it can be.”

          • Oboehner

            Well isn’t that special for Bob Jones Sr., get back to me when he becomes relevant. So what’s next, you’ll break out the “Moonies” and bore me with that crap?

          • JSebastian

            How do you know what their religious beliefs include? You’ve simply assumed that they would oppose all the things you mention, but there is no evidence or basis for that assumption. If they weren’t comfortable going to a gay ceremony, why should they be forced to go? A business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and being uncomfortable in the environment in which the service is requested to be delivered is a valid reason. You cannot force a business to deliver to every location – if the vendor does not feel comfortable going to that location then it is their prerogative to refuse to contract for that service. Remember…contracts must be VOLUNTARY in order to be valid.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            They where never asked to actually go to the wedding, just to make and sell the cake.

          • acontraryview

            “How do you know what their religious beliefs include? You’ve simply assumed that they would oppose all the things you mention, but there is no evidence or basis for that assumption.”

            They stated that their beliefs were based upon the teachings of the Bible. Unless I am mistaken the Bible teaches that worshiping a god other than the Christian god is forbidden; that divorce for reasons other than adultery is a sin; and that sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin.

            “If they weren’t comfortable going to a gay ceremony, why should they be forced to go?”

            They weren’t asked to go.

            “A business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason”

            No, it cannot. You would benefit from familiarizing yourself with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

            “You cannot force a business to deliver to every location”

            Agreed.

            ” if the vendor does not feel comfortable going to that location then it is their prerogative to refuse to contract for that service.”

            No request for delivery was made.

            “Remember…contracts must be VOLUNTARY in order to be valid.”

            Regarding legal contracts that is very true. Irrelevant to the issue at hand, but true.

          • JSebastian

            They weren’t asked to go.

            I believe they were.

            They weren’t asked to go.

            I don’t think that is true. There is nothing gay about a cake alone. So there wouldn’t be any trouble selling them a cake. The objection was to delivering to or servicing their event….they were happy to sell them a cake at retail.

          • acontraryview

            “I believe they were.”

            Based on? As soon as the owners became aware that the cake was for a gay couple, the conversation ended. There was no discussion as to the details of the cake nor a discussion about delivery.

            “The objection was to delivering to or servicing their event….they were happy to sell them a cake at retail.”

            That is not the case. They refused to discuss any details of the order once they knew it was for a homosexual couple, which happened in the very beginning of the interaction.

          • singlemom_4

            Yes they did violate their rights. The protection of one’s rights to their freedom of religion and it’s practice. Christians practice their religion daily and not just Sunday. Christians under the freedom of religion have the right to practice and live out their religious faith within their own businesses. Americans have to challenge the courts at every level and get back to fighting for their rights which is protected under the constitution and the bill rights. Christians have the right to pursue life and liberty in the practice of their personal lives and businesses just as gay’s have those same protections already under the constitution. Just as gay’s have the right to practice their beliefs of homosexuality, Christians have those same rights to practice their beliefs in their own lives and their businesses.

          • acontraryview

            “Christians under the freedom of religion have the right to practice and live out their religious faith within their own businesses.”

            Provided that they way in which they do so does not violate laws. The protections provided by the 1st Amendment do NOT mean that citizens have the right to express their religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place they care to. There are restrictions. Just as their are on all rights.

            “Americans have to challenge the courts at every level and get back to fighting for their rights which is protected under the constitution”

            Regarding anti-discrimination laws, they have, and they have lost. But they are free to continue if they like.

            “and the bill rights”

            The Bill of Rights IS in the Constitution. It is not a separate document.

            “Christians have the right to pursue life and liberty in the practice of their personal lives and businesses just as gay’s have those same protections already under the constitution.”

            Correct. And we all have to abide by the same laws and restrictions. Religious belief does not exempt one from being held accountable to the law.

            “gay’s have the right to practice their beliefs of homosexuality,”

            Homosexuality is not a belief system.

            “Christians have those same rights to practice their beliefs of religious faith in their own lives and their own businesses.”

            Within the boundaries of the law.

        • Chip01

          I’m sure the $500k the “Christians” received didn’t hurt either…

          (See what I did there… Calling someone a Christian used to be a good thing… Because of a small group of people who use Christianity to mask their own bigotry… They have perverted the moniker Christian)

          • Oboehner

            The 500 was given freely, not extorted.
            Unless you accept bestiality, you are a hypocritical bigot hiding behind consent as you eat meat. Only those who accept deviant behavior have perverted the Christian moniker.

          • Chip01

            Extortion =. Tithing

          • Oboehner

            Voluntary does not equal extortion, perhaps you should look up the word.

          • Chip01

            If you feel people are “volunteering” when they give their tithing… I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll look up the word voluntary.. You look up brainwashed.

          • Oboehner

            What you’re saying is someone could get arrested for not tithing?

          • Chip01

            Did is ay that? Did I use the word “arrested” or “arrest”?

          • Oboehner

            You used the word “extortion” – the crime of getting money from someone by the use of force or threats. Do explain that.

          • Chip01

            No.. again.. you used the word extorted… Oboehner:”The 500 was given freely, not extorted”. From that point forward, I’m using your word…

          • Oboehner

            I did use the word, or did the bakery decide it wanted to give the government all that money?

            ” I’m using your word…” and abusing it.

          • Chip01

            I guess somewhere in this latest comment from you is an apology or something for claiming I did something I hadn’t.
            The rest of the comment isn’t clear either, as to what your now expecting …

          • Oboehner
          • Chip01

            I have to applaud you for embellishing and putting words in my mouth, btw

          • Oboehner

            Just trying to figure out where the extortion comes in.

      • Janiece Desmond

        the act itself is disgusting

        • Chip01

          Don’t focus on the act, Janiece.. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom. It’s really none of my business.

          Just be happy two people love eachother.

          • Janice James

            ITS NOT LOVE IT IS LUST.

          • acontraryview

            Maybe for you it is. But for others it’s love.

          • afchief

            It’s not love! It’s sin. If I’m married and fall in love with another woman, it’s called sin. If I love to steal, it’s called sin. If I love to lie, it called sin.

            If I lust after someone of the same sex, it is not called love, it is called sin!

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly free to believe that those things are sin.

          • afchief

            You are on a Christian site. Our views about homosexuality will NOT change. It is immoral. It is sin. It is death.

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly free to believe as you like.

          • Bob Johnson

            If I eat pork it is a sin. If I eat shrimp it is a sin. If I eat a cheeseburger it is a sin. ….

          • afchief

            Don’t try and understand the bible. It is foolishness to an unbeliever as proof of your post.

          • Bob Johnson

            You label everyone who disagrees with your view of the Bible as an unbeliever. Many churches, including mine, welcome everyone.

          • afchief

            We should welcome everyone. But we should never condone sin. Homosexuality IS sin.

            If someone comes to you church and is not convicted of their sin and continues in their sin, the Holy Spirit is NOT there.

          • Negroid Mongolian Caucasian

            Jesus gave lots of blow jobs to his disciples. Idiot. Now, go eat your gun.

          • singlemom_4

            God never described homosexuality as love but lust, unlawful lust, so it is not loved. It originates from a place of perversion. This type of mindset and behavior is described by God as depraved, and he is the one that will you based his standard and what his word says.

            As a side an experiment was done where a man targeted 13 prominent gay bakers and he recorded his request for them to make a cake support of a traditional marriage event that he was hosting with the simple message that “gay marriage is wrong,” and everyone of the those denied his right to have them give him the requested device, stating that they couldn’t do that because it went against their beliefs, and that they wouldn’t support doing something like that. Some cursed him out, called him names, and hung up on him. One in particular changed her position when he informed her that she was discriminating against his right to have service done for her, afterall it is not about the message but providing the same service that you would give any other customer, isn’t it? Well, I believe she changed her mind because she thought she might sued because of violating a discrimination law for all customers to be treated equally and fairly, but she wasn’t happy about it, and she felt that she was right to discriminate against this heterosexual customer’s request. She then added, that she would, in addition to putting the message “gay marriage is wrong,” on the cake, that she would also put a big dick on the cake with a long phallus, sad! The truth is people are shocked to learn that gay people are some of the most intolerant bigots on the planet, and will stop at nothing to force you into placating their agenda. They are strong armed rebels with a degenerate lifestyle that’s rooted in lust and perversion. Now isn’t that hypocritical of gays?

          • acontraryview

            “and everyone of the those gay bakers denied his right to have them give him the requested service”

            No baker is required to put whatever requested writing is asked for on a cake. No customer has a right to that. It is a false comparison. The couple in this instance made no request for anything to be written on the cake nor for any specific decoration which would distinguish the cake from any other wedding cake.

            If a gay couple went into a bakery and requested that the baker write, for example: “God Loves Gay Marriage”, the baker would be within his legal bounds to deny that request. Just as the bakers in your example were within their legal bounds to deny the request.

            “she would also put a big dick on the cake with a long phallus”

            Since a big dick and a large phallus are the same thing, either you have your story wrong, or the woman has a penchant for redundancy.

            “discriminating against the rights of others”

            No one has the right to force a baker to put any words on a cake.

            “afterall it is not about the message but providing the same service that you would give any other customer, isn’t it?”

            No, a request for words to be written on a cake is different than a request for a cake with no words written on it. A Christian baker would be free, for example, to turn down an order for a cake that was to be used for a Satanic Worship Ceremony if the order specified that the cake had to have written on it: “Satan is King”. On the other hand, if the order was simply for a sheet cake with standard decorations, they baker could not turn down the order because it was being used at a Satanic Worship Ceremony.

            in similar fashion, a gay baker would not be required to write “Gays are sinners” on a cake, but would not be able to turn down an order for an undecorated cake merely because it was from a religious organization.

            “Why not?”

            Because they are legally allowed to turn down such a request. Just as a Christian baker would be free to turn down a request to write “God loves gay marriage” on a cake.

            “Maybe he should just sue them. What do you think?”

            He is free to do as he likes, however I do not see that he would have a case.

            It would benefit you to gain a better understanding of anti-discrimination laws as relates to issues of public accommodation. Your current level of understanding is leading you to false conclusions and unnecessary angst.

          • Chip01

            I don’t think you are supposed to use all caps – FYI.

            How do you know it’s lust, and not love. It’s a hit yo simple to assume this. There are lots of people in love. Of all ages.

          • singlemom_4

            Unnatural lust at that.

          • Janiece Desmond

            it is nothing but lust and does not have anything to do with making a child or procreating. It is just to satisfy the sick desires of lust it has nothing to do with love. Two men and two women cannot love each other in that way we are made different and need the opposite of our own selves.

          • Chip01

            Just curious. What are your thoughts on interracial relationships? Interfaith?

            You are 100% wrong to say 2 people can’t love each other. Btw.

          • Chip01

            Btw are you fat? Gluttony is a sin.

          • Janiece Desmond

            are you 12?

          • Chip01

            Being 12 isn’t a sin… Being fat is… Gluttony is a sin…

            Stop pushing only the parts of the bible which support your bigotry.

          • Janiece Desmond

            stop assuming im fat and assuming you know it all

          • Janiece Desmond

            I am I was in a relationship like that and its not healthy and its not real love…real love completes you..it is a selfish act to have sex with the same type of person you are m or f. It is a selfish and you all are being fooled by the leftist. It is not for love its for your money.

          • Chip01

            (Rolling eyes)

            So – you couldn’t make your relationship work… So the rest of us are just doomed to fail?
            Shouldn’t be allowed to have our relationship?

            That is one nasty case of narcissism youve got yourself there, Janiece.

            ((Often I find – when debating with haters such as yourself… I don’t need to reply. Your comment speaks for itself. ))

          • Janiece Desmond

            so does yours

        • acontraryview

          What act is that, Janiece? The act of ordering a cake?

          • Janiece Desmond

            the sexual act that the gay community performs is disgusting

          • acontraryview

            What sexual act does everyone in the gay community perform?

          • Janiece Desmond

            i have no words in regards to your ignorance

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t answer the question, then you can’t. No worries.

      • Janice James

        YES, WHEN IT IS NOT SEX IT IS “THE RIGHT TO DENY SERVICE” THIS IS AN OLD OLD BUSINESS LAW/RULE,, AND THEY WERE AFTER MONEY,, LOTS OF SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY, FOR SHAME.

        • acontraryview

          ” IT IS “THE RIGHT TO DENY SERVICE” THIS IS AN OLD OLD BUSINESS LAW/RULE”

          it is an old law that has not been in effect since 1964.

          So you think it is shameful to hold people accountable to the law?

          If it had been an interracial couple who was turned away, would it also be shameful if the owners were held accountable?

      • CountryEdge

        Oh, you mean like the Christians are being discriminated against and beliefs being trampled on as well as being forced to partake in what we dont believe in solely upon one’s religious belief.

        Yeah, they are pretty discusting.

        • acontraryview

          “Oh, you mean like the Christians are being discriminated against ”

          In order for Christians to be discriminated against, they would have to be singled out while those of other religions are allowed to do things they are not. Since that is not happening, there is no discrimination.

          “and beliefs being trampled on”

          No beliefs are being trampled upon. People are free to believe as they care to.

          “as being forced to partake in what we dont believe in solely upon one’s religious belief.”

          Since owning a business is a choice, and deciding what products to offer is a choice, there is no “forcing”.

      • afchief

        A society/culture has to draw the line when it comes to morals. Homosexuality is NOT moral!! For centuries it was against the law. It was looked at as a mental condition. It was shunned. Why? Because it was viewed as immoral. What has changed today? A godless, lying and lawless pResident who appointed two homo judges to the SCOTUS. A godless, lying media who hides the facts about the homosexual lifestyle. And we ALL know how dangerous this lifestyle is so do not try and lie about it. A Godless education system that promotes humanism and hedonism. Teaching kids as young as 5 that homosexuality is normal (a lie).

        What next? Pedophilia? Three people who want to marry? 10? I want to marry my dog? My rock? etc, etc, etc,

        Marriage has been and ALWAYS will be between one man and one women, period.

        We Christians KNOW this has to happen before Christ’s return. We are very close!!!

        • acontraryview

          “Homosexuality is NOT moral!! ”

          You are certainly entitled to your beliefs regarding the morality of homosexuality, but your beliefs are not a basis for what is legal and what is not.

          “A godless, lying and lawless pResident who appointed two homo judges to the SCOTUS.”

          The legality of homosexuality was changed long before our current president took office. Which SCOTUS judges are homosexual and what is your basis for saying they are homosexual?

          “A godless, lying media who hides the facts about the homosexual lifestyle. And we ALL know how dangerous this lifestyle is so do not try and lie about it.”

          There is no single “homosexual lifestyle” just as there is no single “heterosexual lifestyle”. If the media “hides the facts” then how is it “we ALL know”? What facts do you believe the media is hiding?

          “What next? Pedophilia? Three people who want to marry? 10? I want to marry my dog? My rock? etc, etc, etc,”

          If you want to marry your dog or your rock, you are certainly free to work to get the laws changed to allow you to do so. It is highly unlikely, however, that you will be able to do so since civil marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts require informed consent between adults.

          Marriage laws are unrelated to pedophilia.

          Their are a variety of rational and compelling arguments for not allowing marriage between more than two people. Arguments regarding gender restrictions and number restrictions are apples and oranges. There is nothing in the allowance of marriage without gender restriction that provides any legal precedent for changing restrictions on number.

          “Marriage has been and ALWAYS will be between one man and one women, period.”

          Actually it hasn’t. For most of history marriage was between one man and multiple women, and still is in many places. The concept of one man/one woman for life is, historically speaking, a relatively recent change.

          “We are very close!!!”

          Do you have a date? I’d like to plan something. Maybe a nice brunch. I do love brunch!

          • afchief

            Ah yes, the liar has spoken!!!

            “The legality of homosexuality was changed long before our current president took office. Which SCOTUS judges are homosexual and what is your basis for saying they are homosexual?”

            Really? When? My States Constitution still says marriage is between one man and one woman.

            Several of the homo judges did homo weddings.

            Everything else you stated is not worth my time. It is ALL a boldface lie!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Really? When?”

            2003

            “My States Constitution still says marriage is between one man and one woman.”

            Yes, the Florida Constitution still states that marriage is between one man and one woman. The laws which were written to implement that portion of the Florida Constitution are no longer enforceable.

            “Several of the homo judges did homo weddings.”

            Again, which judges are you saying are homosexual and what is your basis for saying they are homosexual?

            “It is ALL a boldface lie!!!!”

            There you go again with the bearing of false witness. Tsk Tsk. What, specifically, did I say that was a lie and what is your basis for stating that what I said is a lie?

          • afchief

            BYE! I’m done dealing with a reprobate mind. You cannot see truth. I’m not wasting my time anymore!!!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

          • acontraryview

            Well no surprise there. You do have a tendency to run when facts are presented that are contrary to your lies and you are unable to back up the claims you make.

            Enjoy the day!

          • afchief

            Like I said when you have a reprobate mind you cannot see the truth.

            I’m wasting my time dealing with blindness!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Yet you have been unable to cite anything that I have said which is not true. Again with the bearing of false witness. You’re going have some ‘splainin to do at some point.

          • afchief

            Everything I have!!! For instance, you STILL THINK SCOTUS opinions change the law!!!

            That is a boldface lie!!!

            Yes, you are a liar.

          • acontraryview

            “you STILL THINK SCOTUS opinions change the law!!!”

            No, I do not think that. Your statement is a lie. SCOTUS rulings cannot change law. What SCOTUS can do is change the enforceability of law.

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and your posts are proof. Show me where is states in Article III of our Constitution that the SCOTUS can change the enforceability of law?

            Waiting………………………………………………….

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • acontraryview

            You just provided it.

            “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court”

            “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;”

            Now, I’ll ask again: What lies have I told?

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Judicial power is NOT striking down laws!!!!! It is to hear cases and make decisions!!!

            Yes, more proof that homosexuality and liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

            Yes, you are a liar!!!

          • acontraryview

            “It is to hear cases and make decisions!!!”

            And if they rule that a law violates protections provided by the Constitution, the law is no longer enforceable.

            Again, what lies have I told?

          • afchief

            This lie “And if they rule that a law violates protections provided by the Constitution, the law is no longer enforceable.”

            Show me where it says that in the Constitution!!!!

            Waiting………………………………………….

          • acontraryview

            You provided it above.

            What would be the purpose of the Judiciary ruling on the Constitutionality of laws if one of the potential outcomes were not the ruling that the law violates protections provided by the Constitution and thus is not enforceable?

            If the Judiciary were not allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

          • afchief

            Are you really this ignorant of our laws and Constitution?!?!?!?!?!?!

            Does this statement sink in that little liberal cranium of yours?!?!?!?

            “The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            YES, YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “”The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.””

            Agreed. How is that relevant to the court declaring that a law is no longer enforceable?

            “YES, YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            Placing your comment in all caps with multiple exclamation points does not change the fact that you have been unable to cite anything I have said that is a lie. Yes, you are a bearer of false witness. No caps or multiple exclamation points needed.

          • afchief

            Let me repeat it; YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!! And serve the father of lies…..satan!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Yet you have been unable to point to anything I have said which was a lie. Which means that, of the two of us, you are liar. Oh my. Are you serving Satan, Russ?

          • afchief

            What does the word “all” mean to you?!?!?!?

            Article. I.
            Section. 1.
            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

          • acontraryview

            It means that only Congress is allowed to create Federal Law. That is unrelated to the ability of the Judiciary to rule on the Constitutionality, and thus enforceability, of laws that are created.

            What event led to the legalization of interracial marriage?

          • afchief

            Bye!! I’m done dealing with a liar and stupidity!!!!!!!!!!! You exhibit both 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Again with the bearing of false witness. You do know that’s a Biblical sin, right?

          • afchief

            Let me repeat it; You are a liar and serve the father of lies……satan!!!

          • acontraryview

            Repeating something false doesn’t make it true, Russ.

          • afchief

            Federalist #78 proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

            Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

          • acontraryview

            While the Federalist Papers make for interesting reading and discussion points, they are not law nor do they serve as a basis for law.

            “Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended:”

            Highly doubtful. The case was heard prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. That amendment changed the ability of the SCOTUS to rule on matters of state law.

            “in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves.”

            No, that is not what the court ruled in Dred Scott v Sanford. What the court ruled is that they were not empowered to rule upon issues of state law.

          • afchief

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

          • acontraryview

            Again with the bearing of false witness. Tsk tsk.

          • afchief

            Stop lying!!!!!

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

          • acontraryview

            “Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution”

            No, it does not. It claims that it has the final say on the Constitutionality of laws, which it does.

          • afchief

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

          • acontraryview

            Given that you continue to accuse me of lying but provide no proof, it appears that you are the one serving “the father of lies…..satan!!!!”

    • Chip01

      Yes. The fight to have a loving family equally … Serve in the military equally… Belong to a community… Fair employment and housing…

      These are pretty much what the “gay agenda” has asked for – nothing more. And ironically – these mirror more of a conservative path in life…

      • Korova Milk Bar

        you lie and you know it. you are the problem .. dishonest agendas!

        • acontraryview

          What did Chip01 say that was a lie?

          • Korova Milk Bar

            you know, quit pretending.
            aren’t we too old to play 2nd grade games?
            I should say that I am too old.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite anything he said that was a lie. Got it. Thanks.

            Talk about playing 2nd grade games…..pretty 2nd grade to call someone a liar but then not be able to say what they lied about.

          • Korova Milk Bar

            we all see it. you don’t and won’t and you know it. even on this little forum you play a 2nd grade game. you REALLY don’t see it???

            haha
            then why bait the question with me?
            hoping to use a Jon Stewart snarky comeback?

          • acontraryview

            Hey, if you can’t defend your own comment, then you can’t. No worries. i see that a lot in people whose accusations are baseless.

          • CountryEdge

            The agenda was how so many LGBT people were testing bakeries just to get them sued.

            Anyone wuth common sense seen it and knew it was purposly done. Let alone their pathetic reasons of personal “damages” LIES were their damages.

            Pathetic excuse of a human, nothing but worthless people like that.

          • acontraryview

            “The agenda was how so many LGBT people were testing bakeries just to get them sued.”

            How many was that? I am aware of 2. Were there others?

            “Anyone wuth common sense seen it and knew it was purposly done.”

            Basis?

            “Pathetic excuse of a human”

            So holding a business accountable to the law is “pathetic”?

        • Chip01

          Well.
          Gays fought for and won the right to marry and have a family.
          Gays fought for and won the right to serve in the military.
          Gays are fighting for equal protection in housing and employment.

          What else do you see them fighting for, that makes up your version of an agenda ?

          I thought I’d help you out by giving you the definition of the term agenda :

          1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done

          • afchief

            Wrong! What has happened is we have a godless, lying and lawless pResident. We have a lying media who no longer reports facts and truth. We have a godless education system that promotes sin.

            It is that simple!!!

          • Chip01

            A right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is all the “agenda” homosexuals seek

            A Family/community , to serve their country, and fair/equal housing and employment

            Alchief, it would be interesting/helpful to know how a loving committed relationship between two women who are career military and live in a state not yours….. How does their happiness directly negatively impact your life? Specifically your life?

          • Shaun D.

            Liar!

          • Chip01

            …Sitting in judgment of others is a sin according to the bible. In fact, it is a rather serious sin to judge the righteousness of another person’s soul since that is the purvey of God himself….

          • SeekandYeShallFind

            Please read God’s Word in its entirety, so you can know what His definition of ‘righteousness’ is….not the world’s version. Again, Jesus says we can judge unrighteousness. Read, read, read and ask God to forgive you of your mishandling of His Word. It is a serious matter.

          • Chip01

            Are you eating meat on Fridays? Stoning those adulterers? How’s the fasting going.

            Cherry picking and wild variations on interpreting the bibles is very confusing.

            So, this decade y’all decided to hate gays… Next declared – maybe it’s cats that get the full brunt of the pious… Who knows?

          • Me myself I

            The Bible says Judge a tree by the fruit it bears, Man is a tree in case you do not understand what it means.

            Matthew 12
            Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

            O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

            Matthew Chapter 12

          • ReverendEddie

            Talk about someone copying and pasting… oh, and repeating himself because he doesn’t know what else to say. And by the way, I’m not judging, just speculating.

          • Chip01

            So. When you repeat bible verses over and over again… That’s not repeating!

          • afchief

            THESE ARE MY VIEWS!!!! And they will not change!

            2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

            3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

            4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

            5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

            6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

            7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

            8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

            9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

            10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

            11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

            12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

            13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

            14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

            15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

            16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts. org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

            17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

            18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to “Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

            19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

            20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

            http://www.faithfacts. org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-marriage-christians-communicating-to-secular-friends

          • Chip01

            LOL long copy/pasted like these remind me of someone who threw a party at their home… But no one showed up.

          • afchief

            There is no dignity in sodomy! No matter what five degenerates in black robes might say, there is NO dignity in sodomy. Dignity cannot be bestowed by a court. No judge can make male-on-male sodomy “worthy of honor and respect.” Honor and respect come from within. No man can ever feel dignified as another man violates his anus. It is the ultimate desecration of manhood.

            No judge can EVER dignify that. You can call it “marriage” if it makes you feel better, but two men doing despicable things to each other’s bodies can never be dignified. Calling it “gay” does not make it so. Sodomy is dirty; in fact God calls it abominable. Calling it “gay” is nothing more than trying to dignify what they KNOW to be deviant. You are looking for society to tell you it is OK. It is not. It is abominable. The Supreme Judge said so.

            Those who practice sodomy have looked to the perverted judges for dignity. What they fail to understand (or choose to ignore) is the fact that the courts have neither the power nor the authority to dignify such perverse behavior. No court decision can possibly give dignity to men who service other men.

            Picture Elton John and his partner “making love.” Would that look dignified to you?

            Homosexuals hate themselves. It is so sad. They wish they weren’t trapped in that sin, but validating the behavior simply will not dignify it. I hate what homosexuality does to the soul of a man. I absolutely hate it. There is no way to dignify it. Only Jesus can help. He will give you your dignity back.

          • Chip01

            You are obsessed with sex. Why is that?

            (FYI straight men and woman perform sodomy)

          • afchief

            People with reprobate minds perform sodomy. It is SIN!!!! Homo marriage is not about marriage. It is about destruction of the First Amendment. Soon it will be “illegal” to discriminate based on “sexual orientation” then religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are dead. Homosexual marriage will bury the First Amendment. Homosexual marriage will trump Freedom of Religion; the first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

          • Negroid Mongolian Caucasian

            And I cannot wait!!! Tax the Churches and Pay the Debt for all your stupid religious wars.

          • Chip01

            With all due respect, you’re not making much sense. Thanks for the discussion.

          • Elie Challita

            Ever gotten a blowjob, chief? Or had sex in anything other but the missionary position, with the lights off, and only for procreation?

          • Negroid Mongolian Caucasian

            Let the hate fill you up all the way. Yeah that feels good huh. That`s Jesus`s love up in there now, arch your back.

          • Elie Challita

            Oh, Hi there chief!
            I see you’re still regurgitating copy/pasted material without the least regard for factual correctness or accuracy.

          • afchief

            Yep, And I believe every word of it!!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            I don’t doubt that you do, chief. I would recommend seeing someone about it though, I’ve heard that psychologists can do wonders to treat paranoid schizophrenia these days.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • afchief

            Another reprobate mind!!!!

          • SeekandYeShallFind

            Well said.

          • jael2

            Yes, they have fought against God, and His laws, but they will not escape the judgment of eternal life in the lake of fire ( unless they repent, of course)

          • Chip01

            Prove it.

            Can you prove it?

            Are you able to prove your God sent (1) person to some lake of fire? For any reason?

            Btw Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear.

            Why do I know this… And you don’t?

          • Shaun D.

            Gays, queers, fags, have ZERO “rights” to marry, have children, adopt children, nor hold positions of authority etc etc etc.

            To HELL with “gay rights” and your perverted child raping agenda.

            P.s. GAYS already force some schools to teach kindergartner kids to learn about perverted abominable homosexual/lesbian/bisexual sexual practices.

            WHO SAID GAYS AREN’T SEXUAL PREDATORS AND PEDOPHILES!!!???

          • Chip01

            ..Sitting in judgment of others is a sin according to the bible. In fact, it is a rather serious sin to judge the righteousness of another person’s soul since that is the purvey of God himself.

          • ReverendEddie

            I see you are, once again, at a loss for words. So, once again, you’re just repeating the same ones over and over again. I find that interesting.

          • Chip01

            This is a repeat of your previous post…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Perhaps you haven’t been following the news. Gays have many rights now, including the right to marry, adopt children, teach, and, in many states, receive service in places of public accommodation.

          • Elie Challita

            You do realize that the majority of rapists and pedophiles are heterosexual men, right? And specifically white, Christian, heterosexual men in the US?

            Statistically speaking, Shaun, you’re more likely to be a pedophile and a rapist than any three gay men. So I assume you’re fine with surrendering all your rights?

          • Shaun D.

            Wow, thanks.for the gay agenda propaganda, im sure to take correction seriously coming from.a person that is genitalia challenged . SARCASM

          • Balerion

            If you’re looking for sexual predators and pedophiles, maybe the first place you should start looking is YOUR CHURCH.

        • oregon_man

          and you bear false witness.

          • Korova Milk Bar

            by writing that you prove to ANY reader you dont know what it means

      • Janice James

        AND HAS ZIP TO DO WITH BAKING A CAKE FOR THOSE YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO, THE BAKERS RIGHTS WERE TRAMPLED ON FOR SELFISH REASONS AND FOR BIG BUCKS! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!

        • Chip01

          Again, all caps… Serve no purpose.

          Big bucks? The bakers got $500k out if them young public.. The coupe was harrassed and given death threats.

          • Shaun D.

            Stupid fags…..can’t even tell the truth

          • Chip01

            Which part was a lie?

            Sitting in judgment of others is a sin according to the bible. In fact, it is a rather serious sin to judge the righteousness of another person’s soul since that is the purvey of God himself.

          • Finkster

            Accessing ones character by their sinful behavior in the flesh is not judgement of the Soul.

          • Chip01

            Now.. Your tweeting “damning a out yo hell’ to hit mean “damning a dial yo hell”

            Does 1+1 still equal 2 under your religious beliefs?

      • MoeEdweird

        “nothing more” This fine looks like MORE. i remember my friends who would says “don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. it won’t affect you!” repeated over and over and over again. And yet, the freedom to marry was not enough, we can drive people out of business in the name of “live and let live”

        • Chip01

          The baker chose to close their shop… And do their business entirely on line. You can buy their cakes and pastries still. No one was driven out of business. (thr baker has $500k. Their bigotry was very profitable)

          The baker was fined for breaking the law.

          There is no “more” here, since this law the baker broke has been here LONG before and isn’t a “gay specific” law.

          • Shaun D.

            You idiotic imbecile. Lie somewhere else.

            You and yours are under GOD’S WRATH.

            Romans 1:24-32

          • Chip01

            Sitting in judgment of others is a sin according to the bible. In fact, it is a rather serious sin to judge the righteousness of another person’s soul since that is the purvey of God himself.

          • SeekandYeShallFind

            God’s Word will judge all people, if you delight in this wickedness, you too will be judged by His Word, which is TRUTH. And by the way, Christians can judge righteously, as Jesus teaches.

          • Chip01

            Of cours Christians can…. Christians make up rules /laws as they like. We all know that.

          • Allan Trenholme

            It’s obvious you don’t know scripture however, what did you expect to read here in the comments section on a Christian site? And just what are you doing on a Christian site anyway???

          • Allan Trenholme

            Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

          • Chip01

            Betty W 32:12 “Jesus said… Stop staying I said stuff, that I never did, just to fit your own bigotry”

        • Elie Challita

          It would not have been MORE had you people not insisted on treated every gay person like a diseased leper.
          Fundamentalist Christians have been given every opportunity to interact with society like rational adults, and rejected the chance every time. Excuse me if most of us have run out of sympathy for your antics.

        • acontraryview

          “And yet, the freedom to marry was not enough, we can drive people out of business in the name of “live and let live””

          Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws are two separate things.

      • afchief

        “Every member of society has a duty to contribute to the commonwealth. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them. Thus, homosexual practitioners not only fail to ‘pay for their keep,’ but by their negative influence on children, cloud society’s future.

        Those who engage in homosexuality seek what they say are ‘gay rights.” In reality, they are demanding Super Rights. Super Rights are those privileges that allow one to override the inalienable rights of other citizens, such as freedom of speech and association. These Super Rights—which are conferred by ‘non-discrimination,’ ‘hate crime,’ and ‘hate speech’ laws—allow homosexuals, if they so choose, to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them.

        As an example, empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who practices homosexuality is the most likely kind of teacher to sexually molest students. A principal knowing this may not want to hire a teacher who declares his homosexual interests. But if that teacher wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of students not to experience extra risk (especially since safety is part of their right to life). Parents renting out one side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if—even on a whim — the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children’s right not to be exposed to potential molestation.

        The Super Rights of homosexual practitioners also squelch the right of others to freedom of speech. If a broadcaster opines that homosexual sex is dangerous, but a homosexual finds such speech ‘offensive,’ his Super Rights trump the broadcaster’s freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned.”

        http://www.faithfacts. org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          And again a biased site, as always. What special rights, not being discrimenated getting a job, able to get married, to adopt kids getting the service they want from any public place who provides those services, like bakeries, restaurants, etc, good housing? Oh wait the same rights we heteroes have. And we still have freedom of speech, I can call you a bigot Christian and you can call me whatever you want, you won’t get puniched for it as long as you don’t break the law. And if you want to proof you’re right, then find a site that is neutral.

          • afchief

            Quoting Eric Pavlat, “Finally, legally recognizing these unions hurts the nation as a whole. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitrim Sorokin declared in The American Revolution that he found virtually no culture that both failed to restrict marriage to a man and a woman and survived very long. Cambridge anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin stated nearly the same thing in Hopousia, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society: ‘In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.’ In short, gay marriage harms everyone, regardless of whether they themselves are gay or married.”

            Liberals accuse conservatives of being arbitrary by limiting marriage to a man and a woman. They don’t like it when we draw lines. Our response is two-fold. First, our drawing of the line is not arbitrary. This entire article supports our view. But secondly, liberals themselves are the ones who draw lines and do so arbitrarily. Let’s use simple reason. If you say that two men should be allowed to marry, why draw the line there? Why not 3 men, if that meets their particular pursuit of happiness? Why not polygamy? Why not allow a 35 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl? Where do you stop? Wherever the liberal draws the line it is arbitrary.

            Sometimes we hear the objection that marriage is not about children, that many heterosexual couples do not have children either by choice or sterility. We respond that their sexual union is still the kind of union that God has intended for the procreation of children. So the objection has no force.

            Only about 4% of gays, even when marriage is an option, actually get married. This is a strong indicator that gay marriage is not really about marriage, but about affirmation.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You’re saying a lot without answering my question, as always. Okay I’ll bite. First guy is a Christian, the second one died in 1968, the third one in 1936, right. Got anything more recent and people who are not Christians?

            There are laws against incest, pedophilia, child molesting for a reason, the things you name are a crime. Two concenting adults who are in love and want to marry is not a crime. Polygamy, if they don’t hurt others why not. Threesomes already are a fact, they just can’t get married.

          • acontraryview

            “Polygamy, if they don’t hurt others why not. ”

            Polygamy presents a host of issues from a legal standpoint. Child custody, inheritance, taxation, property ownership, pensions, health care coverage, etc. As such, it is highly unlikely that we would ever legalize marriage between more than two people.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Just like incest and pedophilia.

          • acontraryview

            For both of those there are rational and compelling reasons why they should not be allowed. Regarding restricting marriage based solely upon gender, the state was unable to provide any rational and compelling reasons why those restrictions were necessary.

          • afchief

            Just the moral decay of our society.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh pelease! All the nations who have marriage equality are doing just fine. I’m living in one.

          • Shaun D.

            You are under the wrath of God.

          • afchief

            Also, there is no such thing as a neutral site. I have seen the homosexual websites promoting this lifestyle as no different then a hetro lifestyle. Any rational and logical mind KNOWS that is a lie. We Christians look to the Word of God for our insight. We know what it says about homosexuality. We know it is sin. We know the eternal consequences of this lifestyle.

            You, the media are willfully ignoring the facts about how dangerous this lifestyle is.

            And we Christians know why!!!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So you can’t proof your claim? Right.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Dangerous “lifestyle”. Example of a homo couple who are my friends. Happily married, three kids, one girl, two boys all adopted from hetero problem families. Girl is happily married with a great guy, two kids,she is a lawyer,he is a cop. Oldest from the boys, is married, first kid on the way. He is a gardener, she will be soon a stay home mom. Youngest boy is at the university, wants to become a teacher. So where is the “danger”? I have more examples if you want.

          • afchief

            Extremely dangerous!!!!

            Everyone Should Know

            These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • Shaun D.

            L e v i t i c u s. 20 : 13 KJV
            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.

          • Bob Johnson

            When you are sure you’re right, you have a moral duty to impose your will upon anyone who disagrees with you. – Torquemada’s Law

          • Shaun D.

            Leviticus 20:13 KJV
            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.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            And again a bible quote instead of a straight answer.

        • Chip01

          Your copy /paste of bitter rhetoric is just silly propaganda, geared towards pleasing a very small group who already are predisposed to believe such lies.

          It would be more interesting to hear how a person who is homosexual has impacted Alchief directly.

          • afchief

            By raising my medical insurance because of how unhealthy this lifestyle is. Marriage, touches all aspects of society through a vast web of legal rights, privileges and acknowledgments. The relationship you’ve entered into is protected by law and must be legally recognized by everyone — your relatives, your banker, your insurance broker, your landlord, your doctor, your undertaker, everyone — even those who might have some objection to it, moral or otherwise.

            Therefore, no matter how much a person might object to same-sex marriage — might see it as sinful — he or she could easily become entangled in somebody else’s sin.

          • Chip01

            Your argument is at best… Laughable … And here is why:

            You’ve just described living in a society. That’s all. There is nothing you’ve written that you can’t apply to any straight person or others marriage. By your definition here, you are entangled in everyone else’s “sin” already…. That’s living in a society.

            Your bigotry you apply to gays – you now have manufactured a “sin” to their life. But since there is nothing wrong with being gay… Your argument falls flat.

            Here’s a better example for you if you’d like to use in the future…

            How does anyone else religion impact everyone else:

            We all have been subsidizing half baked religions ideas/beliefs through the full tax exemptions religioms receive. Those mega churches… Those pastors who live In Multi million dollar homes … Lots of Private planes… but for some reason…. religions can’t pay taxes?

          • afchief

            When you have a reprobate mind (homosexuality) it is laughable! But, to us Christians it is not!!! How could a nation reach the point where such an obvious crime against nature could become so acceptable amongst the populace? Until 2003 sodomy was illegal in all 50 states. It still is today. In Lawrence v Texas the SCOTUS overturned 2000 years of civil law and declared it a human right. Sodomy still is against the law, no matter what the SCOTUS says.

            But the root of sodomy is adultery. Fornication is the better term to use although many Christians refuse to use the term because of the negative connation attached to it.

          • Chip01

            How could we get to this point?
            Growth. the “shaming”/stigma the religions put to gays for 100’s of years is being wiped away quickly, with truth. No longer can you persecute gays for your churches financial gain. No one is buying the boogie-man lies you tell.

            So. Are you ok with removing that tax exemption for religions?

            (You never seem to even try to answer my questions of you. They are very truthful questions, so I am not surprised. Your silences answers for you)

          • afchief

            A society has to draw the lines when it comes to morality. Homosexuality is not moral. It is perverted, deviant, and dangerous. It is all cultural Marxism at work. Don’t believe your eyes, believe what we tell you. Your views are old-fashioned. Your beliefs are for a different generation. Sex and race are merely culturally-created identities. Your Bible is “homophobic.” There is no God, but if there is He is not very reliable. He puts men in women’s bodies and instills same-sex desires into children at their birth.

            Every foundational pillar upon which this society was built has been destroyed or redefined. The family is destroyed. Sexual roles have been reversed. Truth has become hate. Sex has become love. Good has become evil. Women are really men, and men are really women.

          • Negroid Mongolian Caucasian

            All humans develop first from no sex then into women then into men (if the necessary dna and chemicals are present) Homosexual behavior is seen in nearly all animals in nature. Google it. Ya Idiot.

            And your morality is necessarily my ethics if I live in a truly free society where I am guaranteed equality no matter what or how my DNA or chemicals turned out. You sound just exactly like all the other religious fundamentalist fanatical terrorists.

            You know your gun will not work on the owner. Try it and see. Please. We don`t need any more crazy.

          • Chip01

            …With all due respect, you’re not making much sense. Thanks for the discussion.

          • Negroid Mongolian Caucasian

            Jesus: “Eat Me! Eat Me!” Pastor: “Here is the donation plate.” Your religion is immoral.

      • Shaun D.

        You’re a LIAR. You know where liars and homosexuals go……right? HELL.

        Leviticus 20:13 KJV
        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.

        • Chip01

          There is, however, a big problem with quoting Leviticus. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christia

          Also, telling someone they are going to hell is a sin.

          • Shaun D.

            The BIG problem, honestly speaking, is that queers, lesbians/bisexuals hate the Holy pure Eternal word of God and only desire to remain in their sick vile detestable unholy SINFUL perversion.

            Sin WAS sin from the beginning, and SIN is still SIN today.

            Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, did NOT die on the cross and raise again the 3rd day just so you could remain ON YOUR SINS.

            If you continue IN SIN, you WILL PERISH (HELL FIRE).

            “THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH”.

            We all can see that…

            #1. Chip, YOU’RE gay.

            #2. You either have never read the entire Bible, OR you have , but “cherry pick”, and on top of that you twist scripture, leave parts out AND artwork to nullify parts of it……..all just to make YOURSELF feel comfortable with YOUR perverted SEXUAL SINS (homosexuality).

            GOD DIDN’T do away with the law. The law cannot save, but it is a “schoolmaster “, as a mirror to point out ones own sinfulness.

            Jesus said many times, “without repentance there is no remittance of sins”. YOU CANNOT BE FORGIVEN WITHOUT having repented (turned your back on all sin), of all your wickedness.

            Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
            Romans 1:24-32
            Genesis 2
            Genesis 19

            All tells us GOD is Holy and he is 100% against all homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality.

            You’re also a liar, Chip.

            You ARE under the full wrath of God.

            One thing (besides the obvious), we real Christians observe about all gays/lesbians/bisexuals etc etc, is your ability not only to lie to yourselves, but to others, though exposed to the full truth of the Gospel, l you will always deny it.

            God even tells us so in Romans 1:24-32.

            🙂

          • Chip01

            It’s clear from your bitter rhetoric that you are but honest with yourself.

            I feel bad for you, mostly cause you feel you are trying to do good for your faith …but reality is that your rhetoric has driven people from your church : your faith.

            The numbers of parishioners are at an all time low – and its directly linked to what you are saying.

            Again. Peter says don’t follow the law.

            Again. Condemning others to hell is a sin.

            Again. You cherry pick your verses of your bible to follow. Unless you are saying that you are for stings, and slavery, and buying /selling woman as property.

            Again. I feel bad for you.

          • Shaun D.

            Hahahaha you would be the only one who knows what “bitter” tastes like.

            While lost deep in your psychopathic sexual delusion that the other 96% (heterosexual), of the world’s population have the same repulsive sexual desires that it yourself have, do your best to keep in mind that we (96%) are……

            #1. Heterosexual

            #2. Against gay “marriage”

            #3. Against Sodomy

            #4. Believe in God, the HOLY righteous and Eternal God, which destroyed the first world (Population of earth), with a worldwide flood (of which only 8 persons were saved).

            You’re a liar, clueless, and under God’s wrath. He’ll is your Eternal place of torment, unless YOUR acknowledge that why God calls SIN, IS sin indeed.

            All homosexuality is and was SIN.

            Goodbye liar, known as “Chip01”.

            Jesus doesn’t condemn you btw, he wants to save you. But, you’re lying about the Bible and it’s truth……so it’s obvious you’re not interested and have rejected Jesus Christ. That’s easy for me to say…..BECAUSE Jesus Christ IS the truth, and you’ve shown ZERO interest in it.

          • Chip01

            I’ve shown zero interest in you, Shaun

            You are not Jesus, no matter how much you claim to be.

          • Shaun D.

            That’s good that you feel no interest in me, a MAN. First time? LMBO.

            You’re of the devil. On your way to Everlasting darkness and punishments in Hell. 🙂

            I’m certainly NOT the “Jesus”, YOU want to see. You’re non existent “Jesus” is an imaginary person.

            JESUS CHRIST is the very Son of God.

            He doesn’t bless your filthy vile sick perverted homosexuality, Chip01.

            You’ve proven your a liar, a homosexual (“abomination”), and “worthy of death” (Romans 1:24-32).

            As I said before, Chip01, you ARE under God’s full wrath.

            I’ll block you now. Hahahaha

            God doesn’t hear your prayers btw. Hope you’re not that …….wait, yes…..you are that stupid to think God hears your prayers.

            Believe AND repent, or perish.

            Looks like you’ve chosen perish. 🙂

            No matter.
            Btw everyone, Ray Comfort has a great video out……it’s called “audacity”.. 🙂

          • Chip01

            Shaun… Do you feel you’ve been a good representative of Christ, and therefore will be going to heaven?

            Reading these comments of yours, it’s clear you didn’t comprehend the meanings of the bible, if you’ve even bothered to read it..

            Judging/Condemning people to hell, as you are doing, is specifically called out as a major sin. (Mathew 7)

            Shaun is a good Irish name … So might I make a suggestion….. Remember to pack Sunscreen.

            .

          • SeekandYeShallFind

            Jesus is a fulfillment of the Law…He did not do away with the Law… He raised the standard higher for Christians to live by. He wrote Leviticus and He has not changed His mind on it. Read Romans 1, 2, 3. Your last comment contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Listen to Him, not yourself.

          • Chip01

            There is nothing recorded in the four Gospels where Jesus specifically mentions homosexuality… So I shall do as you say, and listen to Jesus… Not his self serving followers.

          • SeekandYeShallFind

            Good try at twisting, but it will not work. Read Romans, Corinthians, Revelation. Jesus does not have to repeat everything He said about sodomy…He said it once, repeats it in Romans, etc..judged it at Sodom and Gomorrah. Repent of your foolishness and twisting of scripture.

          • Chip01

            You’re lying. Jesus didn’t say a thing.

          • Bob Johnson

            Moses wrote Leviticus

      • Finkster

        Who told you that ?

    • George Rockin

      it’s spelled “disgusting”

      • Cobra

        thanks for the correction…I don’t know what I would do without you

  • Michael C

    Between the GoFundMe page and the Continue to Give page, around $520,000 has been raised for the Kleins. Liberty Counsel has also been using their name to collect unreported amounts of money. Even Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse has raised an undisclosed amount of money purported to be for their benefit.

    If their bank account is empty, where’s the rest of the money?

    • http://beirut-memorial.org Junglemechanic

      Probably in legal fees and all other misc. expenses.

    • Janice James

      MAYBE THEY BAKED A CAKE AND PUT THE MONEY IN IT~ “FOUR AND TWENTY BLACK BIRDS BAKED IN A PIE” ,,,,, GET REAL,,,, , IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHERE IT IS OR ISN’T.

      • mantis

        yes it is.

  • Oshtur

    They were fined, didn’t pay the fine, the state got a lien on their bank accounts.

    This is just more of the ‘I got caught breaking the law and bad things happened, why are they so mean to me?’ stuff these business owners have been doing from day one.

    • Allan Trenholme

      And your proof these business owners have done this from day one is where???

      • Oshtur

        My proof of what? They have been crying about being persecuted, ‘boo hoo for me’? Have you read nothing about the case? Go read the deposition of the original encounters, the articles are Oregonlive dot com that detail the progression of the case, and then get back to me.

        (oh and if you are just being pedantic about the use of ‘day one’ as poetic substitute for ‘from the beginning’ that’s just legalism. 😉

  • Reason2012

    The anti-Chnstian hate continues to grow stronger, here under the guise of same-gender marriage. Would a black baker who has no problem serving white people but refuse to support the ACT of an “anti-black” ACT be met with such hatred? No, the ones making the request would. And so it goes with those who demand Christians support anti-Christian ACTS. In the end, it’s God they’ll have to deal with for such anti-Christian hatred.

    Meanwhile 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!

    • Cobra

      very well written…

      • acontraryview

        Actually, well copied and pasted, and irrelevant to our laws.

      • Reason2012

        Feel free to make use of it yourself.

    • Chrissy Vee

      Amen!

    • Janice James

      THANK YOU “REASON 2012” AMEN TO GODS WORDS.

      • Reason2012

        Glad it was a blessing. May God bless!

  • Allan Trenholme

    One can’t rob from God and get away with it.

    • mantis

      says who?

      • Allan Trenholme

        if you understood the scriptures and knew the power of God, you’d know the answer to your question. By he way, just what did you expect to read in the comments section on a Christian site? And, what are you doing at a Christian site anyway???

        • mantis

          your god has no authority in this secular nation

          • Allan Trenholme

            Again, what are you doing at a Christian site anyway if that’s what YOU believe???

          • mantis

            that Christians aren’t above the law

          • Allan Trenholme

            Ah… you need to take it up with God after all, it’s Him you seem to have a problem with. When we Christians have a problem we take it to God. He is faithful and just and hears our prayers ‘because He loves us’ and that includes you.

          • mantis

            I don’t need to take anything up with a fictional being.

          • Allan Trenholme

            Ok, and again, you’re here on a Christian site because???

          • mantis

            because you need to learn that reality cannot be shut out

  • acontraryview

    Yeah, that’s what happens to ANYONE who defies a court order to pay a fine. The state comes after you. No surprise there.

    “It’s difficult to understand the Kleins’ unwillingness to pay the debt when they have, very publicly, raised nearly a half million dollars,” Burr, communications director for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, said. “They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order.”

  • http://beirut-memorial.org Junglemechanic

    The persecutions are here, the 2016 elections not withstanding, more and more will be coming against Israel and all real Christians.

  • legaliis

    There are two MOST IMPORTANT and URGENT things that need to be done immediately:
    A) these poor victims of State PC should sue for treble damages at a base of $1 Million each and:

    B) the judge in this case should be summarily discharged/recalled as a complete and total incompetent.

    • mantis

      why for both?

      • legaliis

        Payment for the direct and deliberate pain and trauma to the innocent couple & just plain stupidity on the bungling activist judges part.

        • mantis

          the bakery broke the law, any pain or trauma they;re experiencing is their own fault and you can’t punish a judge for enforcing the law

          • Janice James

            AND YOUR WRONG ,,,,,, THANK GOD YOUR WRONG! BUT PRAISE TO THE COUPLE WHO STOOD FOR THE TRUTH AND DID NOT BACK DOWN. I AM SO GLAD THE PEOPLE HELPED THEM PAY.,,, WAY TO GO AMERICA, NOW LETS CHANGE THAT STUPID ACTUALLY HORRID “LAW” ,,,,,OH ,, DONALD,,,,

          • mantis

            caps lock just makes you look deranged which you clearly are

          • Bob Johnson

            And she thumbs up her own comments.

          • legaliis

            Broke what law? They’re a private concern and, as such, have the right to cater to whomever they feel. Suddenly it’s alright to serves whom one wishes to so long as one doesn’t offend the PC or abhorrent crowd.

          • mantis

            no they don’t, they cannot deny someone service for discriminatory reasons like say sexual orientation

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    It was never about equal rights, just about punishing those who hold a different view.

    • mantis

      no it’s about the law, this bakery broke it and needs to be punished

    • acontraryview

      They weren’t punished for their views. They were punished for their actions. Your statement is false.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Nope. Your statement is false. Gee, that’s easy. 🙂

        • acontraryview

          Since holding views is not punishable under Oregon law, they were not punished for their views. They were punished for turning down an order in violation of Oregon state laws. Therefore, your statement that people are punished for their views is false.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            False.

          • acontraryview

            What’s false?

            Is it false that holding views is not punishable under Oregon law? If so, please cite the Oregon law that makes holding a certain view punishable under the law.

            Is it false that they were punished for turning down an order from a customer in violation of Oregon law?

            Is it false that they were punished for turning down the order?

            Is it false that people are not punished solely based upon their views? If so, please cite the law that says holding a certain view is punishable.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            There you go again, ACV – confusing legality with morality. 🙂 You would have made a good slaver – punishing those folks for not returning runaway slaves to their masters.

            What’s false is that they were not punished for their views. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, you would recognize it. But, your ideology trumps all.

          • acontraryview

            In what way have I confused legality with morality?

            “You would have made a good slaver – punishing those folks for not returning runaway slaves to their masters.”

            Actually, you would have made a much better slaver, since you are the one who suggests that actions based upon religious beliefs should be allowed regardless of how it affects others.

            Since there is no law that prohibits views, it is not possible that they were punished solely for their views. if you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that. But, your false persecution complex trumps all.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “In what way have I confused legality with morality?”

            All you are using for your moral justification of these draconian fines is the law. So, you clearly do not understand the difference between legality and morality.

            “Actually, you would have made a much better slaver, since you are the one who suggests that actions based upon religious beliefs should be allowed regardless of how it affects others.”

            Never said it. You equated legality with morality, so you are ideologically equivalent to slavers. Just own it – you look good on the plantation. 🙂

            “Since there is no law that prohibits views, it is not possible that they were punished solely for their views.”

            Haha! You did two funny things there:

            1. You introduced the word “solely” – knowing full well that it IS their views that are being punished.

            2. You are under the false impression that people are always punished in strict adherence to the laws. That makes you remarkably gullible. And immoral. But, a good slaver. 🙂

            “But, your false persecution complex trumps all.”

            Haha – says the Roman who is actually doubling down on someone having to pay $135K for not baking a gay cake. 🙂

          • Josey

            you cannot separate faith from views, faith is action, living a lifestyle 24/7, they should not be forced to bake a cake that goes against their faith! There were other bakeries these lesbians could access so no harm was done except their hurt feelings, they should have moved on with their life as the LGBT foundation claims that’s all they want to do but proof is in the pudding so to speak and they are proof that isn’t about equality at all. I could call up many Pro homosexual bakeries and ask for a cake celebrating marriage as one man and one woman or for a cake with scripture on it and get a big fat NO and the we don’t do cakes like that and then sue them for not baking my cake, not my style though, couldn’t lie about made up injuries for one but God does have a law that you reap what you sow, these two lesbians and those involved will reap what they have sown, it will come back and bite them. It’s time people start standing against this kind of bullying and demanding that we all cater to the sodomite agenda, it’s time for the church of the Living God to stand up and be counted!

          • acontraryview

            “they should not be forced to bake a cake that goes against their faith!”

            The decision to open a business is a choice and the decision as to what products the business will offer is a choice. There is no forcing.

            “There were other bakeries these lesbians could access”

            Of course there were. Just as there were businesses prior to 1964 that black people could go to and be served. However, laws have changed. If a business owner doesn’t like the law, then the owner should make appropriate decisions regarding the law.

            “they are proof that isn’t about equality at all.”

            So anti-discrimination laws are not about equality?

            “I could call up many Pro homosexual bakeries and ask for a cake celebrating marriage as one man and one woman or for a cake with scripture on it and get a big fat NO and the we don’t do cakes like that and then sue them for not baking my cake”

            I’m not sure what a cake celebrating marriage as between one man and woman would be like. Can you describe it for me? As for putting scripture on a cake, no baker is required to put any particular message on a cake. If, however, a bakery was willing to put, for example, Muslim scripture on a cake, but refused to put Christian scripture on a cake, then you would have a basis for action.

            “these two lesbians and those involved will reap what they have sown, it will come back and bite them.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

            “It’s time people start standing against this kind of bullying”

            You view anti-discrimination laws as “bullying”? You are certainly free to stand up against anti-discrimination laws. Let me know how that goes.

            “demanding that we all cater to the sodomite agenda,”

            What agenda? Equal treatment under the law? Protection against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation?

            “it’s time for the church of the Living God to stand up and be counted!”

            Oh yes, because goodness knows the Christian Church in the US has never had any say in anything.

            Sorry if you don’t like it that your religious beliefs are no longer an acceptable basis for restricting the rights of others and infringing on how others live their lives. Sharing is hard, isn’t it? You’ll get used to it, just like any petulant child eventually does.

          • Josey

            wow, got you all riled up eh? you have completely misunderstood what I’ve said. Didn’t this lesbian couple ask specifically for a cake designed for their lesbian wedding? They were offered other cakes in place of the one the specifically wanted but they rejected that offer. Well, maybe I’d like a specific cake with scripture on it by an atheist cake baker is my point or to celebrate the God given scripture on what a marriage between male and female is according to scripture not that I’d choose those places to do business but the same standard should stand for those bakers who refuse to put a scripture on a cake for whatever celebration. You missed many points I made, got them backwards as usual. And as far as acting like a child, you got that backwards also for I would gladly go to a Christian baker for my cake and support their business before going elsewhere and I certainly wouldn’t force the gospel down a homosexuals throat although if one asks of me questions about my faith I’d gladly share it although I know that isn’t what happened in this case and so do you, these bakers didn’t force any gospel down these lesbians throats, they stated their faith and where they stand as far as specifically designing a wedding cake which in all good conscience they could not do but instead offered another cake in it’s place which these lesbians then threw the child like tantrum you put on me for stating my opinion.

          • Guest

            Josey, read the case depositions, you are confusing different cases again (we talked about this before). The design of the cake was never mentioned, they were not offered other cakes. Even the bakery owners don’t claim that.

          • acontraryview

            “wow, got you all riled up eh?”

            Oh, that’s adorable you think that you could get me riled up. But, no, you didn’t.

            “Didn’t this lesbian couple ask specifically for a cake designed for their lesbian wedding?”

            Nope. Once the owner found it was for two women, he told them no. There was no further discussion about any type of specific decoration.

            “Well, maybe I’d like a specific cake with scripture on it by an atheist cake baker is my point or to celebrate the God given scripture on what a marriage between male and female”

            Again, a baker is not legally required to put any particular message on a cake. If you went to an bakery that was owned by an Atheist and asked for a cake celebrating the anniversary of your church, and you were turned down, then you would have a case.

            “You missed many points I made”

            Which points were those?

            “I would gladly go to a Christian baker for my cake and support their business before going elsewhere”

            That is certainly your choice.

            “I certainly wouldn’t force the gospel down a homosexuals throat”

            Nor was any faith being forced down the baker’s throat. Did you have a point?

            “threw the child like tantrum you put on me for stating my opinion.”

            Please cite what portions of my post you consider to be a “child like tantrum”.

            If you want to witness a tantrum, I’d suggest you review your own posts as well as those of others who share your views. For example: I don’t care what the law says…..I should be able to break the law if I don’t like it because of my religious beliefs. It’s not fair that I can’t!! (stomping feet; arms crossed) Or: I don’t care if two citizens of the same gender want to get legally married and keeping them from doing so harms them….I don’t like it and it’s against my religious beliefs so they shouldn’t be able to. It’s not fair that they can do something I don’t want them to be able to do!! (stomping feet; arms crossed) Or: I don’t care if someone is a good worker – I think being gay is wrong so I should be able to fire them even though it has nothing do with their job. It’s not fair I can’t! (stomping feet; arms crossed). Need I go on, petulant child?

            I’ll ask again:

            So anti-discrimination laws are not about equality?

            You view anti-discrimination laws as “bullying”?

            What agenda? Equal treatment under the law? Protection against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation?

    • Chrissy Vee

      Yes… did you see what they actually claimed in grievances? Good grief!
      What happened to the Klein’s was a disgrace. And the peanut gallery backing them just shows how far gone people are today… calling evil good and good evil, just like God told us they would.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Oh yeah, these are the kinds of folks that just want blood from Christians. They hate the God they claim they do not believe in (and we even have secular evidence for that!), and especially hate Jesus when He said that it’s His way or the Hell-way. (John 14:6). It’s a lot like the Kim Davis situation. A reasonable accommodation was given to her which should satisfy everyone, if it was about equal rights for all, but the ACLU, in particular, just wants more jail time for her.

        Hard to believe that America has fallen this far, this fast, but given the silence from the church, American churchianity, and the incredibly dumbed down government educational system, it was bound to happen.

      • Janice James

        A BIG AMEN TO THAT CHRISSY! o/

        • Chrissy Vee

          🙂 ♥

  • Chip01

    Look, the baker broke the law… I’m not sure why religion plays a part, except as a possible excuse to try to get out of being in trouble for breaking the law,

    You gets caught speeding, you tell the cop you are in a hurry because (fill in reason) .. The cop listens to your excuse, but you get a ticket anyway. Why? Cause you broke the law..

    This baker is the same thing… Same thing. You can’t hide behind a religious excuse when you break the law.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      A principle codified in Reynolds v. United States.

    • Janice James

      THATS RIGHT! THOSE LESBIANS CAN’T HIDE BEHIND THIS WHEN THEY BREAK GODS LAWS! THEY WILL PAY IN THE END. (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE,,,,,).

      • Chip01

        Oh. You’re just being silly, now.

        • http://burwellfamily.us/resumes.htm Patrick Burwell

          Oh really Chip? So ‘m guessing here that you don’t believe you will face God? LOL. Keep up that fantasy and you will get the shock of eternity.

          • Chip01

            My beliefs are my own… As should be yours. My beliefs should not trump your beliefs… You should be free to believe what you want in your personal life… But you shouldn’t be “free” to exercise your beliefs at the expense of my life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.. That’s simple enough, right?

            Now – when /if I face a God.. He won’t be your version of a God. My god would never ever judge a person harshly for who they loved. My version of God will simply give me the understanding that how I treated people is what mattered. What type of mark I left on this earth, mattered… Not that I threw stones at people… Not that I judge harshly… Or used silky written words to try to hurt people.

            It mystifies me how/why folks think by them condemning homosexuals, this will get them a free pass into their heaven. What time of belief system teaches anger and hate?

          • http://OnlyJesusSaves.org [email protected]

            I am free to exercise my faith. You are not free to force yours to be the only acceptable worldview we can do business with.

  • Special Agent Jack Bauer

    Because it’s your right to have a wedding cake baked by homophobic bigots!

  • Janice James

    TO THIS YOUNG COUPLE , MAN AND WIFE,, I WISH TO TELL YOU I AM SORRY FOR MY GOVERNMENTS DECISIONS ABOUT YOUR RIGHT TO CATER TO WHOMEVER YOU WOULD WANT TO. I CANNOT BELIEVE THE JUDGE ORDERING YOU TO PAY FOR ALL THIS BALONY THEY PUT ON. I AM HOPING YOU CAN RECOUP SOME HOW IN THE FUTURE, I LIVE ON A SMALL SOC SEC I EARNED AND DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO SPARE OR I WOULD HELP YOU OUT FINANCIALLY. I WILL PRAY FOR YOU IN THIS SITUATION,, THIS IS DISCRIMINATION, AND TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AS BUSINESS OWNERS. SO SORRY, JAN IN CA. GOD BLESS YOU BOTH.

    • Chrissy Vee

      Amen sister. May God bless you richly. 🙂 ♥

  • Hayley Solich

    I feel for this family. Another family who has now lost it’s means of self-supporting to a system that is vitally flawed. Any shop owner should have the right to refuse trade to any person at any time. Where does it say that you are obligated o trade??? And especially when it is in contradiction to your personal beliefs? A polite refusal should be acceptable. I very much doubt that the damages were caused by the initial refusal, but more likely by going so public with their situation. This is kind of like giving a two year old a block of chocolate for throwing a public tantrum. What is wrong with our judicial system? Where is the equity? Where is the objectivity? $135,000 is a third of a house or a business and a half set up costs. Seems very disproportionate to me.

    • Bob Johnson

      “Where does it say that you are obligated o trade???”

      Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    • Chip01

      The bakers decided for themselves to switch their business model. They closed their store, and now work through on line/internet .

      The bakers didn’t lose much, considering their vocal efforts to shame the couple got the bakers $500,000 in misguided donations …

      The couple has lived with death threats and harassment, directly linked to the petty actions of the baker.

      Finally, the $137,000 fine (which was paid from the $500,000 donations… And not the bakers) was a combination. Some was a fine for breaking the law, the other for the pain suffering caused by the baker.

    • BarkingDawg

      Feel free to give them all your God money.

  • oregon_man

    Where in the Bible does it declare that one must exercise hatred against people who are different? This website is really a devotion and dedication to inspiring so-called Christians to hate, especially this story. You should also publish the total this baker couple got from funding campaigns. I heard they made a comfortable profit on it all. Jesus would surely weep reading this website and its comments.

    • Nidalap

      “I heard”? That’s not even good enough for the judge shows on TV. Actual source? 🙂

    • Chrissy Vee

      Hatred? Hm.

      • oregon_man

        Yes hatred, what would you call it? I posted a long answer to your “I heard” criticism, including credible links, but it shows “pending” so it might get censored. It is so important you learn the facts, such as bakers made a huge profit from fund-raising, over $ 350,000, in their pockets.

        • Chrissy Vee

          Long answer….oh joy.

        • Nidalap

          You really need to get that out of your craw! You’re really choking on the vitriol! They weren’t fundraising. People heard about their plight and wanted to help out! Kind of like the big Chik-Fil-A boycott, kinda fell flat, huh? 🙂

          Btw, you’re talking to at least two different folks right now! 🙂

        • Chrissy Vee

          Oh, and as far as “hatred” goes… the world hates Christ.

          And I am very happy they were blessed by God with such an increase! Hallelujah!

        • Josey

          You do not know that is money in their pockets first of all and I am sure there were attorney fees, etc. second of all, you act like they got rich off of this mess and stress they were put under and all the scrutiny.

        • http://burwellfamily.us/resumes.htm Patrick Burwell

          They made no profit, the state STOLE the money donated.

    • afchief

      Quoting scripture that states homosexuality is sin, is not hate. This is typical manipulation from the homosexual left. They/you want us Christians just to speak nice things about gays i.e. speak no evil, hear no evil, etc.

      If we do not warn you of the eternal consequences of this sin, we will have to answer to God for it.

  • Eddie frOly

    Yet ,Muslims who went to work a beer and alcohol distribution warehouse were awarded over 100k each for wrongful termination when they refused to make delivery of said products which was the sole reason they were hired in the first place. Funny how some people are free to exercise their religious freedom in the public square but others aren’t, what happened to equal protection under the law?

    • Chip01

      You might have a different case… And if so, please give some info on it… But the case I looked up/read:

      1) Star Transport, Inc., is a trucking company. They distribute anything for anyone. They are not a sole liquor distributor.
      2) the Truck Driving Muslims were/could be assign liquor on day… And some other item the next day
      3) the Truck Driving Muslims won their case… Because of the quote below

      And 4) why are you upset. If anything, this shows that the freedom to practice a religion is there… Just don’t break other laws as the baker did.

      John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, “Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.”

    • Guest

      Different situation. Those are employees who asked for religious accommodation, employees of Sweet Cakes could do the same. Businesses are required to accommodate the civil rights of their customers and employees.

      • Eddie frOly

        T
        You’re missing the point the muslims signed a application that stated that they understood they woukd be required to make these deliveries. Besides one persons civil rights cannot over ride another’s free exercise of theirs. Just because they own a business does not mean they give up their rights when they open their doors.

        • Guest

          No one lost their rights, the business owners of their own free will invited the general public to buy wedding cakes from them. If their religious beliefs won’t let them sell as the laws requires, i.e. to people regardless of their beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation, they wouldn’t have made the invitation in the first place.

          This is about the business not operating legally in what they DO offer for sale, that’s why these cases always lose.

          And that you don’t like employees also have a right to such accommodation blame your Congressional representatives that passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act which mandates it.

  • Shaun D.

    God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah because of the “abominations” (homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality), which they committed.

    God does not bless homosexuality nor does He bless gay “marriage”.

    Cursed are all they that promote, protect, condone and or practice any type of homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality.

    Leviticus 20:13 KJV
    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.

    Also Romans 1:24-32

    And

    Leviticus 18:22

    • mantis

      so what? you don’t need a god blessing for a marriage to be official

    • Chip01

      Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

      Matthew 7 (SPF 35)

      “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

  • George Rockin

    People who are outraged about this fine are not putting Christianity in a very good light. Whatever happened to “love thy neighbor?” In fact, this has nothing to do with Christianity (or a perceived “war on Christianity”) or your freedom to believe whatever you want, but rather whether or not Americans are legally free under the first amendment to actively discriminate against certain groups of people who are different from them in the name of religion…in the (very public) domain of commerce. This is what freedom of religion and capitalism mean to some people?! The bakery was not fined for their beliefs, but rather for their conscious decision to actively discriminate. Hatred in the name of religion is exactly what ISIS is all about, and it is what these outraged people are all about. And to those who say that this is evidence of a “gay agenda” I can assure you, the only agenda is to be treated like everyone else…just as the constitution says “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” All Americans are free to “believe” whatever we want, but we are not free to “actively discriminate” against others. So many people on social media do not understand the difference.

  • BarkingDawg

    Excuse me, but that’s how our justice system works. If the court orders you to pat a fine, they will get the money from you. It’s called a “punitive measure” for a reason. the object is to punish you. You BROKE the law. You must pay.

    Frankly it almost sounds as if you worship money, and not God.

    I have no doubt that your “Go-Fund-Me” accounts are up and running again.

  • Stan Presley

    Appalling story! Demonstrates the level of wickedness to which the U.S. court system has declined. To my Christian brothers and sisters, stop trying to argue with demons! State the truth, then commit the situation to our Heavenly Father in prayer. Don’t let demons drag you into an argument. This is a spiritual battle and will not be decided in the flesh.

  • Kingdom Ambassador

    This could never occur under a biblical government.

    Had the late 18th-century founders not replaced the 17th-century Colonial governments of, by, and for God established upon His unchanging moral law (including Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13) for there own humanistic governments of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made traditions, there would be no homosexual agenda in America because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves to petition government for their “rights.”

    For more on how Yahweh’s triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) apply and should be implemented today, Google free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.”

    • BarkingDawg

      I, for one am very glad we don’t live under a “Biblical” government.

      If you think that today’s NSA is spending too much time spying on Americans, just thing about how much worse it would be under a “Biblical” government.

      • Kingdom Ambassador

        You are obviously clueless about biblical law.

        Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 28:1-14, Psalm 19:7-11, Romans 13:3-4, etc.

        See also Alexis de Tocqueville’s testimony in online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

        • BarkingDawg

          You are obviously clueless about human nature.

  • Chip01

    I’ve come to realize the true enemy is not gay people or anyone different from you. The true enemy is someone who goes to great lengths to convince you that some groups of people are not worthy of respect or human rights. That’s who we need to teach our children to watch out for and who we need to work to educate.

  • Tim Scavo

    The dragon is raging against believers, and will continue to do so until the archangel Michael binds him and casts him into the abyss. Until then, the wicked will get worse and worse.

  • Contrarianthefirst

    Come out of her, my People…

  • Henry Dandria

    “Brother sues brother to be judged by a heaten.”

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

    They

    desire to live out their Christian faith in the workplace

    All citizens have a right to equal access to commerce in the U.S. (a secular state). Their business licence was granted to them by a secular government.

    The very reason our government is secular is to prevent religious discrimination and turmoil in the public arena by giving citizens of all persuasions equal access to commerce. Too, that governing body is supported by EVERYONE’S taxes. Either the couple should obey the laws of the nation or not establish an official business. It is as simple as that.

  • oregon_man

    Update: The bakers have now made over $ 500,000.00 profit from their illegal acts. Poor bakers are truly laughing all the way to the bank!

  • ac287149

    When you think you’re getting your “rights” by robbing others of theirs, you’re only losing your soul.

    I think the placards read “Love Won!” Wow, what deception. The State glorification of LGBT must end. Here’s how it’s really used- and if you’re a LGBT reading this, consider if this is really how you want your rights to be secured.

    Gays shopped for people like this, targeting them to use the power of the State against them as a means of larceny and robbery, stealing their reputations, Life, livelihood, income, savings, retirement, medical care, employment and private business. And maybe put some other employees out on the street.